Why do most meteorologists disagree with the so-called "consensus" on global warming?

They are showman not scientists

and it's it odd that it's become common for them to announce 'record high temps'

some even seem to look forward to it

Piers Corbyn, the brother of the Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn is a meteorologist and likes to expose the climate change scam, he's very up on the subject and well worth a google or youtube search to hear his perspective.

Thought I'd throw that out there as I know a lot of you like a good dose of politics with your climate change, and as he clearly comes from a leftist background (what with his brother being the MP leader of Britain's left wing). I thought it would be interesting?

it is only a reference point, not a prediction.

Because they are not part of the leftist 'climate expert' club.

They know its a scam

Meteorologists have a greater knowledge of how this planet works than Al Gore, Bill Nye, Jimmy Hansen, or even Phil Jones. I grew up in the 40s when the weathermen were seldom right. Now it is amazing how they can accurately predict one or two weeks out. This is easy in California, where they just have to look at the weather 3 or 4 days out in the Pacific Ocean. However, I live in Kentucky where we get the gulf weather, the northwest weather, weather from Canada, and even the Eastern Seaboard influence. And these guys are amazing. They are not 100% yet but they are amazing. For instance, a week ago they predicted that last night's temperature would get down to an unseasonal 35 degrees. And it did. They have accurately predicted rain over a week out.

Now contrast that with Jimmy Hansen's computerized projections. They are 100% WRONG!

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Then combine that with this admittance:

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

In other words, the data and facts don't matter. The so called climate scientists rely on FICTION and call it science.

So those who adhere to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scam are basing their prognostications on fiction and calling it consensus. Whereas, the meteorologists base their conclusions on past experiences and facts. So to put it in a nutshell, meteorologists disagree with the FICTION of the global warming consensus.

The linked-to article is 7 1/2 years old and not very up to date.

Here is a better one:

https://weather.com/science/news/meteorologists-cl...

This fake question is bogus, even using the 7 1/2 and half year article. Nothing in even that old article remotely approaches "most meteorologists disagree" with the scientific consensus on climate change.

Here is the reality which this denialist fake question lamely tries to cover up (from the more recent 2016 article, not the old one from 2009):

"A survey, released last week, of American Meteorology Society members from George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication found that a large majority of its members believe climate change is occurring and that human activity is mostly responsible."

not sure

It was an intersting article

“Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”

strongly Agree (1) 8%

Agree (2) 16%

neutral (3) 25%

disagree (4) 24%

strongly disagree (5) 26%

Interestingly it seemed to be here where the meteorologists began to diverge from the so called consensus. There never was a consensus IMO. It was a lie built on a lie. Honestly, they wouldn't have changed my skepticism no matter how they answered but it certainly is more evidence that the only consensus there is is that humans emit CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It gets dicey after that.