Ah yes, a trendy topic-- should we have licensing for meteorologists? For the viewers, this will add more confusion over a subject they don't care about!
Most viewers already think we are 'licensed' when we put up our meteorologist title or hype the seal.
I was asked today if the AMS Seal was my Meteorology "license." Of course, we don't have licenses, but how else do you describe it?
-Let's see, first the AMS reviews your college transcript and professional work experience.
-If they accept that, then you fill out the paper work and send in copies of your tapes to the board
-your shows are then judged for meteorological explanations, on-air competence, communication and to some degree, forecast accuracy ( if your weathercasts include climate data )
-Then the board reviews your submissions, and if approved, issues a numbered seal on a certificate suitable for framing which we proudly display and pay rent on every year...
To the viewer, this is a license! Why should I argue otherwise?
In any other profession, the AMS Seal process would be a 'license'. So when asked by the viewers, I tell them it's the closest we have to a license.
If we did have a real meteorology license ( let's not get into what that would involve...), could you imagine trying to promote that crap along with everything else?:
Weather bump:
"George Flickinger has earned a meteorology license from the American Meteorological Society, and his weathercasts are approved by the American Meteorological Society ( and what if I get an NWA seal ?), and then our radar sponsorship ' KTXS Live Doppler 12 Radar is brought to you as a public service from your friends at ____ ___ Bank', now here his Chief Meteorologist George Flickinger!!!"
Uhm, no.
Simplicity please!
George Flickinger
Chief Meteorologist
KTXS-TV, Abilene TX
TxsAggie1@msn.com