How to confound a Meteorologist
Ask them this question:
Do meteorologists believe that steam can persist as mono-molecular H2O in our atmosphere?
They won’t know. They will not have thought about it. But they believe it. Every last meteorologists believes this and/or believes some other dogma based on it. Their explanations beat with steam. And they have no choice but to continue to believe it, (short of resigning as meteorologists). The notion that storms are caused by (powered by) convection is synonymous with being a meteorologist. It’s a core belief. To them it is a principle. To them it is a truth, beyond question. In reality it is wrong. But they had made a deal with the devil. And they can’t get out of it. Or, at least, they can’t get out of it without, essentially, publicly acknowledging meteorology’s severe and deep-seated disregard of common scientific methods/practices. (Leadership in hiding. Just like climatology in this respect.) They will never answer the question. They know that even to address the issue is a losing argument for them.
Unfortunately that means the public has to suffer as these bumblers continue to trip all over themselves trying to figure out what they do or do not believe, being careful not to say anything definitive. Expect to never get an answer. It’s best to just sidestep these pretenders. Laugh at them and move on. In parting you might ask them one other question that will really leave them confounded:
Now that convection has been refuted, what do you think it is that underlies the power witnessed in storms and tornadoes?