Posted on 01/17/2007 6:05:23 PM PST by Pontiac
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note to Cullen: As the resident ‘climate expert’ at TWS, you should know that Hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]
Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
This is the new thing. The leftists are going to end the global warming debate by simply declaring that disagreement with them on the subject is illegitimate and thus null. Here's another example involving The World's Greatest Deliberative Body (TM):
Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can't quite believe an October 27 letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its message: Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else.
We reprint the full text of the letter here, so readers can see for themselves. But its essential point is that the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop and ExxonMobil should "end its dangerous support of the [global warming] 'deniers.' " Not only that, the company "should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history." And in extra penance for being "one of the world's largest carbon emitters," Exxon should spend that money on "global remediation efforts."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
Thanks for sharing.
They have to be removed.
It is funny that the global warming guys are for having laws that sound a lot like the old Blaspmhy laws.
Oh my God!
What if atmospheric CO2 hits 0.05%???
We'll all die!!!!!!!!!
More examples of the MSM making news and not reporting news/weather.
The libs favorite weapon. Instead of open debate if someone disagrees with them, they either attempt to discredit their opponents or sometimes even attempt to criminalize their opponents point of view.
I wonder if the Weather Channel would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine if it was re-enacted. Probably just conservative talk radio would be forced to air opposing view points.
She has that look about her. The look that suggests in college she had long stringy hair, dressed like either a hippie or a freak, and probably didn't shower much.
It seems here in NE Ohio (OUTSIDE the snow belt) that usually snowfall predictions are overzealous. Out of five snow storm forecasts, 3 have less than predicted, one is about on target, and one is considerably more.
More often than not, a day prior they're saying 6-10 inches...then the day of they downgrade it to 3-5 inches, and we end up with 2 and a half inches of snow.
What really amuses me is when it was "supposed" to start snowing around noon, it's 6:45pm, still not snowing a lick and people are still freaking out about the coming storm.
Another good one is when they are telling us a weather forecast for a "partly sunny...high today around 90" when it's already 2:00 pm and it's only 78 and cloudy. Common sense says if it's only 78 at 2:00 it's NOT going to hit 90 that day 99 times out of 100.
Yes.
Is it man-made? Probably not.
Partially.
Your post demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding the past climate history of the planet.
Do you know where your second plot is from?
You want to offer a correction then or was that just a hit and run?
It's hard to figure out where to start, but this will be a start:
Concluding comments: "The first-order agreement between the CO2 record and continental glaciation continues to support the conclusion that CO2 has played an important role in long-term climate change. The Veizer et al. data, if correct, could be considered a Phanerozoic extension of a possible dilemma long known for the early and mid-Cenozoic. To weigh the merits of the CO2 paradigm, it may be necessary to expand the scope of climate modeling. For factors responsible for the presence or absence of continental ice, the CO2 model works very well. In contrast, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of how climate models distribute heat on the planet in response to CO2 changes on tectonic time scales. Given the need for better confidence in some of the paleoclimate data and unanticipated complications arising from altered tectonic boundary conditions, it may be hazardous to infer that existing discrepancies between models and data cloud interpretations of future anthropogenic greenhouse gas projections."
dude, I was like 7 or 8 at the time, I didn't know what the hell Rush was talking about then, I just wanted to get to my grandmas house to watch some cartoons.
But I listen to his show everyday now, and in no way do I consider it complaining.
yeah I am 23, going to be 24 this year
When I was a 7-9 year old, I probably went more on my feelings than facts. But as a kid, thats what I got from his program, my feelings were that he was angry, loud, and I guess I felt that he was like that because he was complaining about things I didn't even understand at the time. But now that I am older, and know how to seperate feeling from facts, I appreciate Rush and what he has done for the conservative voice.
Imagine that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.