Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

United States Senate ^ | 1/17/07 | Marc Morano

[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

[Pontiac]

The ink is still wet on her Doctorate...

But she is ready to be the Grand High Inquisitor of Meteorology.

[Pontiac]

I wonder if the Weather Channel would be subject to the Fairness Doctrine if it was re-enacted.

Well the network news certainly was not when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect before. So I would not expect anything masquerading as news would be subject to a reenacted Fairness Doctrine to be subject to it.

[Pontiac]

A leftist trying to silence dissent. Imagine that...

A leftist yes that is expected, but not a Scientist. Principled questioning of theory is the hallmark of the Scientific Method.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I actually saw Al Gore on her show not too long ago. It was my first time to watch (and my last).

[nascarnation]

here's a thought:
send Dr. Heidi out to Malibu
she can do a live update wearing a bikini while freezing her *ss off, LOL

BTW where's Stephanie Abrams when we really need her?

[traditional1]

"I actually saw Al Gore on her show not too long ago"

Aw, Geez, I mighta known with her that would happen: bringing in an "expert"....

Her credibility just went BELOW zero!

[Coachm]

Damn good post findude69!

[traditional1]

"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."

Is that a quote from Al Gore?

[finnman69]

Do you know where your second plot is from?

Yes. NASA

[finnman69]

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."

that's an awfully long winded way of saying 'we are not sure' with a generous helping of 'if's and 'maybe's.

[OKSooner]

< Condescending liberal voice >

Well, it's actually "Global Climate Change", you see...

[ErieGeno]

Weather Channel? What's that? Oh, you mean those people who are right about the weather 100% of the time in between commercials??????

[Pontiac]

Oh, you mean those people who are right about the weather 100% of the time in between commercials??????

I guess you mean they are right about the weather that is happening right now.

And of course you and I can do that by looking out the window.

[SunkenCiv]

Boycott the Weather Channel until she's fired. I find that easy, because I don't use the online service they offer, and don't take cable or sat TV.

[JSteff]

"20-50 years from now we could enter a period of global cooling."

Or we could get hotter. Either way it is nothing that has not occurred before. I just get riled by the words "Global Warming". Especially when it is freezing cold here.

Bring it on! :-)

[cogitator]

Yes. NASA

Really? It's exactly the same as a sketch that appeared in the first IPCC report which was not backed up by any actual data and that was removed in subsequent reports. The sketch was only used as a general portrayal of paleoclimate and is not quantitatively useful.

Can you provide the URL of your source?

[cogitator]

"it may be hazardous to infer that existing discrepancies between models and data cloud interpretations of future anthropogenic greenhouse gas projections."

Which can be translated as: "We might not yet understand everything about what affected Earth's paleoclimate. But we're sure enough about CO2 that increasing it in the atmosphere will warm things up."

[twigs]

My father, an uneducated man who grew up on a farm, almost always did better predicting (short-term) than the weatherman. He looked at the sky and knew how to read it.

[cogitator]

Checked your NASA reference. Take a look at the "Last updated" date on the bottom.

[Czar]

"Saw Heidis' pic..."

Not far off what I expected.