A Very Political Climate (Weather Channel climate expert responds to blog fervor)

The Weather Channel ^ | 01/19/2007 | Heidi Cullen

[cogitator]

I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.

Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.

The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.

However, know that we here are focused on moving this discussion forward.

[Rudder]

I am a scientist.

No, she's a liar.

[etlib]

In order to do the science effectively, the most significant factors should be the ones that get the most attention. Factors that have a very minor effect are ... minor factors.

But then you must show that they are indeed minor factors. Factors that seem minor have an annoying habit of having major effects over time.

[jonrick46]

I ran across this recent post about Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. The link to this post is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770600/posts

I wonder if, as Abdusamatov postulates, the increased CO2 levels are the result of increased temperatures induced by increased solar activity. What if the increased CO2 comes from increased temperatures and not so much from human activity? What is your expertise thinking on this idea?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I really have to start bookmarking my sites.

I ran into this factoid while researching ice ages on geologic time-scales.

If I find it again I'll link it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I found it!

A reference with references.

Here!!