Posted on 01/19/2007 7:49:54 AM PST by 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.
Blogal Warming?
...in the direction that we have already predetermined.
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...
Look, You can't get the forecast right for tomorrow, how do you justify this?
Overproduction of Hot Air from Self-Proclaimed experts are the main cause of Global Warming. What say you?
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.
UNLESS of course, they disagree with global warming, in which case they either 1) won't be invited and/or 2) will have their certifications revoked and their invitation recinded..
We look forward to spirited discussion provided the opposition shows up..
like I said on the other thread
have Dr. Heidi do a "live update" in her bikini on one of those 32F Malibu beaches
"The bottom line is... you will be INDOCTRINATED, citizen!"
"silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true."
Can someone post her initial statement, the one in which we apparently misunderstood what she said? (Reminds me of kerry blaming ME for not getting his "joke").
Now that is good! Blogal Warming!!! Wish I'd thought of that.
here is her initial statement:
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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. 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. "
Here is the entire entry from her blog:
Capitalweather.com, a website for hard-core weather junkies in the DC area, recently published an interview with a local meteorologist that highlights the unfortunate divide that exists right now between the climate and weather communities. Yup, that divide is global warming. When asked about the science of global warming, the meteorologist responded:
"The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this."
In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:
"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'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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. 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.
I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!
The Weather Channel software is coming off my computer tonight. The Weather Channel link is coming off my favorites tonight. I never tuned into the cable channel, so no need for a change there.
Buh Bye, Weather Channel.
Note that hurricanes DO rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. That's just a real dumb statement from someone with a doctorate in meteorology, or climatology, or whatever.
LOL!
Isn't the Wather Channel being run now by some really liberal weenie? I think I read about this guy being a real fruitcake/latte' drinkin' freak, but can't remember where he came from, CNN maybe.
It would seem we have an ecological inquisition where anyone who dares to dissent from the man caused global warming dogma is persecuted.
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.