Replies

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

You're a skeptic? And you bite in to global warming?

>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.<

What are your sources on this?

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

Excellent. What are your sources on this?

>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."<

Oh right, the consensus argument. You know, we don't need consensus on the idea that 1 plus 1 equals 2 - we can just prove it. So why do we need consensus on global warming when you just said we could prove it?

>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.<

...you're advocating punishing people who don't hold to the myth of global warming. You want their creditials taken away and you want them not to get jobs in weather reporting. I'd call that silencing them - especially when you just got done saying that part of your job as a weather girl is informing people about global warming...

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

But that's what you're doing.

>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.<

And the harm caused from scaring people with myths?

>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.<

You just advocated silencing people who disagree. How is the general public to decide for themselves when they only hear one line?

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

Yeah - until you provide some hard evidence, you've got a serious problem.

>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.<

Why? So open minded, accepting, tolerant people like yourself can call them names and belittle them publically?

Good point on consensus. Isaak Newton and his peers all agreed that space between the planets was empty, therefore the stones that fell from the sky from time to time were, by consensus of well-respected scientists, a phenomenon of the atmosphere; possibly due to the effect of lightning on aerosols.

There was a paper in Nature in 1924 that still referred to these stones as "thunderstones", even though Barringer Crater had been ID's as extraterrestrial in origin.

Everyone says they're a skeptic. No one ever says "I just take what they spoon feed me." She probably thinks she really is one, the poor dear.