Posted on 07/31/2007 7:27:54 AM PDT by Sam's Army
In June 2002, Heidi Cullen, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., received a telephone call from an executive at the Weather Channel. Would she audition for a program on climate and global warming that producers at the Atlanta-based cable television network were contemplating?
Q: Your coverage of global warming has been controversial. Are you surprised?
A: In a way, yes. To me, global warming isn’t a political issue, it’s a scientific one. But a lot of people out there think you’re being an advocate when you talk climate science.
Last December, I wrote a blog about how reticent some broadcast meteorologists are about reporting on climate change. Meteorologists — they are the forecasters — have training in atmospheric science. Many are certified by the American Meteorological Society. I suggested there’s a disconnect when they use their A.M.S. seal for on-camera credibility and refuse to give viewers accurate information on climate. The society has a very clear statement saying that global warming is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
The next thing I knew, I was being denounced on the Web sites of Senator James Inhofe, Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. The Weather Channel’s own Web site got about 4,000 e-mails in one day, mostly angry. Some went, ‘Listen here, weather girl, just give me my five-day forecast and shut up.’
Q: Rush Limbaugh accused you of Stalinism. Did you suggest that meteorologists who doubt global warming should be fired?
A: I didn’t exactly say that. I was talking about the American Meteorological Society’s seal of approval. I was saying the A.M.S. should test applicants on climate change as part of their certification process. They test on other aspects of weather science.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Surprised this one wasn’t posted yet. Apologies if I missed it.
In other words, Stalinism. That would be like Congress determining the fate of a judicial nominee based on his politics.
Oops.
This good little Stalinist basically said they shouldn't be hired
I wouldn't have said that. I would say, "Spare us the gloom and doom global warming propaganda...especially when you often don't get the five-day forecast right, weather girl."
The AMS just put out its global warming statement this February. She wrote her spiel back in December demanding credentials of critics of human-caused warming be revoked.
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
Yep. Failure woould mean a year-long retreat at AMS re-education camp (AKA: The Climate Gulag).
Hilarious....
To sum up we are not political we are scientists (who disagree with historians, anthropologists and archaeologists) and if you do not agree we have a political solution for you. You no get hired! See nothing but science!
"Sea levels are generally rising around the world and glaciers are generally in retreat."
Now, a few points come to mind:
1) If things are getting hotter; and that causes ice (glaciers) to melt and sea levels to rise, why doesn't a glass filled with water and ice overflow when it's ice melts?
2) If things are getting hotter, what effect does evaporation have in combating potentially higher water levels?
3) If all waterfront areas are soon to be underwater, why isn't the price of such property decreasing since it will be effectively worthless in a few years time?
And 4) Why can’t any habour masters anywhere in the world detect a change in sea level?
Arguing about the “warming” itself strikes me as Quixotic, truth be hung.
Arguing that credentials should be pulled from anyone who dares disagree with whatever bureaucrats are momentarily in charge of the AMS, however, is quite valid.
Likewise, arguing that humans do or do not constitute the major cause of warming (if any), is relevant.
The AMS statement claims that humans are “a major” cause of warming, for instance. Notice how Heidi mischaracterizes that statement as “The society has a very clear statement saying that global warming is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.”
Actually, the AMS claims that global warming is 50% due to Man, 50% due to nature (e.g. variations in Solar output).
But Heidi claims global warming “is largely due” to Man per the AMS, which is decidedly untrue.
...And she wants the AMS credentials pulled from anyone who disagrees with her.
The better question is why won’t leftists bet on rising sea level heights at Vegas.
Put up or shut up, liberals!
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
Here is some background on Cullen:
Flashback: Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007)
Excerpt: Heidi Cullen wrote: “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.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32ABC0B0-802A-23AD-440A-88824BB8E528
Flashback: Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’ (Jan. 26, 2007)
Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s top climate expert — already under fire for advocating the scientific decertification of global warming skeptics — is one of the stars of a new politically charged global warming documentary that, according to the film’s website, accuses the U.S. government of “criminal neglect” and blames “right-wing think tanks” for helping to “defeat climate-friendly legislation.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5CC23ACD-802A-23AD-4F6A-DED3B52FE522
Flashback: AMS CERTIFIED METEOROLOGIST STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
Excerpt: James Spann: I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. < > Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf
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.
