Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[stephanie]

It seems to me.....We better enjoy our Freedom of Speech...While we still HAVE IT..:eek2:

SNIP:
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

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 man made 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 man made 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: Hurricanes (Cyclones) 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 man made 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."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

[avatar4321]

Cant really call it science if you refuse to allow people the chance to explore.

[CockySOB]

Cant really call it science if you refuse to allow people the chance to explore.

Agreed. Then it becomes dogma.

“The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” - Thomas Sowell

(If it looks like I hold Thomas Sowell in some esteem, it is because I do!)

[jillian]

Cant really call it science if you refuse to allow people the chance to explore.

So they're supposed to accept junk from so-called scientists? In other fields, when people malpract, they lose their certifications. No difference.

And Steffie, malpractice isn't a First Amendment issue.

[Gunny]

The Weather Channel has turned into pure crap. Used to, I could tune and get the weather. Now I get dramatized thunderstorm stories, and this is just the icing on the cake.

Man-made catastrophic global warming is an unproven theory. As meteorologists you would think they would be smart enough to know that.

Just more bullshit on the boob-tube.

[stephanie]

Uh....Jilly this is what I was talking about...

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 man made catastrophic global warming.

I have no idea what your talking about....
But thats nothing new, now is it...:wink2:

[CockySOB]

Uh....Jilly this is what I was talking about...

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 man made catastrophic global warming.

I have no idea what your talking about....
But thats nothing new, now is it...:wink2:

Now, now... no reason to be insulting to Jillian.... :dev:

[stephanie]

I was searching for info on the Dr. Clullen and ran across this byMelanie Morgan:D
Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern




This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.

The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.


What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.

But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.

Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.

Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that CNN's turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel's embraced its model.

Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel "is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional."

Emotional weather forecasting?

The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.

The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)

The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology. :)
Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.

Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to tow the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.

George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.

The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.

Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.

Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.

As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly?

This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.

There's a con job going on at The Weather Channel, and it's time that viewers let the network know it's time to stop the liberal politicization of weather reporting.

You can contact The Weather Channel's vice president of public relations, Kathy Lane, at klane@weather.com to let her know what you think about the new direction of The Weather Channel and voice your opinion.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636

[dirt mcgirt]

I don't really buy into the debate of whether global warming is man made or not. The scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening, will change the way we live, and could be catastrophic. Arguing about whether climate change is natural or man-made is like standing inside a burning house and arguing with your friend about how the fire started.

[CockySOB]

I don't really buy into the debate of whether global warming is man made or not. The scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening, will change the way we live, and could be catastrophic. Arguing about whether global warming is natural or man-made is like standing inside a burning house and arguing with your friend about how the fire started.

The debate which is actually going on is not so much "is global climate change occurring?" but rather "is there any real actions we can take to counteract the changes?"

Global climate change is a natural phenomenon. The problem is that some people try to look at an environmental system without addressing ALL pertinent factors. What bothers me is that some people (even some "scientists") claim that a statistical correlation between the rise of industrialism and the increase in global climate change (via greenhouse products) indicates THE ONLY logical reason for the climate change. All that is proven is that they two events have similar trends which COULD support a theory that the two are inter-related. But COULD and DO are two different statements.

The sensational and emotional argument is that our industrialization is destroying the planet and we have to fight against industrialization (and its products) in order to save the planet. Unfortunately, those making this claim have insufficient empirical evidence to support their claims at this time. Maybe someday such theories will hold weight, but for now their "proofs" have more holes than a truckload of swiss cheese.

This is what confounds me about people making these sensational and emotional arguments - they claim to be educated and intelligent, yet their very actions speak to their lack of reason and stupidity.

(Note: my use of the word stupidity was intentional, as ignorance is curable via study and exploration. The stupid on the other hand, revel in their ignorance, all the while maintaining the pretense of education and intelligence.)

[avatar4321]

So they're supposed to accept junk from so-called scientists? In other fields, when people malpract, they lose their certifications. No difference.

And Steffie, malpractice isn't a First Amendment issue.

Their science is the junk science

[avatar4321]

So basically we are listening to someone with a degree in near east studies, tell scientists they should be decertified if they disagree with her notions of global warming....

This is science?

[CockySOB]

So basically we are listening to someone with a degree in near east studies, tell scientists they should be decertified if they disagree with her notions of global warming....

This is science?

No, but it a prime example of American liberalism (or librullism if you prefer) in action....

[jillian]

So basically we are listening to someone with a degree in near east studies, tell scientists they should be decertified if they disagree with her notions of global warming....

This is science?


Er...no... you tell people they aren't scientists if they aren't adhering to scientific principals or if they're giving a paid for result instead of what science proves. Got it?

[Gunny]

Er...no... you tell people they aren't scientists if they aren't adhering to scientific principals or if they're giving a paid for result instead of what science proves. Got it?

It's one scientist saying that any scientists who disagree with him/her should lose their certification when that scientist's opinion on the cause of global warming is not supported by any real fact.

That's like me saying any of y'all who don't run as much as I do, or don't lift weights the same way I do have to turn in your running shoes and weights.

The Earth went through massive global warming following the last ice age, and there was NO industry. What caused THAT?

Man destroying his natural environment is a real but separate issue that should be addressed, but trying to attach global warming to it without evidence is NOT science.

[MtnBiker]

A billion dollars in frozen oranges.

[CockySOB]

Er...no... you tell people they aren't scientists if they aren't adhering to scientific principals or if they're giving a paid for result instead of what science proves. Got it?

Interesting, since I doubt you'd recognize the scientific method if came up and bit you on your bum. Besides, I thought you were into the legal scene. What up with the near east studies? Cross-disciplinary education or work environment?

If you want to use the line of reasoning which says "if a scientist is paid for performing their research and coming to a conclusion, then they aren't really a scientist" then you must not believe anything ANYONE tells you. All research is funded by someone, somehow, in some fashion. It's a fact of life. Some researchers obtain State or Federal funding via any of the various departments and organizations. Some research is funded by private organizations (some profit-based and some non-profits as well). Other funding comes from angel investors or benefactors. The thing is, every single one of these funding sources has its own agenda. Sometimes the research is done in a truly objective fashion, but 99% of it tends to focus on issues relevant to the fund source. Funding is done in cycles (per annum is typical), and when the funding comes back up or review, you can bet your sweet bum that researchers who provide results favorable to the funding source will get continued funding or funding on new projects.

And BTW, research uncovers data which is normally presented to the non-scientist using statistical means. And as we all know the saying, "there are statistics, statistics and damned lies!" I can't tell you how many times I've read "news article" in the MSM about how research has proved this fact or that, only to go read the formal, scientific reports and come back saying, "How did the MSM derive that as 'fact' from the report? Are they frelling stupid?"

[MtnBiker]

Will countering global warming take the efforts of all nations to control their emissions and intering into a treaty?

So I wonder, what global body will enforce the complance of any treaty on emssions and pollution?

The UN has already proved that it is completely incapable of doing such a thing. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has already allowed North Korea and Iran to circumvent any enforcement by the UN. Look at the Oil for Food scandal or the lack of action in Darfur. The same sort of results are quite likely with any Global Warming initiative, except the US will be held accountable by the free press and the demonization of any politicain who would possibly oppose such a treaty. In the end it will weaken the US economy while other countries will thumb their nose at the treaty and continue to grow their economy.

[The ClayTaurus]

How does this infringe on free speech again?

[Insein]

How does this infringe on free speech again?

It only infringes on Free Speech if nut jobs like this lady are listened to by lawmakers. If her ideas of "decertification" for anyone who doesn't believe in global warming become law, then I believe it violates free speech. It would be like saying i believe that the Eagles are the best team in all of sports. Anyone that doesnt believe this isn't allowed to root for sports anymore.

[avatar4321]

Again, how does a graduate of near east studies find the qualifications to call for legitimate scientists who disagree with her conclusions on global warming to be decertified for disagreeing with her?

[darin]

Eventually the Law may be anyone who denounces Darwinism should be jailed. :(

[The ClayTaurus]

It only infringes on Free Speech if nut jobs like this lady are listened to by lawmakers. If her ideas of "decertification" for anyone who doesn't believe in global warming become law, then I believe it violates free speech. It would be like saying i believe that the Eagles are the best team in all of sports. Anyone that doesnt believe this isn't allowed to root for sports anymore.If you fired me because I said the Eagles blow, I'd tell you to fuck off and find a new job. Wouldn't stop me from speaking freely, if that was my MO.

[Insein]

If you fired me because I said the Eagles blow, I'd tell you to fuck off and find a new job. Wouldn't stop me from speaking freely, if that was my MO.

You miss the point. IT wouldnt be a matter of firing you if she had her way. IT would be that you could never get another job again in that field because you disagreed with her. Hopefully no lawmaker follows this nutcase or others like her.

[Gaffer]

They need to rename the weather channel the global warming channel. Seems every time I turn it on to see what the weather is doing in my area they have some stupid global warming show on instead of covering the weather.

The liberal bitch running the channel is NOT a scientist. She's alos NOT a certified meteorolgist. She has NO say in anything that has to do with meteorology. She is a liberal appointee to the position and is there to insure all the parties programs are followed. Can we say political officer.

Global warming is psuedo-science. There are too many other factors involved besides man. Including volcanos and solar activity.

The most rediculous one I heard from them were "cow farts". There are to many cattle in this country.

[The ClayTaurus]

You miss the point. IT wouldnt be a matter of firing you if she had her way. IT would be that you could never get another job again in that field because you disagreed with her. Hopefully no lawmaker follows this nutcase or others like her.I got the point just fine. :wink2:

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is rediculous... but it's not infringment of free speech.

[Gaffer]

I got the point just fine. :wink2:

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is rediculous... but it's not infringment of free speech.

Having your certificate pulled or denied by the government or anybody, because you say something they don't agree with IS infringement on free speech. Its a blatant infringement.

[Insein]

Having your certificate pulled or denied by the government or anybody, because you say something they don't agree with IS infringement on free speech. Its a blatant infringement.

I think what hes trying to say is that it isnt a law... yet. And i agree. So long as its just idle blabber from an airhead with too much time on her hands, than its just harmless noise. If lawmakers make it a law, then it becomes a problem.

[Gaffer]

I think what hes trying to say is that it isnt a law... yet. And i agree. So long as its just idle blabber from an airhead with too much time on her hands, than its just harmless noise. If lawmakers make it a law, then it becomes a problem.

If a lawmaker even thinks about doing this there is a problem. And they need to be targeted by the opposing party in their next election.

[avatar4321]

If a lawmaker even thinks about doing this there is a problem. And they need to be targeted by the opposing party in their next election.

But we cant do that, they already outlawing that.