Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

That's a bit creepy. Doesn't science thrive most when established theories can be challenged?

Voegelin said:

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

by Marc Morano

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 manmade 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 manmade 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 ]

. . . .

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

Click to expand...

If you can't beat 'em, silence 'em

Wow, that's incredible!

While this is just a blog entry by TV personality - the AMS ais well within their rights to do this. The AMS is a private professional organization, who endorse TV meteorologists (note - not climatologists). If a member is going to go on record making a statement that is NOT supported by science, it is reasonable for the AMS to withdraw their endorsement. Much as the AMA would withdraw their endorsement of a doctor that was claiming that disease is not spread by germs, or the Geological society would withdraw their endorsement of a geologist that claims the earth is 6000 years old.

Wow, I never knew The Weather Channel had such a deep influence in your lives.

Who said anything about silencing anyone? This has nothing to do with silencing or censorship - TV weathermen can say what ever they want. However the AMS does not have to endorse anyone that makes claims that fly in the face of science - why is that surprising to anyone? Would you expect the American Geographical society to endorse a flat earth proponent?

MachZer0 said:

If you can't beat 'em, silence 'em

Click to expand...

MachZer0 said:

If you can't beat 'em, silence 'em

Click to expand...

This would ring true but for two exceptions to your argument: The person asserting the claim can back up the assertion, and second, your own claim within your post is that 'global warming', is backed up by science.

In the first instance, the asserter can provide facts and theories that are opposed to the 'main stream' suppositions of the acedemia. But the facts that the asserter are never disputed. Only ignored. I.e., the warmest winters on record (since the methodical keeping of such records) occured in 1933. Now, is it not reasonable to question if the use of the automobile was the causation at that time? And if so, why did our planet hang on for so long? There were approximately 700,000 vehicles at that time. What gives?

Secondly, as in law, one can produce an expert witness to contradict the oppossing 'expert witness, one for one, ad infinitum. So where does it end?

Global warming may be a natural occurrence, I don't know. It may be 'man-caused'. I don't know. But I will be damned if I am going to make my decisions on the bilge that I have been fed so far, especially the know-it-alls from the left. I remember the 'doomsday' cautions from the 60's and 70's, and 80's, all of which in the end, resulted in pablum. Where is the credibilty?

Man has been trying to outsmart Earth for centuries. I don't want to be one of those goofballs. I am entertained by the hippie who shows up at the windfarm, having driven 1,000 miles in his VW bug, spewing HC's and CO's out of an engine that is the most polluting of any yet on our roads, throw up his anti-this and anti-that banner, and then ask me for money for gas to get home (this really happened). I did give him 20 for gas and I asked him why he didn't like the windfarm.

He said, 'it kills birds, man'.

I responded by explaining that the windfarm company was going to build a coal burning facility, and when you and yours complained, they negotiated, and your side agreed to this farm. I asked him why didn't you bring up this issue in the negotiations.

He had no answer. He thanked me again for the gas money, and I walked away respecting him, but also chuckling at the same time. We just can't win, I told myself.

Respectfully,

Tolly

chaim said:

Who said anything about silencing anyone? This has nothing to do with silencing or censorship - TV weathermen can say what ever they want. However the AMS does not have to endorse anyone that makes claims that fly in the face of science - why is that surprising to anyone? Would you expect the American Geographical society to endorse a flat earth proponent?

Click to expand...

So you think that decertification would have no effect on heretical meteorologists?

MachZer0 said:

So you think that decertification would have no effect on heretical meteorologists?

Click to expand...

So you think that The Weather Channel would have an effect on certification?

Nathan Poe said:

So you think that The Weather Channel would have an effect on certification?

Click to expand...

I don't see how.

MachZer0 said:

I don't see how.

Click to expand...

So this is all much ado about nothnig, basically. TWC's employees have stated an opinion that any "meteorologist" who can't plainly see the possible effects of Global Warming should have their certification pulled -- either due to incompetence or bias, I would surmise.

Since their opinion in this matter weighs in about the same as anyone else's, what's got your knickers in a twist?

I don't know or care one way or another. The fact is the AMS can endorse whoever they want, and it would be logical for them not to endorse someone who's views are contrary to the mission of the scientific society. It is certainly not censorship or silencing anyone.

MachZer0 said:

So you think that decertification would have no effect on heretical meteorologists?

Click to expand...

Nathan Poe said:

So this is all much ado about nothnig, basically. TWC's employees have stated an opinion that any "meteorologist" who can't plainly see the possible effects of Global Warming should have their certification pulled -- either due to incompetence or bias, I would surmise.

Since their opinion in this matter weighs in about the same as anyone else's, what's got your knickers in a twist?

Click to expand...

The Weather Channel isn't a player in this game so your whole point is irrelevant and moot.

chaim said:

I don't know or care one way or another. The fact is the AMS can endorse whoever they want, and it would be logical for them not to endorse someone who's views are contrary to the mission of the scientific society. It is certainly not censorship or silencing anyone.

Click to expand...

It is if they can't get a job without the certification

MachZer0 said:

The Weather Channel isn't a player in this game so your whole point is irrelevant and moot.

Click to expand...

I know you don't read links -- now you don't read Titles?

Nathan Poe said:

I know you don't read links -- now you don't read Titles?

Click to expand...

I did read it. It says Weather Channel Expert calls for decertifying. That would be as opposed to the Weather Channel itself

There is no requirement that you need to be endorsed by the AMS to get a job as a TV weatherman.

MachZer0 said:

It is if they can't get a job without the certification

Click to expand...