2387 replies to this topic

[Stormlover]

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
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 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: As the resident ‘climate expert’ at TWS, you should know that Hurricanes 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?Fus...82-87381DE894CD ]

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 manmade 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." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...37-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...82-87381DE894CD



Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen’s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine’s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports....E20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man’s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...p;ContentRecord

Edited by Stormlover, 16 June 2009 - 04:24 PM.

[Stormlover]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

No,they are the ones not afraid to think for themselves instead of walking like brain dead zombies.And even if their opinion happened to be wrong,just for the point, apparently you have no problem with her advocating stripping them of their professional certification....great free speach and free thought advocate BW!

Edited by Stormlover, 17 January 2007 - 10:30 PM.

[kailynleto]

That is the final straw.  I will no longer watch TWC (except when Abrams & Bettes is on lol...).

[ict1523]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

How do you know you aren't the flat earth  believer?

[kailynleto]

How do you know you aren't the flat earth  believer?

How do we know we're ALL not the flat earth believers?

(Sorry, I feel a bit philosophical tonight...)

Edited by kailynleto, 17 January 2007 - 10:09 PM.

[Ixontes]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

This said as record snow falls on Denver and California reaches record low temps and it is snowing places in Texas and South Carolina that it hasn't snowed in 20+ years.


Go Global Warming! GO!!!!

What ever

[Stormlover]

This said as record snow falls on Denver and California reaches record low temps and it is snowing places in Texas and South Carolina that it hasn't snowed in 20+ years.
Go Global Warming! GO!!!!

What ever

Snowed in LA for the first time in 44 years...

[Ixontes]

Snowed in LA for the first time in 44 years...

BS!!!    Stormlover, with comments like that the liberal-mafia will get you!!!

[WBB]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

Sigh.  Why must you go back to that tired myth that medieval people thought the earth was flat?  They knew it was round.  The real myth is that medieval people were ignorant.

Edited by WBB, 17 January 2007 - 10:59 PM.

[ARCC]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

However, they need dumb people like Heidi Cullen or Al Gore to point them out.

[MallowTheCloud]

This said as record snow falls on Denver and California reaches record low temps and it is snowing places in Texas and South Carolina that it hasn't snowed in 20+ years.
Go Global Warming! GO!!!!

What ever

Of course, when global-warming-mongers blame every record high on global warming, 'skeptics' complain like there's no tomorrow (and with good reason). But as soon as there's record cold somewhere on Earth, it's 100% proof that global warming doesn't exist.

Edited by MallowTheCloud, 17 January 2007 - 11:15 PM.

[Ixontes]

Of course, when global-warming-mongers blame every record high on global warming, you complain like there's no tomorrow. But as soon as there's record cold somewhere on Earth, it's 100% proof that global warming doesn't exist.

Did you ever think that the earth works in cycles??????

Maybe we are in an "overall" warming cycle of mother earth's cycles?

Perhaps in 2015 we will be screaming "I wish it would get hot!"??????????????

[bjd]

Snowed in LA for the first time in 44 years...

It's the Gore Effect.  Y'see, the man is on the short list for an Oscar; of course, Southern California is going to end up in the deep freeze.



Barb

[Evan]

I'm glad I always ignore and female dog about people with an opinion different than mine.

[MallowTheCloud]

Did you ever think that the earth works in cycles??????

Maybe we are in an "overall" warming cycle of mother earth's cycles?

Perhaps in 2015 we will be screaming "I wish it would get hot!"??????????????

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do at ALL with my post.

[Ghost]

Snowed in LA for the first time in 44 years...

Sorry SL... that statement is flat wrong... making statements like this wont help you establish credibility in your argument here.

It snowed like crazy in the Independence Bowl at Shreveport a few years ago.

"The 2000 matchup has become known as the “Snow Bowl.” Texas A&M and Mississippi State met in the 25th anniversary game in a driving snowstorm that began during pregame warmups and continued throughout the entire game. Mississippi State won that game in overtime 43-41. The 2000 Independence Bowl garnered a 4.2 television rating, the second highest in the game’s history."

Edited by Ghost, 18 January 2007 - 07:46 AM.

[Jacob]

Sorry SL... that statement is flat wrong... making statements like this wont help you establish credibility in your argument here.

It snowed like crazy in the bowl game at Shreveport a few years ago.

Los Angeles, not Louisiana.  

[Ghost]

Los Angeles, not Louisiana.  

Oops... to me LA means Louisana.

If this is what you meant... Sorry Stormlover.. my bad...  carry on...  

[Mr. Plow]

Oops... to me LA means Louisana.

And to some, LA means "Lower Alabama."    

[Stormlover]

Oops... to me LA means Louisana.

If this is what you meant... Sorry Stormlover.. my bad...  carry on...  

Uh yeah, LA...Sunset Strip...that place....actually 1962 was the last recorded snowfall there....

Edited by Stormlover, 18 January 2007 - 09:59 AM.

[Stormlover]

Pelosi and her leftist wackos are jumping in to save us now
Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Speaker Ignoring House Traditions To Force Legislative Action On Climate Change
CBS News Interactive: Global Warming
CBS News Interactive: 100 Hour Agenda
(AP) WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intent on putting global warming atop the Democratic agenda, is shaking up traditional committee fiefdoms dominated by some of Congress' oldest and most powerful members.

She's moving to create a special committee to recommend legislation for cutting greenhouse gases, most likely to be chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday.

Markey has advocated raising mileage standards for cars, trucks and SUVs and is one of the House's biggest critics of oil companies and U.S. automakers,

Pelosi has discussed the proposal with at least two Democratic committee chairmen: fellow Californian Henry Waxman of Oversight and Government Reform, and West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, who heads the Natural Resources panel. Pelosi intends to announce the move this week, said the leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because not all of the details have been worked out.

The move, to some degree, would sidestep two of the House's most powerful Democratic committee bosses, in shaping what's expected to be at least a yearlong debate on global warming:

# Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, a defender of the auto industry and at 80 the longest serving member of the House.

# New York Rep. Charles Rangel, who as the 76-year-old chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, would have to clear any tax on carbon-based fuels like coal, oil or natural gas, which have been blamed for warming the atmosphere. A chief advocate of such a tax is former Democratic Vice President Al Gore.

Rahall said he had spoken with Pelosi about the idea of a new select committee. Rahall's panel oversees energy development on public lands, including coal, oil and natural gas as well as cleaner, non-carbon sources such as geothermal and windmills.

"I've been assured that no legislative jurisdiction would be taken away from any committee," Rahall said. "No legislative responsibility would be shifted from any committee."

As chair of Energy and Commerce, Dingell oversees the Clean Air Act — and would have the most to lose by letting another panel take the lead. The panel's staff chief, Dennis Fitzgibbons, a former auto company lobbyist, said Dingell was philosophically opposed to Pelosi's plan.

"He has always been cool to the idea, because it undermines the fundamental idea for establishing committees in the first place, which is to acquire expertise in a certain area," Fitzgibbons said.

Dingell, asked about the new committee, said, "I have not been officially informed."

Waxman, like Markey a one-time protege of Dingell, said that Pelosi discussed the idea of a special committee with him several days ago. He, too, is a skeptic.

"I believe the existing committees can deal effectively with global warming," he said Wednesday. "But I can also understand why the speaker believes it's important to highlight this issue."

A new committee would give Pelosi a vehicle to push a regulatory scheme for reducing greenhouse gases and pit her against President Bush, who plans to outline his global warming approach in his State of the Union next week. Mr .Bush has repeatedly opposed any mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, instead advocating voluntary approaches and research on new technologies. Pelosi has supported mandatory reductions with specific target dates for achieving them.

"It's an issue that the speaker thinks is critical to address," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

Democratic officials said the committee would be responsible for advising the best legislative approaches while the actual bill-writing duties would likely still be done by Dingell's and Rangel's committees. Among the topics being negotiated are how long the committee should exist and how broad its focus should be, since global climate change affects virtually everything.

Pelosi hasn't shied from taking on other powerful House Democrats. She endorsed the losing effort by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to become majority leader over Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. She also has approved of six-year term limits for committee chairmen over objections from Dingell and other senior Democrats.

She also has a history with Dingell, who backed Hoyer over Pelosi in a 2001 race for the party whip's post. Pelosi backed a Democratic primary challenger to Dingell's re-election the following year.

[Robby]

Did you ever think that the earth works in cycles??????

Maybe we are in an "overall" warming cycle of mother earth's cycles?

Perhaps in 2015 we will be screaming "I wish it would get hot!"??????????????

Which is the point.  It is an affront to science to take such a pitifully small sample of climate change when considering the universally-accepted age of the earth itself.  Studying ice from Antarctica can only give your cause so much validity, and they know it.  Their argument can truly be summed up by saying that by the time global warming is scientifically proven it will be too late to stop its catastrophic effects...which sounds eerily similar to Bush's original arguments concerning Iraq, many of which have been discredited by these same global warming advocates.  The point is that claims of destruction will make people listen and pay attention and do crazy things in reaction...and you don't have to be an Orwellian to come to that conclusion.  And you don't have to be Orwellian to know what happens to those who are on the unpopular side of such a debate; just ask Ms. Cullen.

[ScottJ]

They don't get respect because they are the flat earth believers of the 21st century. Sorry...

Or perhaps they're all modern-day Copernicuses.

Branded heretics since the theory of human-caused climate change is on the verge of becoming a religion.

[MallowTheCloud]

Or perhaps they're all modern-day Copernicuses.

Branded heretics since the theory of human-caused climate change is on the verge of becoming a religion.

Do you believe humans have had no measurable impact on Earth's climate?

[ScottJ]

Do you believe humans have had no measurable impact on Earth's climate?

On a global scale? No.

Have we had some localized effects? Yes, see Exxon Valdez or urban heat islans. Oddly enough the later are one of the factors which invalidate much of the data used to support the man-caused global climate change theory.

[MallowTheCloud]

On a global scale? No.

Have we had some localized effects? Yes, see Exxon Valdez or urban heat islans. Oddly enough the later are one of the factors which invalidate much of the data used to support the man-caused global climate change theory.

Then how do you reconcile the following information?

1. Increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatures (the so-called "greenhouse effect" though it doesn't really work like a greenhouse).
2. Humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is measurable, and measured.
3. The Earth's temperatures have warmed in at least the past century, probably the past two.


The expected results are the same as the actual results, supporting the idea that indeed we have altered global temperatures.


How much? So far, our effect is probably less than 1°C (though estimates vary). Find me a serious scientific study, peer-reviewed, that claims humans have caused absolutely zero warming, and I might be less skeptical about the "humans can't cause change on a global scale" fiasco.

[ScottJ]

You seem to be confusing data with cause.

My car is dirty. That is data. The cause might be that I've been driving on wet roads lately or I could theorize that you slipped into my garage at night and put dirt on my car.

Are we warming Mars too?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-2.html

[MallowTheCloud]

You seem to be confusing data with cause.

My car is dirty. That is data. The cause might be that I've been driving on wet roads lately or I could theorize that you slipped into my garage at night and put dirt on my car.

Are we warming Mars too?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...w_011206-2.html

No, that would be the case if I only used the following two points:

- Humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is measurable, and measured.
- The Earth's temperatures have warmed in at least the past century, probably the past two.


The part that makes it a hypothesis rather than a simple correlation is this point:

-Increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatures (the so-called "greenhouse effect" though it doesn't really work like a greenhouse).


As I said before, it is indeed EXPECTED given the data at hand that our increase in the concentration of CO2 would increase temperatures. Because that has indeed occurred, at a rate beyond which we have any other natural explanation for (though you may refuse to read up on them, there are plenty of scientific reasons for me to make that claim), it is only reasonable to assume we have caused some of the warming.

This is just the overview. There is far more science done to actually come to estimates of how MUCH we have warmed the climate that I can not, and thus will not get in to. My point remains:

Find me a serious scientific study, peer-reviewed, that claims humans have caused absolutely zero warming, and I might be less skeptical about the "humans can't cause change on a global scale" fiasco.

Edited by MallowTheCloud, 18 January 2007 - 05:08 PM.

[Stormlover]

No, that would be the case if I only used the following two points:

- Humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is measurable, and measured.
- The Earth's temperatures have warmed in at least the past century, probably the past two.
The part that makes it a hypothesis rather than a simple correlation is this point:

-Increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatures (the so-called "greenhouse effect" though it doesn't really work like a greenhouse).
As I said before, it is indeed EXPECTED given the data at hand that our increase in the concentration of CO2 would increase temperatures. Because that has indeed occurred, at a rate beyond which we have any other natural explanation for (though you may refuse to read up on them, there are plenty of scientific reasons for me to make that claim), it is only reasonable to assume we have caused some of the warming.

This is just the overview. There is far more science done to actually come to estimates of how MUCH we have warmed the climate that I can not, and thus will not get in to. My point remains:

Find me a serious scientific study, peer-reviewed, that claims humans have caused absolutely zero warming, and I might be less skeptical about the "humans can't cause change on a global scale" fiasco.

Nice how you skipped Scotts question about MARS...just like the MSM loves to skip it too....
And by the way,I'm not going to say humans have caused zero warming, and like you've said yourself,there are benefits in fact if that has happened...I'm saying it is no where near what nature does on it's own,and no where near the Al Gore loony types propaganda says.

Edited by Stormlover, 18 January 2007 - 05:19 PM.