January 18, 2007
Global Warming Skeptics Beware!
One of the scientists leading the charge in the man-made global warming phenomenon is Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel (TWC). Cullen hosts a weekly show called The Climate Code, where she discusses the oncoming disaster.
On TWC's blog, Cullen made this suggestion:
If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns.
In essence, Cullen is saying that those who don't agree with the politically correct view on global warming should be kicked out of the club. She should have been around in Galileo's time. (Galileo, as you remember, was branded as a heretic and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633 for publishing papers about our universe centering around the sun, not the Earth.) Isn't the very essence of science to constantly question and debate? Cullen's suggestion flies in the face of collegiality and the goals of the scientific community.
Commenter Jordan on Cullen's post says the idea of silencing the skeptics has been around for a while:
Since you seem to be enamored with Al Gore's take on the global warming issue, perhaps you will find this evidence of his bias 14 years ago as interesting. In 1992, Newsweek journalist Gregg Easterbrook reported in The New Republic ("Green Cassandras," July 6) that Albert Gore and biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of the thoroughly discredited book The Population Bomb, had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."
Marc Morano makes this salient point:
[I]f 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?"
An excellent question, one which I'm sure Cullen and her ilk are not ready to answer. They're too busy trying to shut their critics up.
These meteorologists didn't believe in An Inconvenient Truth.
Thanks to V the K (via Moonbattery).
Related:
The Great Warming: Same Old Schlock
Global Warming Not Welcome Here!
Kyoto: It's Not About the Environment...
Al Gore: A Knight in Shining Armor...
Latest Kyoto Snafu
Show Comments »
Could it be that most people on the global warming issue are band standing because its fashionable? Or is it plain greed thats in their minds? I am sure Mr. Gore is making millions off this in speech`s and appearances and I wonder if he really cares as much as he wants us to believe or is it our $$$ he cares about?
Posted by: learner at January 18, 2007 11:29 AMThe problem with liberalism, no matter what the cause, is this: Liberals rely more on their feelings about an issue, rather than the facts surrounding it. Gore BELIEVES in what he's doing, and because he's passionate about it, no one has the "right" to question him. He feels good about saving the environment, even if he doesn't have concrete facts to back him up. With liberals it's intentions, not results, that count.
Posted by: Pam at January 18, 2007 11:39 AMFor those who are interested in the weather (which is everybody, especially those who work outside), The Weather Channel has always been a travesty. It's not weather, for those who seriously want climatological information. I wouldn't recommend it as an educational site for school children.
It's hype, became ideological lately with a mania for environmental disaster. Perhaps Cullen is the leading unscientific figure in this hysteria, but there is much programming which also parleys the same false outlook.
For TV weather information, I rely on local meteorologists plus WGN's fine forecaster. I can remember a time, 2 decades ago, when PBS featured a daily in-depth weather briefing which satisfied us gardeners, the farmers, and aviation interests. So it's possible to present scientific, well written, interesting weather information in a daily 30-60 minute TV show for the public.
But not from The Weather Channel. (Is Ted Turner its godfather?)
Posted by: jng at January 19, 2007 01:31 PMI guess I'm not really understanding here. While I can agree with the point that silencing skeptics is a good policy neither in science nor in politics, I've never understood what motivation the non-scientist (as in those who do not actually perform experimental studies) skeptics attribute to those who attempt to get out the word about global climate change. Perhaps Gore is making money on the project (although the amount of money he donates to environmental causes is huge). But the rest of the tree-hugging, Prius-driving bunch? SUVs are the fashion -- so it certainly isn't that it's fashionable. Even if you are a skeptic and you don't think the world is going to end if we continue to increase oil use, would it really be a bad thing if we could stop relying on foriegn oil and maybe someday be able to see the hills of LA or breathe the air even on hot, dry days? Truly, if anyone has thoughts on this, please post, as I just don't understand.
Posted by: Ro at January 19, 2007 02:51 PMYour accusation is untrue. He doesn't say "agree" with, he says "speak to".
Posted by: pam at January 19, 2007 10:43 PMthe planet is falling apart ,in the next years will sure gonna see some nice weather effects,but our children and the children of our children will watch the whole show.if you can do something about the planet the planet will reward you if you dont care about the planet the planet will not care for u.sound fare.
Politics are all with the same PIG FACE there are all the same PIGS
Posted by: YZF at January 24, 2007 05:24 PMIt really doesn't matter at this point. After today's headlines
"Scientists from 113 countries say global warming is caused by man, and will continue no matter how much humans control their pollution."
So who cares - breakout the suntan lotion.
The science cannot be challenged, even though this same group was predicting an imminent ice age in the late 70's early 80's.
Posted by: Newtown Mark at February 2, 2007 10:36 AM
