| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics |
| 2007-01-18 |
| The Weather ChannelÂ’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 ChannelÂ’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. Read the whole thing... |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #38 LOL look what I missed! |
| Posted by: RD 2007-01-18 20:58 |
| #37 My email to them: "Heidi Cullen has done you a wondrous favor, exposing your organization as a close-minded global-warming theocracy. All dissidents to be exiled and reviled, contrary grants be damned! You should thank her, publicly. You couldn't have asked for more exposre and less PR. Good job, grant-whores Frank G***** Santee, CA, USA" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-18 20:49 |
| #36 Here is a list of email address for the top AMS officers who should know about Heidi Cullen dragging the AMS into her wacko, left wing, gobal warming dogma and retaliation strategy against experts who dissagree with her socialist position: amspresident@ametsoc.org kseitter@ametsoc.org hooke@ametsoc.org armstrong@ametsoc.org geer@ametsoc.org bfarley@ametsoc.org kheideman@ametsoc.org mweston@ametsoc.org jnathans@ametsoc.org I think they should consider revoking her "Seal of Approval" for her attack on her fellow peers. |
| Posted by: Elmerelet Omomoting5669 2007-01-18 19:10 |
| #35 Gaia's my bitch! |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-01-18 18:32 |
| #34 "The fools who deny humans' role in climate change do not need to be stripped of their credentials. They will marginalize themselves, soon enough." Ah, openmindedness combined with threat. A shining example of leftist intellectualism. /sarcasm off |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-01-18 18:24 |
| #33 The fools who deny humans' role in climate change do not need to be stripped of their credentials. They will marginalize themselves, soon enough. |
| Posted by: The Don 2007-01-18 17:23 |
| #32 This is interesting. They have Minority and Majority web pages. Good on Imhofe. |
| Posted by: KBK 2007-01-18 16:42 |
| #31 I do not read this website. You are all far to liberal here. |
| Posted by: Rush Limbaugh - President of the EIB Network. 2007-01-18 14:37 |
| #30 So, AC, if I follow you correctly, you're implying that... Joseph Mendiola is in fact Rush Limbaugh?! Well, call me crazy if you wish, but I'l tell you, that's what I suspected all along. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-01-18 14:15 |
| #29 I wonder if Rush Limbaugh reads R-burg? He was just talking about this story and also mentioned the one below about Prince Charles' eco-wacky posturing. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-01-18 13:56 |
| #28 I had Heidi Cullen in the back of a van. Wouldn't touch her even when the price was right, $4.50 if memory serves me right. So I sold her to Bill. Remember it was those evil Indians driving their SUVs that melted the glaciers. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-01-18 13:47 |
| #27 Newest Scientific American has an article on plants being the largest source of methane in the atm... Really? Are they trying to moderate their PC-ness? I gave up on them when they devoted an issue to trashing Bjorn Lomborg in decidedly un-scientific ways. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-01-18 12:55 |
| #26 Ted Turner owns The Weather Channel. |
| Posted by: Thotle Hupavitch5406 2007-01-18 12:11 |
| #25 There was a sci-fi book by Isaac Asimov that postulated that ice-ages were caused by our Sun orbiting through hyrogen or some other gas that altered it's temperature (only a little change will do). Now there is evidence that Mars has experienced global warming to some degree and the idea that variation in solar temperature might be the cause has gained some currency. I just think it's fascinating when the old school science fiction writers (the ones who put science in the fiction) turn out to be even somewhat prophetic. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-01-18 12:04 |
| #24 Newest Scientific American has an article on plants being the largest source of methane in the atm... So... Is Heidi going to wage war on plants? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-01-18 12:00 |
| #23 I got a size 12 boot that sez the insects don't take over. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-01-18 11:44 |
| #22 Since they're the principle order of life on this planet and present a never-ending challenge to man's domination higher numbers of insects, especially disease and chemical resistant insects, induced by global warming of any kind could present real challenges. I for one welcome our new Insectoid overlords! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-01-18 11:41 |
| #21 Lysenko - wotta chump. A perfect example of political correctness run amuck. And the reason why Soviet biology lagged so far behind. As for Gallileo, I was quite impressed when the Catholic Church declared he was right after all. Sure, it was 500 years after the fact, but better late than never, eh? The general scientific consensus seems to be that we are currently in a warming phase. I'm personally ok with this since where I'm sitting now was under a half mile of ice not long ago, geologically speaking. The more interesting questions are what drives climate change - something we still do not understand - and is there anything we should or can do about it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-18 11:09 |
| #20 President Al must be jumping up and down in glee over this nonsense. AC's right on target and the debate between scientists and non-scientists alike is huge and heated (even up here on the Hill we have those who swear anthropogenic induced global warming is real and those on the other side). In my research for my new book I've learned some pretty scary things about global warming no matter what the cause. Insects love warmer temperatures and tend to breed in much higher numbers for example. Since they're the principle order of life on this planet and present a never-ending challenge to man's domination higher numbers of insects, especially disease and chemical resistant insects, induced by global warming of any kind could present real challenges. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-01-18 11:03 |
| #19 Don't know if any of you have seen this woman." Good grief. She looks like Meredith Viera after having gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-01-18 10:45 |
| #18 I'm holding out for media pseudoscientist flatulence, and all those microwaves that carry CNN and the Weather Channel. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-01-18 10:12 |
| #17 NASA says that Mars and the Moon are warming. How does our 'prominent climatologist' explain that ? Forest fires ? Chemical plants ? wood stoves ? bovine flatulence ? It's the SUN, you nitwit ! |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-18 10:07 |
| #16 Fusion energy! That way we can have BattleMechs. Yep. Let the ass-stomping commence! ;) |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-01-18 09:55 |
| #15 As a scientist, I am not personally skeptical of global warming. It is a fact. The degree of anthropogenic causation is very much a matter of legitimate debate however. Heidi and the media-based alarmists are simply lying when they deny this. This is obvious from even a cursory examination of peer-reviewed journals, at least in the United States. In the UK, the entire peer-review process has been corrupted to a degree that Stalin or Goebbels might envy, as we saw last year when terrorist sympathizers managed to prostitute the once-revered Lancet. Actually, Goebbels would not have been impressed with the paper alleging 2/3 of a million civilian casualties in the Iraq war. It was too crude and obvious for him, more Streicher's style. Be that is it may, papers questioning the politically orthodox view of anthopogenic causation in global warming are sometimes still published even in Britain. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and would have every incentive in the world to push anthropogenic causation if my own agenda were the governing factor. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-01-18 09:40 |
| #14 Piltdown Man was widely accepted in the scientific community for a long time, though there were skeptics and naysayers right from the beginning. Fortunately for them, this was the pre-PC west, not the post-modern media world, and Piltdown was eventually exposed as a hoax. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-01-18 09:24 |
| #13 This just in: Church Decertifies Galileo |
| Posted by: doc 2007-01-18 09:20 |
| #12 Oh, and it's not about science. It's about power. |
| Posted by: Procopius. 2007-01-18 09:16 |
| #11 Galileo. Pope. Jesuits. No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. |
| Posted by: Procopius. 2007-01-18 09:16 |
| #10 Well, Steve, in a previous life I felt the same way about Lysenkoism. I mean, who would be fool enough to think that acquired characteristics would not be inherited? Fortunately, I learned the error of my ways, thanks to the great Stalin. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2007-01-18 09:09 |
| #9 I can understand where Heidi is coming from. In a previous life, I felt the same way about the Germ Theory of disease. The idea that swarms of tiny invisible animals cause illness and plagues is simply preposterous. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-18 08:53 |
| #8 Heard it snowed in Malibu yesterday. What's your take on that, Heidi? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-01-18 08:44 |
| #7 The left's "free speech for me, but not for thee" mantra again. Typical of most communists. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-01-18 07:50 |
| #6 Oh, well, give her some credit: at least she's not advocating forcing global-warming skeptics into re-education camps. Not yet. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-18 07:16 |
| #5 "Totalitarian" is just the right word. I saw a graphic once that accurately described the genesis of the global warming cult. In essence, it is one avenue by which leftists are attempting to rescue socialism from all of its past failures. In reality it is the combination of changing Western ethical standards (from "wealth is good" to "wealth is bad" and from "equality of opportunity" to "equality of outcome") along with a denigration of traditional religious views - and a replacement of said views with either radical secularism or goofy new age primitivism - that is the genesis of leftist environmentalism. The goal since 1789 has always been to produce a socialist centralized and economically totalitarian state. The global warming thing is just a recent justification. You don't see many economic free market advocates in this cult for a very good reason. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-01-18 07:02 |
| #4 "Don't know if any of you have seen this woman." I've seen Nostrilina. The totalitarian bitch is the reason I no longer watch the Weather Channel. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-18 06:47 |
| #3 Don't know if any of you have seen this woman. She's a homely, scrawny, preachy leftist who is nonetheless expert at manipulative imagery. She has the personality of, and employs the tactics of, every repressive PC campus kook we've been hearing about, and based upon her age, she was "educated" during the high water mark of political correctness in the American academy. This call for revocation of the licensure of weather experts is no different than any of the various speech codes that are an infringement of free speech and a form of intimidation in the education industry. To someone who is making six figures off of selling the concept of anthropogenic global warming and probably couldn't earn a tenth of what she does if nobody bought into her notion, questions are the ultimate threat to her fame and lifestyle and income stream. I suspect that (fair or not) with a face and personality like hers, without this quasi-religious global warming thing, she'd be a night time radio weather girl in some small market, or a minor professor at a state college somewhere. Don't kill the job, and all that. If it's OK for these folks to question the sincerity of the energy industry because they make a profit from one side of the "global warming" argument, then it is just as fair to make the same charge about those "scientists" whose income stream depends on grants (mostly public sector) that depend on the other side. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-01-18 06:31 |
| #2 Priests who feel their income is threatened allways label those who question the faith as heretics. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-01-18 05:50 |
| #1 Religious fanatics get so touchy when you question their dogma. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2007-01-18 05:42 |