| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| AMS certified Weatherman strikes back |
| 2007-01-19 |
| I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe. If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue. |
| Posted by: KBK |
| #5 "A major agent" is NOT "a SOLE AGENT", and science itself has already proven that man-made activities is miniscule = minutae, even irrelevant, when compared to the effects of SOLAR and other natural forces-dynamics. Even iff humanity could de facto control global weather and climate change, we have 999, 999-plus earth sized planets to conquer before the NUREMBURG ENVIRO CRIMES TRIALS? CAN ORDER THE SUN TO SURRENDER, lest Earth Sheriffs hunt down and shoot the rebellious arrogant Sun down like a criminal dog in a 100K-Milyuuhn years from now, maybe two. HEAR US, SOL, ACCEPT DEFEAT AND SURRENDER NOW OR WE'RE GONNA KILL YA IN A MILYUHN TEARS, D *** YOU, YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THE LAW OR FROM EARTH!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-19 23:02 |
| #4 Jonathan...get your weather from weather.gov |
| Posted by: anymouse 2007-01-19 21:12 |
| #3 I've only read about 10% of the comments, there's too damn many - she's getting DRILLED! LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-01-19 20:05 |
| #2 Weather Channel Global Warming Position Statement "This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. Any meaningful debate on the topic amongst climate experts is over." I've asked them to remove those sentences as they are non-factual. For further entertainment, she's getting toasted on her blog: A VERY POLITICAL CLIMATE |
| Posted by: KBK 2007-01-19 19:46 |
#1 As a firm believer in the principle that one should check the source and ignore the hype, I checked out Cullen's original blog posting. She wrote, in part:In an interesting follow-up blog on the reason for this all too common global warming contrarianism within the broadcast meteorology community, journalist Andrew Freedman suggests local TV meteorologist may want to look to the American Meteorological Society for guidance. Freedman goes on to point out that the AMS has in fact, issued a statement on climate change that reads:Up to this point she's not really saying anything controversial; her basic point is that you should find out about global warming before you say something about it. Here's where she starts getting into trouble: Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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.Even up to this point she could argue that she isn't calling for a suppression of dissent, but merely saying that you should be knowledgeable before you call yourself a meteorologist, or else the AMS should stop letting you use their seal of approval. If she had stopped here she could have been accused of little more than rudeness. This part is the controversial bit: Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. 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.Ooops. That statement was a mistake on her part. She's basically saying that it's not true that cyclical weather patterns contribute to global warming; she's further saying that the AMS said so too. But of course, they didn't; they actually said "There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."There is nothing in that statement that precludes cyclical weather patterns as a contributor to global warming. Cullen's problem is that she wanted an authoritative source to buttress her prejudices; when the AMS failed to oblige, she just pretended that they said what she wanted them to say. Now she has posted the obligatory non-apology in the form of a softball interview with somebody or other. It won't help. I used to watch the Weather Channel religiously; from now on I'll get my weather information from Accuweather. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2007-01-19 15:16 |