Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[Bill Hamilton]

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

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

Everyone has their opinion on this case but to try to say that your opinion is the definitive answer and everyone else is wrong doesn't set well with me. Especially when there are good arguments on both sides. Kind of reminds me of the evolution/creationism argument (don't start on that one).

 

[Rocky Rascovich]

"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.
----------------------------------------------
I am not one to publicly bash the Weather Channel..I won't start now, but will say firmly that I flat out disagree with Heidi Cullen on the chief cause of global warming. I heard a rather fascinating show on the radio a couple of weeks back on this issue. For a change, it was based on the defense that it is NOT chiefly caused by man.. frankly, I think we are WAY down the list on the reasons for our climate change. Out of the top ten reasons I heard, Man was number 9...

In a nutshell, it's the sun, first and foremost, solar cycles. Its been proven that solar output can vary over a long period of time, hence the biggest reasons... then there is oceanic currents. I think what impact man is having on the environment is by cutting down precious forests in places like the Amazon. But to put us as the main cause is rubbish...Scientists have confirmed that the ice cap on Mars has been shrinking as well...
Maybe Heidi thinks we are responsible for that too!

I will say this... climate change is real, its happening faster than expected, and I believe by the end of this decade, it will be blatant and in our faces that its happening and we must ADAPT to it. While instituting the Kyoto Treaty will help some with the clean air issue, it certainly won't reverse our climate change. We must take a good balanced look at this and find common ground, and learn how to adapt and work together rather than point fingers and blame others.

 

[Tom Tackett]

Bill:

Thanks for posting this article. You beat me by nine minutes and one phone call.....lol. Can you believe that Dr. Cullen has the gall to insist that you either agree with her assessment on Global Warming / Climate Change or you are not officially recognized by the AMS??? Just incredible!!!

Tom in Ft. Worth

 

[Jeff Snyder]

In a nutshell, it's the sun, first and foremost, solar cycles. Its been proven that solar output can vary over a long period of time, hence the biggest reasons... then there is oceanic currents. I think what impact man is having on the environment is by cutting down precious forests in places like the Amazon. But to put us as the main cause is rubbish...Scientists have confirmed that the ice cap on Mars has been shrinking as well...
Maybe Heidi thinks we are responsible for that too!

Rocky,

There are quite a few very smart meteorologists that will disagree with your statements. Sun intensity may be increasing across the earth, but, from what I've heard, it's not doing so to an extent enough to justify the entire increase in mean global temperature rise. I don't want to get into the global climate change debate, but the vast majority of models I've seen (yes, yes, I know, "models") have required human activities in order to cause the rise in temperature that we've seen. Many arguments against anthroprogenic forcing (i.e. the impact humans have had on global climate change) seem to be no more "concrete" than the arguments for a significant anthro. forcing presence... In fact, the most common "evidence" (almost always purely anecdotal) that humans are not impacting climate change seems to be the idea that "humans are just too small to have an impact on global climate", which doesn't address any of the science (atmospheric chemistry, radiation budgets, etc) that may indicate otherwise. Now, I'm certainly not saying humans are having a large impact on climate change (though I do think there is a significant impact), but I don't think the arguments against it are any more scientifically sound than those for it.

All this said.... I agree that the idea of removing AMS Seal of Approvals for those mets that openly support a significant anthropogenic forcing contribution to global climate change is ridiculous.

 

[Paul Austin]

I think science in the absence of healthy scepticism ceases to be science. It has more in common with religious dogma. (By dogma I mean proclamation without room for discussion or dissent. No attack on religion itself intended here.) How many dicoveries would still lie dormant without any challenge to conventional broad acceptance?

Regardless of one's position on global warming and its causes, there is and should be room for discussion and dissenting views. I realize broadcast meteorologists have a responsibility to the public in separating myth from proper understanding, but this debate is far from decided.

It's probably not worth the two pennies it gets credit for, but take it or leave it...my opinion.

 

[Paul Austin]

The media and the partisan politics are our most dysfunctional friends in relaying information.

Never before has it been stated so eloquently by the reigning Weather Weenie. Bravo! I'm just speculating here, since I've never known anyone thusly crowned, but I couldn't agree more. You can have my .02, Chris and make it -$4.98.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I am going to love it if 2008-2010 end up being the coldest years on record.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Awesome points, Rocky!

There's no doubt that global warming isn't happening - it's the cause that's in question. I personally believe that a warm up happens after every ice age, but hey - what do I know? ;-)

Dan - I see you left out 2007... I suppose you want to get a good chase season in before the record cold? LOL

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

There's no doubt that global warming isn't happening - it's the cause that's in question.

Is that the "politically correct" way to word that? lol I hope some get that(you meant to say "IS" happening didn't you).

 

[Darren Addy]

I am going to love it if 2008-2010 end up being the coldest years on record.

Why are you going to "love it"? If it is because you think that will disprove global warming/climate change then you are mistaken. The rapid melting of fresh water from areas near the poles (such as Greenland) could disrupt the "conveyor belt" of ocean currents (fresh water is a different density than salt water). It is those ocean currents that help keep temperatures in a moderate range. Thus a change (or interruption) in those ocean currents could remove the temperature moderation leading to more extreme swings in summer and winter temperature. One concern is an "abrupt climate change". If the next four winters were indeed "the coldest years on record" it might indicate that such an abrupt swing is already beginning.

In short, although it is counter-intuitive for those without a scientific background, global warming could lead to a mini-ice age. Some scientists believe we could be on the brink: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=501

Most people who get their information on the subject from the media tend to think that science is divided on this issue. The issue is about as divided as whether smoking is harmful to humans. Big tobacco essentially had scientists on the payroll to express doubts about the "real" science on the subject. In an effort to be "fair and balanced" the journalistic media will give voice to "the other side" (as they should). They successfully kept the majority of the public "in doubt" for decades. However, don't let the fact that you hear "both sides" in the media confuse you from what the real science shows. There is far less disagreement among the scientists on this issue than you are led to believe.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=521

 

[Robert Dewey]

Is that the "politically correct" way to word that? lol I hope some get that(you meant to say "IS" happening didn't you).

Yeah yeah yeah... take it to the "Rapidly declining quality" thread LOL!

Anyway, to further what Dan said - I think he was speaking in regards to the fact that EVERYTHING that happens now days is a result of Global Warming. In 2005, the hurricane season was the fault of Global Warming - however, 2006 was one of the most inactive seasons ever. Of course, Global Warming caused that too... Record heat in 2006? Global Warming... Too many ice storms in 2007? Global Warming... The party store being robbed 3 times in 2 months just down the road from me? Global Warming.

 

[Dan Robinson]

If it is because you think that will disprove global warming/climate change then you are mistaken.

I guess that is one of the main things that bothers me about the whole issue. The 'conclusion' has been made and nothing will change the minds of global warming believers, even colder weather. It's a catch-22. If it's a warm year, it's global warming. If it's a cold year, it's still global warming.

For the record, I am not taking sides on global warming yet. I think it is way too soon to jump to conclusions either way.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Warning: Stay away from political discussion! Some of these posts are dabbling in the political arena. There is some inherent political connection, but please try to keep this discussion out of the political realm.

 

[David Wolfson]

I think the issue (which has professional implications to many on ST) is on what bases the AMS grants -- and revokes -- their "Seal of Approval".

Many moons ago I was an officer of a local AMS chapter. A major issue at the time arose when a local TV weatherman was not given the Seal because the university faculty grading his test didn't like his answers some way or other. He'd studied his butt off. Failure to get the AMS blessing was a critical blow to his career and he is probably bitter about it to this day.

It makes me really queasy to think of revoking the Seal of someone because they come down on the "wrong" side of a very nuanced current scientific discussion. It's not like they're denying the Law of Gravity, Boyle's Law, or the Holocaust....

 

[Darren Addy]