Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Meteorologist Smackdown

A Weather Channel meteorologist has been causing quite a stir recently with her proclamation that any one in the climate sciences who questions global warming should have their accreditation removed:

A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.

The call was made by Heidi Cullen, host of a weekly global warming programme on the cable network called The Climate Code, and coincides with a stretch of severely off-kilter weather across the US this winter and moves by Democrats to draft strict new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the “seal of approval” that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism about man’s role in pushing up planetary temperatures.

“It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather,” she wrote in her internet blog. “It’s not a political statement… it’s just an incorrect statement.”

Thankfully, some meteorologists (James Spann) aren’t taking this heavy-handed, almost Stalin-esque tactic laying down:

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

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.

Personally, I’m a little tired of global warming zealots on the left bad mouthing anyone who doesn’t buy 100% into the dogma they’re selling.  I think we can all agree (because it’s a fact) that global temperatures have been rising recently.  But the problem is how do we know it’s being caused by human activity?  And how do we know we can do anything to stop it, especially when it now appears as though one of the worst emitters of the gases that allegedly cause global warming aren’t even human but rather bovine?

How do we really know that it’s not part of another temperature change trend that has been taking place on this earth for billions of years?  Entire eons before humans even came around?

Global warming zealots like Al Gore like to talk a lot about “inconvenient truths,” but I’d like to see those same zealots answers some of the questions above which are very inconvenient to their beliefs.

And speaking of beliefs, I think every single person on the left who thinks someone who doesn’t 100% buy into their global warming theories is “crazy” or “stupid” should keep their mouths shut when it comes to another topic much-maligned by liberals.  Namely, religion.  These global warming people are every bit as arrogant and self-important as the religious zealots who would force prayer or bible teachings on all of our kids in public schools.

Comments

Avatar for Mickey

If you look around the liberal blogosphere and what passes for liberal thought today, we are all going to die soon. Global warming, use of fossil fuels, and depletion of fresh water by humans, are but a few examples of how we are ruining everything, forever.

These writers and the media are bombarding us with doomsday scenarios. Oil depletion, global warming, bird flu, are the result of human selfishness, cruelty and moral depravity.

They have spoken, and so shall it be- or so they would have you believe.

It’s one thing to have no faith in God. It’s another thing entirely to have no faith in the potential of man. We are being asked to believe that we, as a species, are capable of great achievements in every field, except when it comes to addressing environmental concerns. We are incapable of solving our problems and so, we are subject to elimination. We have to hate ourselves- in reality, because those who demand that we do, hate themselves.

What crap.

Mickey on January 22, 2007 at 08:38 am
Avatar for Buckley F. Williams

"If you look around the liberal blogosphere and what passes for liberal thought today, we are all going to die soon.”

Except when it comes to the one area that really does threaten our very existence both explicitly and quite vocally; Islamofascism. However, this they regard as an overblown threat concocted by Bush in order to justify waging more war.

Buckley F. Williams on January 22, 2007 at 09:07 am
Avatar for Chuck Comstock

Mr. Spann says, “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
“. Well, here are ten…

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2007-01-22-ceos-climate_x.htm?csp=34

They include the chief executives of Alcoa (AA), DuPont (DD), Caterpillar (CAT), General Electric (GE) and Duke Energy (DUK).

Chuck Comstock on January 22, 2007 at 11:30 am
Avatar for Chuck Comstock

Whoops - meant to say, “Here are ten who ARE NOT...”

Chuck Comstock on January 22, 2007 at 11:33 am

I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype

This statement kind of blows the hell out of the consensus argument comment made at an earlier post.  I believe that the global warming consensus majority ‘wears no cloths’.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on January 22, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Chuck Cornstock said, Whoops - meant to say, “Here are ten who ARE NOT...”

You sure about that? You don’t think a “cap and trade” scheme would make money for these big industries? Get real.

likwidshoe on January 22, 2007 at 08:24 pm
Avatar for Mickey

Carbon credits are worth a boatload of cash to those industries involved.

Mickey on January 23, 2007 at 07:33 am

This statement kind of blows the hell out of the consensus argument comment made at an earlier post.  I believe that the global warming consensus majority ‘wears no cloths’.
docdave on January 22, 2007 at 02:46 pm

There’s a consensus among Socialists that global warming would be excellent for their agenda.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 23, 2007 at 07:48 am

Carbon credits are worth a boatload of cash to those industries involved.

Carbon credits are a kind of shell game, anyway.  Big polluting company goes to two or three other industries or land owners who are not polluting and buys their “carbon credits”. Net results: no reduction in pollution, but everyone has warm fuzzies that they’re doing something!



A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on January 23, 2007 at 08:27 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.