January 19, 2007

Weather Channel Climatologist Tells Weathermen: ‘You Villlll Agree with Globaloney’ (UPDATE: Ala. Weatherman Rips Back)

Here’s one of the latest examples (HT Amy Ridenour) of global warming intimidation, among so many examples it has become impossible to keep up them:

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

The Weather Channel’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 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.

“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 ….”

Intimidation by two sitting US Senators was noted here back in December.

One of the best indicators of a bogus argument is when supporters of it attempt to silence those who disagree with it. By that sole yardstick, the claim that any global warming that my be occurring is primarily caused by human activity is one of the all-time whoppers.

A reminder: Most cable systems have their own local weather channel that gives you what you need to know more quickly, more often, and without the agenda.

______________________________

UPDATE: James Spann, an Alabama weatherman hits back hard (HT Drudge; bolds are mine) –

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, let’s 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.

Spann’s in double trouble with the PC crowd, because he invoked God.

(Aside: Can’t wait for someone to take a shot at him because he’s in the Yellowhammer State.)

The Alabama weatherman brings up an excellent point tying in to media coverage — Since corporate or industry sponsorship of research is typically reported (and often, by inference or specifically criticized as “tainting” the findings), why isn’t the fact that a person or group is funded by government or other grants aimed at “proving” globaloney routinely disclosed?

UPDATE 2: This is too funny. It’s the 235th comment at Spann’s post in Update 1 –

Man-made “Global Warming” is crap (for reasons listed by others above, among others)

But what I wanted to point out a hilarious/idiotic quote from Cullen:

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.”

Interesting, however she wasting her time telling us, and should choose a different audience to inform about how hurricanes rotate. After all, it was Al Gore’s Inconvenient Piece of Crap that used a backwards rotating hurricane on it’s posters, promotional items and DVDs!!!

Anyway, just wanted to point out how funny it is that this “expert” (read: lying alarmist) Cullen brings up hurricane rotation, unaware (or dishonestly ignoring) that the Gore crew (who is on her side) couldn’t get it right before having the image printed MILLIONS of times all over the world.

(If this is new information to you, simply look up the movie on Amazon, then go out and search for satellite images of hurricanes. I challenge you to prove that the “Inconvenient” hurricane was rotating the right way).

UPDATE 3, Jan. 21: Cullen, in a hypocritical response for the ages, decries “A Very Political Climate.”

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.