Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming
Skeptics

January 17, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762
marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
(8:50pm ET)

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. Clearly,
the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather
patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel
Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at
the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] See:
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence
skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the
annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio
Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"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," Cullen added.
[Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise.
Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by
prominent scientists see:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
] Cullen's call for
decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming
assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and
environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of
manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent,
compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice
President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to
skeptics as "global warming deniers." See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8
&
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD


Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics
In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV
show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for
climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an
eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to
institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express
skepticism about global warming. See:
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
Cullen's call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many
skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been
silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant
money. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also
steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and
reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC's summary for
policymakers. See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood
global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has
routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200504%5CSPE20050414a.html
&
http://press.weather.com/index.php/press_releases/109.html The Weather
Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of
weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow
and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have
-- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen's
call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics
and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the
"Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their
livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the
last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them
to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is
being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see:
http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert
Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls
for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate
alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to
resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to
repeat their every assertion without question. See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with
numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and
the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There
was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's
Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have
massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming
skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the
Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same
year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise
Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the
media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same
media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to
climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen
received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid
partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to
resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the
alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their
proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their
shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a
"climate emergency?" See
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is
reportedly downgrading man's impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes
that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars.
See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRec
ord_id=8EA35336-7E9C-9AF9-7025-4B6CD20B983A


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml