Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[rhoenix]

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? ... 381DE894CD ]

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? ... F923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 381DE894CD

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 United Nations Inner Governmental 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? ... FA8DE4850D

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/ViewSpecialRepor ... 0414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/pres ... s/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? ... 4E3F6E0E2D

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? ... C84A49134A

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? ... Record_id=

Though the last part of this article seems intended to make one think "Aww, poor global warming critics!", the first parts of the article are more interesting. Apologies if this has been posted before - I didn't see it in the News or Science forums.

[rhoenix]

...Wow, reason to preview posts #4,637. If a passing mod feels generous, would you mind fixing the quote tags? Thank you.

[Superman]

It's a conspiracy by the evil left! I knew it!

[Major Maxillary]

GLOBAL WARMING IS CONING! IT'S GONNA GET US! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND IT'S OUR OWN FAULT FOR POLLUTING OUR FRAGILE MOTHER GAIA!


Yeah. Sure.


While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is a part of it. I think of anyone who says that global warming is going to result in the end of the world or some shit like Chicken little; An acorn falls on their head and suddenly THE SKY IS FALLING!

Weren't we headed for a catastrophic ice age way back in the fifties when there was a cooling trend for a while? And now that the planet's heating up it's catastrophic global warming?

Until I see undeniable proof that global warming will melt all the ice, flood the planet, and/or cause me to not like going outside on a summer day I'm going to continue to call all this for what it most likely is; environmental hysteria.

[The Spartan]

Would the permafrost melting constitute proof in your world?

[Superman]

While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is a part of it. I think of anyone who says that global warming is going to result in the end of the world or some shit like Chicken little; An acorn falls on their head and suddenly THE SKY IS FALLING!

How would any sane or rational person even be willing to risk the possibility that this is happening? I guess I just answered my own question...

Weren't we headed for a catastrophic ice age way back in the fifties when there was a cooling trend for a while? And now that the planet's heating up it's catastrophic global warming?

No idea what you're talking about. Do you have anything real to point out or do you just repeat what idiots say?

Until I see undeniable proof that global warming will melt all the ice, flood the planet, and/or cause me to not like going outside on a summer day I'm going to continue to call all this for what it most likely is; environmental hysteria.

The vast majority of the scientific community is at a consensus on this Where did you receive your doctorate again? What research have you done?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

GLOBAL WARMING IS CONING! IT'S GONNA GET US! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND IT'S OUR OWN FAULT FOR POLLUTING OUR FRAGILE MOTHER GAIA!


Yeah. Sure.

This is no longer seriously in dispute. Except by oil company shills. All the signs point to a rapid warmup whose timing and degree just happens to coincide neatly with the timing and degree global industrialization.

While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is a part of it. I think of anyone who says that global warming is going to result in the end of the world or some shit like Chicken little; An acorn falls on their head and suddenly THE SKY IS FALLING!

Right now, permafrost in the far north is melting. Glaciers and snowcaps all over the world are in nearly universal drastic retreat. The formation of arctic sea ice occurs later each year, and the break-up of the ice occurs sooner in the following year. Glaciers and sea ice around Greenland are retreating so fast that Greenland is becoming a cartographer's nightmare . . . new islands keep being revealed by retreating ice. In fact, we seem to be on-target for a one or two foot rise in sea level over the course of the century, due to the accelerating ice-loss (all that water has to go somewhere, after all.) A two-foot rise in sea-level would be more than modestly inconvenient to quite a few costal areas, and nothing short of a total disaster to places like Bangladesh. Furthermore, climate modeling, taking human emissions into account consistently indicate drastic shifts in global climate by the end of the century, and refinement to the models with new data and better understanding aren't making them come out any better. Even relatively conservative estimates of the future impact of global warming call for Greenland losing most of its ice . . . resulting in a multiple foot rise in sea-level.

Weren't we headed for a catastrophic ice age way back in the fifties when there was a cooling trend for a while? And now that the planet's heating up it's catastrophic global warming?

We understand more about meteorology and climatology now than we did back then. Science hasn't exactly been standing still since the fifties. We can point to signs around the planet and say that there is a significant degree of warming going on.

[Major Maxillary]

While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is a part of it.

Whoops, typo of the year right there. Left out one very small and critical word.

While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is not a part of it.

Fixed.

[Beowulf]

Shut up your opponents by ruining their careers! Brilliant!

[Admiral Valdemar]

Shut up your opponents by ruining their careers! Brilliant!

That's pretty much how it works in many fields other than science.

"Holy shit, that group of doctors just struck off that physician because he dared feel up the women. How wrong is that?"

Only this is about the world getting fucked, not some poor girl.

[Rye]

That makes me wonder, if the scientific mainstream had a consensus on a really important, world-changing issue, but a load of people were hired to spread disinformation by those that stood to gain from the public ignoring the science community and making changes based on that information, what would be the right thing to do from a scientist's point of view? Seriously, if you had scientists being paid in an organised manner to get the public to ignore the scientific mainstream in favour of misinformation and misplaced optimism, should you just leave them be and hope that things change for the better because hopefully the people in power will examine the situation according to the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion?

Scary situation. Perhaps discrediting would be better.

[Elfdart]

I think if someone trades on his or her expertise (i.e. their certification, law license, whatever) and uses those credentials in a truly dishonest manner, then they should be decertified if possible. The reason lawyers have such a bad reputation is because the various bars, boards of judicial conduct etc refuse to disbar shyster lawyers. Meteorology is a science, like physics, biology and chemistry. So if some bullshit artist goes around saying "As a meteorologist, I can tell you for a fact that tornadoes are caused by the flatulence of insects and the whole 'changes in air pressure' is just librul nonsense.", that huckster should be decertified unless it was some kind of joke.

"Scientists" who claim evolution is fake and "historians" who claim the Nazi Holocaust never happened are good examples of charlatans who should have their credentials revoked.

[Covenant]

Yeah, I really don't want Ecologists, Meteorologists and Evironmentalists churned out of a place like Liberty University going up and saying "Me and my degree say that Global Warming is bollock! Surely, the left wing conspiracy of the intellectual effete are just hiding their heads in the sand and scaremongering to get more grant money!" It's a wonder some places can even get accreditation. And if there's climate proof that this stuff is real, and someone whose job it is to look at climate data and draw conclusions can't see it, then he's obviously not very qualified to make other kinds of decisions relating to climate information analysis.

[rhoenix]

Personally, I think this is a step in the right direction. My opinion is that this would encourage people to back up their claims more often. If you use your credentials to peddle bullshit, then you deserve to have the credentials you're abusing taken away.

Also, thank you to whomever fixed the quote tags in the OP.

[Rye]

GLOBAL WARMING IS CONING! IT'S GONNA GET US! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND IT'S OUR OWN FAULT FOR POLLUTING OUR FRAGILE MOTHER GAIA!


Yeah. Sure.

While I don't doubt that the planet is heating up, and while I also don't claim that pollution is a part of it. I think of anyone who says that global warming is going to result in the end of the world or some shit like Chicken little; An acorn falls on their head and suddenly THE SKY IS FALLING!

While the absolute end of the world/extinction of humanity is unlikely, you would have to be absolutely fucking retarded to not think fucked up extreme weather is not going to have very serious consequences. For instance the year before last, a whole british town got swept away when so much rain fell in a short space of time that the river burst its banks and cut a new route, right through the centre of the village. Then there was NO being sunk, the Sahara expanding, the rainforest being cut down and floods going unchecked, the Gobi expanding, and the potential for norther europe's weather to all change due to the increased amount of ice in the north atlantic.

Weren't we headed for a catastrophic ice age way back in the fifties when there was a cooling trend for a while? And now that the planet's heating up it's catastrophic global warming?

Yeah, it's a good job science never updates or gets more accurate.

Until I see undeniable proof that global warming will melt all the ice, flood the planet, and/or cause me to not like going outside on a summer day I'm going to continue to call all this for what it most likely is; environmental hysteria.

Yes, because America is the only nation that weather affects, I like your take on this.

[Bounty]

That makes me wonder, if the scientific mainstream had a consensus on a really important, world-changing issue, but a load of people were hired to spread disinformation by those that stood to gain from the public ignoring the science community and making changes based on that information, what would be the right thing to do from a scientist's point of view?

If what your opponent says is false, you publish a rebuttal to his work and break down his points. You make sure his flawed theories don't make it through peer review, which shouldn't be hard. You publicly discredit him, distill your argument into bite-sized chunks that Joe Q. Average can understand and try to sway public opinion.

But you do not, under any circumstance, try to silence your opponent by decertifying him. Even if you ignore the massive ethical issue and the potential slippery slope, a decertification will do nothing except turn your opponent into a martyr for the cause and fule the resentment by some people towards the "scientific elite" even more. It's possibly the single most stupid thing you can do from a PR perspective.

It also sets a godawful precedent. What if you are the one with the non-mainstream, but correct, theory - and your peers decertify you for it?

[Beowulf]

Shut up your opponents by ruining their careers! Brilliant!

That's pretty much how it works in many fields other than science.

"Holy shit, that group of doctors just struck off that physician because he dared feel up the women. How wrong is that?"

Only this is about the world getting fucked, not some poor girl.

"The Earth doesn't go around the sun, you heretic!"

[Rye]

That makes me wonder, if the scientific mainstream had a consensus on a really important, world-changing issue, but a load of people were hired to spread disinformation by those that stood to gain from the public ignoring the science community and making changes based on that information, what would be the right thing to do from a scientist's point of view?

If what your opponent says is false, you publish a rebuttal to his work and break down his points. You make sure his flawed theories don't make it through peer review, which shouldn't be hard. You publicly discredit him, distill your argument into bite-sized chunks that Joe Q. Average can understand and try to sway public opinion.

But you do not, under any circumstance, try to silence your opponent by decertifying him. Even if you ignore the massive ethical issue and the potential slippery slope, a decertification will do nothing except turn your opponent into a martyr for the cause and fule the resentment by some people towards the "scientific elite" even more. It's possibly the single most stupid thing you can do from a PR perspective.

It also sets a godawful precedent. What if you are the one with the non-mainstream, but correct, theory - and your peers decertify you for it?

I was assuming that peer review etc was in place, as it is with creationists, and they just have enough money to appeal straight to the public and ignore science at large and go on misinforming people through monetary and political power. What the hell do you do then? Surely "looking bad" is the last of your worries.

[Bounty]

I was assuming that peer review etc was in place, as it is with creationists, and they just have enough money to appeal straight to the public and ignore science at large and go on misinforming people through monetary and political power. What the hell do you do then? Surely "looking bad" is the last of your worries.

If they're already bypassing peer review, decertifying won't do shit, now would it? It can only hurt the scientific community.

And what do you do? Well, Gore had the right idea when he made a movie out of it. You've already got the message, now it's a matter of delivering it in a way that the general public will take notice. Use the opposition's dirty tricks against them - play the media, point out where the other side's funding comes from, portray warming-deniers as fatcats who will let the common man suffer to spare their bottom line (which, conveniently, is true). I'm sure people will listen once it's pointed out to them - preferably with pictures and cool sound bites - that we're fighting a "war against global warming" and the only way we're going to win it is to "hit the corporate fatcats where it hurts". Point out how much money you can save when you're eco-conscious, how global warming will hurt small farmers, show dramatic footage of floods. If tricks like this work for the opposition it'll work for you, too.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

That makes me wonder, if the scientific mainstream had a consensus on a really important, world-changing issue, but a load of people were hired to spread disinformation by those that stood to gain from the public ignoring the science community and making changes based on that information, what would be the right thing to do from a scientist's point of view?

If what your opponent says is false, you publish a rebuttal to his work and break down his points. You make sure his flawed theories don't make it through peer review, which shouldn't be hard. You publicly discredit him, distill your argument into bite-sized chunks that Joe Q. Average can understand and try to sway public opinion.

But you do not, under any circumstance, try to silence your opponent by decertifying him. Even if you ignore the massive ethical issue and the potential slippery slope, a decertification will do nothing except turn your opponent into a martyr for the cause and fule the resentment by some people towards the "scientific elite" even more. It's possibly the single most stupid thing you can do from a PR perspective.

It also sets a godawful precedent. What if you are the one with the non-mainstream, but correct, theory - and your peers decertify you for it?

The problem is, the AMS Seal of Approval isn't a certification required by a TV meteorologist to do his or her job. It's mainly a voluntary attaboy that meteorologists and TV stations can apply for. It merely says that the meteorologists who apply for, and are granted the AMS Seal of Approval:

exhibit scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather forecasts.

It applies soley to broadcast meteorologists, since they're the public representatives of their profession, and of the AMS. Part of the requirements for being awarded the seal is a demonstration of technical competence and that a broadcast meteorologist say things that are scientifically and technically valid.

For that matter, the AMS has a distinct stand on human influence on climate change: (In a draft statement found here (pdf warning!)

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.

Which is to say, the AMS itself generally agrees with the climatologists. Nobody is suggesting stripping broadcast meteorologists of their credentials as meteorologists, and that's certainly not the impression I get from reading the blog in question. A broadcast meteorologist doesn't need the AMS Seal of Approval to be a broadcast meteorologist, or a meteorologist in general. It is, however, a tacit statement of approval of what the meteorologist in question is telling the public what meteorologists or climatologists have to say regarding X issue.

[Bounty]

It applies soley to broadcast meteorologists, since they're the public representatives of their profession, and of the AMS. Part of the requirements for being awarded the seal is a demonstration of technical competence and that a broadcast meteorologist say things that are scientifically and technically valid.

Well, that makes the proposal a bit more digestible, but I still think that it's a bad move. The public will simply see a trusted scientist lose his seal of approval for daring to have a controversial opinion.

[Fire Fly]

It applies soley to broadcast meteorologists, since they're the public representatives of their profession, and of the AMS. Part of the requirements for being awarded the seal is a demonstration of technical competence and that a broadcast meteorologist say things that are scientifically and technically valid.

Well, that makes the proposal a bit more digestible, but I still think that it's a bad move. The public will simply see a trusted scientist lose his seal of approval for daring to have a controversial opinion.

First of all, meteorologists aren't exactly scientists since they don't perform research. Second of all, public figures who are supposed to be the link between scientific academia and the public and who ramble against established scientific consensus most certainly deserve their certification removed, especially if these public figures don't perform some sort of research of their own to back up their position. That's not to say, though, that there should be no conversation on the exact cause of global warming but if you're going to talk about it, you better at least have a PhD and have written a few dozen scholarly papers.