<< “PROBLEM OF CHRONOLOGY” ~ MAIN ~ WESTERN MEDIA AHEAD OF CURVE >>
DISSENT FEARED
Weather Channel climatologist Heidi Cullen responds to blogger criticism:
I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.
Let’s see what Cullen originally wrote:
If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming ...
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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.
She doesn’t want to stifle discussion; she merely wants to remove legitimacy from those she disagrees with. Speaking of disagreement:
The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
Perhaps Gore happened upon Lomborg’s 2002 interview with Peter Garrett. As Phil Boas of the Arizona Republic writes:
If you’re wondering if there’s anything that frightens climate scaremongers more than falling ice shelves and flooding seaboards, there is.
Dissent.
UPDATE. Chris Muir:
What if Algore had won the election instead of George W….
In the cabinet room:
Al: “Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea are not the problem. Those guys might nuke us, but China and India are going to kill lots of polar bears if they keep building coal fired power plants and wanting to drive cars and have air conditioners. They’re wrecking the place for the rest of us.
“We nuke the gooks tonight. We have to eliminate them to save the planet.
“Everyone to the shelters please”.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 01 20 at 08:13 AM • permalinkFrom the Garrett-Lomborg interview link:
Garrett: “In short, all problems are solvable, just have faith. Just stop the world spending money on defence, for example, and you won’t have to worry about deciding whether to spend money on global warming or on providing clean water and sanitation to the Third World.”
Yup, that’ll be because we ARE the third world.
Commentator from this site, ‘Diggs’ says it all:
I know many fundamentalist Christians and not a one would be upset to hear a Park Ranger talk about the Grand Canyon being carved over millenia.
I also know a few Lefties who would be really upset and ready to sue should any Park Ranger question the normal globalwarmongering “science” that has become the dogma of the Left.So true, test it one day.
Wow. Read the comments at Cullen’s “response” site!
Almost 1,200, and 95% against Cullen’s fervent embrace of warmening nazi-hood.
I really think we are seeing a turning point, or a “tipping” point as the alarmists like to say.
I suspect that a lot more people are actually thinking about the junk science of global warming - compared with a couple of years ago, when the “deniers” were like a voice in the wilderness.
I think the change has come about as a reaction to the efforts of the global warmeners themselves - they have become so smugly strident, each attempting to paint a more catastrophic and temporally closer disaster than their peers - that the “scare” factor has lead to increased scepticism.
Coupled with the Everyman’s Research Tool (Google), the enviro-Nazi’s lies, distortions, and misinformation can easily be seen by the average punter, who may care enough to research the issue.
Slowly, but surely, rational thought is winning, I think. The quasi-religious “feel good” AGW movement will be seen by history as the mass hysteria of the early 21st century.
God knows, we’ve got a lot more to be concerned about than this piffle.
And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.
As a global warming skeptic, I agree 100%. However, as she is cashing paychecks to promote man-made global warming theories, I suspect her view of what constitutes junk differs from mine.
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.
I would point out that what meteorologists do (predict the weather over the next week or so) is fundamentally different from the science of long-term climate dynamics. I don’t think “meteorologists” have any more expertise on long-term climate dynamics than a chef has on biochemistry.
Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter.
Too rich. Gore’s agent assumed “a reporter” wouldn’t understand the subject matter, and would be too easily cowed by Gore’s eminence to question his statements.
Sounds more like a book tour than a public-education campaign. The sort of thing celebrities do, not anyone serious about a cause.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 01 20 at 08:59 AM • permalinkConsidering how irresponsible she has been about helping her “audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy” maybe the AMS should take away Cullen’s “seal of approval.”
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 01 20 at 09:25 AM • permalinkI’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the
scienceReligion of Global Warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confusescienceReligion and politics. Freedom ofscientificReligious expression is essential.That’s better.
Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.
Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm’s way. Whether it’s a landfalling hurricane or global warming.
1. The question still stands.
2. Your next accurate landfall prediction will be your first.
If the Gore-Lomborg interview had already been set up, then the editor was put in a difficult position by Gore’s agent.
The agent no doubt suspected that the embarrassed editor had offered Lomborg a consolation prize - the opportunity to submit questions. Since they would be questions that a junk-science alarmist can’t answer, Gore panicked and withdrew.
I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.
But who is to decide what is science and what is politics? That’s the whole point of freedom of expression. Allow all parties to express their beliefs and allow the people to decide what is science and what is politics. Not a leftwing meteorologist.
My outrage over this is that it is yet one more example of how news has become a partisan arena of advocacy, not an objective teller of facts. Worse still, they cloth their advocacy in the guise of fact telling. This is fraud and a betrayal of the people’s trust in the MSM.
If the left wants to preach its gospel, Current Affairs style shows are the way to do it. Not the nightly news, not the weather channel, and not the newspapers and magazines (except for the oped page).
(Tim, one suggestion. You should place apostrophes around her first quote or italisize it. This is not criticism. Please don’t call Karl.)
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 20 at 10:13 AM • permalinkDr. Cullen and her fellow global goreming zealots don’t think of it as “dissent”; they think of it as “heresy”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 20 at 11:06 AM • permalink“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.”
There is also convincing evidence that whatever is happening to the climate, it is affected more by solar activity than by human activity. By failing to mention the lack of consensus, Ms. Cullen reveals her own inclination.
Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm’s way. Whether it’s a landfalling hurricane or global warming.
Since, in Ms. Cullen’s view, global warming is as unquestionable a “fact” as landfalling hurricanes. In other words, she’s a true believer.
As for al-Bore, he’s just a shameless shill out for the fast buck.
Heidi on a hill was a lonely blowhard
lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
Loud was the voice of the lonely blowhard,
lay odl lay odl loo
Folks in towns that are quite remote heard
Lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
Lusty and clear from the blowhard’s throat heard
Lay odl lay odl loo…Ho ho lady odlee ho, ho ho lady odl lay
Ho ho lady odl lee ho, lady odl lee ho lay“We’re out to sea, cos’ it’s getting warmer”
Lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
Men on a road with a load to tote heard
Lay odl lay odl loo
Men in the midst of a table d’hote heard
Lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
Men drinking beer with a foam afloat heard
Lady odl lay odl loo…Ho ho, lady odlee ho, ho ho lady odl lay
Ho ho lady odl lee ho, lady odl lee ho layA weatherman in a pale dustcoat heard
Lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
He yodelled back to the lonely blowhard
lay odl lay odl loo
“There is no evidence that we’ve heard”
Lay odl lay odl lay hee hoo
What a duel for a man and blowhard, lay odl aly odl looHm hm hm hmm, odl lay hee, odl lay hee hee, odl lay hee
Ho ho, lady odlee ho, ho ho lady odl lay
Ho ho lady odl lee ho, lady odl lee ho laySnappy are they lady ho lady lee ho, ho lady ho lady lady ho
Soon the duel became a treason, lady odl lay odl looOdl lay hee….odl lay hee…odl lay hee hee
Odl lay hee odl lay hee odl lay, hoo!That’s right, Gore was only looking for a MSM mouthpiece to evangelize for him. Gore didn’t want to face someone apprised of the facts. What a coward. Thank God he never made it off the porch into the White House.
Posted by Son of a Pig and a Monkey on 2007 01 20 at 12:47 PM • permalinkNeil Cavuto had on his program a meteorologist named Larry Cosgrove and a nasty, condescending twit from Greenpeace to talk about Cullen’s statement. The Greenpeace twit agreed with her, and repeatedly said that the meteorologist should not be allowed to express skepticism of global warming on a news program. You had to see it for the full flavor, but here’s an excerpt:
Passacantando: I don’t think your debate is being stifled, you’re actually quite vocal right now. I’m just saying that you’re wrong and nobody should have you on a news program misrepresenting science.Cavuto: John, John you’re saying he’s wrong simply because he disagrees with you and you know there are others in the scientific community who also respectfully disagree with you and Al Gore on this subject right?. That doesn’t mean you… look, you know, we might disagree with you. You’re here. You’re making some very credible points but the fact of the matter is you’re here. We’re not shutting you out, I’m not shutting you out on this show. So you’re essentially saying because he might disagree with you that you would shut him out. Is that fair?
Passacantando: I’m not saying to shut them out [yes, he was]. I’m saying the public should know that this debate has to be grounded in peer reviewed science.
Cavuto: What is your educational background?
Passacantando: I’m trained as an economist, but…
Cavuto: Wait, wait…
Cosgrove: There you go.
Cavuto: Trained as an economist. This guy is licensed in this stuff. You’re an economist. God bless you. If I want to check on the growth of the money supply you’re the guy I’m going to call. If I want to know what’s happening with the climate, he’s the guy that I call.
Passacantando: We’re talking about the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not if you should carry an umbrella…
Cosgrove: John get back on topic here. It’s more than that. It’s more than that John, it’s more than that. We’re a bridge to public, the meteorology community….
Passacantando: …or if you need sunscreen….
Cavuto: I wish we had more time, but we don’t.
Passacantando: Then be accurate Larry, be accurate or get off the program.
Cavuto: I think that’s a little gratuitous and a little childish. All right. But I want to thank you both.
Weatherman is coming to mean the same thing it meant in the 60’s…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 20 at 01:48 PM • permalinkHow about “The Bug Dissents”
(via NRO)
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 01 20 at 02:00 PM • permalinkAt university I like to take politics classes and argue with the lefties and nothing irritated me more than when global warming came up and my questions were refuted with a snooty, “Well how many climatology classes have you taken?”
The sheer arrogance of people who demand me change every aspect of our lives but refuse to answer questions about it is staggering. Nothing must scare them more than an expert who knows as much about the topic as they do, and refuses to believe it.
Speaking of which - if global warming were true, would there be any dissent within the scientific community?
Thousands of years ago, the Gores and the Cullens would have been blaming mankind’s discovery of fire as the cause of global warming, citing the end of the Ice Age as evidence. The world gets hotter, the world gets colder and has done so for millions of years.
The problem for 21st century man is today’s scientists no longer kick around, living on a stipend, looking at whatever takes their fancy. Now they have win grants to make a living and to win grants, they need to find problems to solve. Global warming keeps thousands of scientists in grant money. They are not about to kill the goose laying those golden eggs by admitting that there is nothing they or anyone else can do about it.
The one thing the global womenizers do IS confuse science and polticis
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 20 at 09:35 PM • permalinkHey folks here’s the story ‘bout Heidi the smoocher
She was a global warmin’ hoocher
She was the roughest toughest gal
And Heidi had a sting in her tailHeidi Heidi Heidi hi (Heidi Heidi Heidi hi)
Hodehodehodeho (hodehodehodeho)
Hedehedehedehe (hedehedehedehe)
Heidi Heidi Heidi ho (Heidi Heidi Heidi ho)
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Dissent, and the monsters beneath their beds that’ll grab them if they get up during the night.
Explains the rubber sheets.