Climate Expert Demands Credentials of Deniers

[PoliticalChic]

How about a trip down memory lane?

Here is Dr. Heidi Cullen, Weather Channel Climate Expert.

December 21, 2006

"I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. 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. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)

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. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. 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."
Junk Controversy Not Junk Science...

And did you see the part about hurricanes rotate clockwise?

How's this:
Not only did Al Gore photoshop a hurricane on the cover of his new book, but it's going the wrong way:

"In picture 3, just to the right of Florida is a typhoon (what they call hurricanes in the southern hemisphere). Hurricanes in the northern hemisphere, like all low pressure storms, rotate counterclockwise. The hurricane just off the coast of Florida is rotating clockwise. The laws of physics preclude this. The southern hemisphere typhoon was “photoshopped” into the picture east of Florida. First, it is spinning clockwise, and second notice how the pasting and blending of the picture distorted the image of Florida."
LinknZona: Al Gore’s Photoshop Work Violates Physical Laws

OK, OK, I admit to a bit of schadenfreude.

I'm a naughty girl.

 

[Oddball]

Fortunately, TWC dumped Heidi Cullen's skinny ass about a year ago.

Now, if they would also just dump the goofy series crap (i.e. When Weather Changed History) and just get back to guessing what the weather might do tomorrow.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So what is the point here? Some sort of knock against Dr. Cullen, who was perfectly correct in her statement, or yet another knock on Al Gore's lack of scientific know how?

At this point I think there are very few folks that would make the mistake of thinking Al Gore is a scientist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what is the point here? Some sort of knock against Dr. Cullen, who was perfectly correct in her statement, or yet another knock on Al Gore's lack of scientific know how?

At this point I think there are very few folks that would make the mistake of thinking Al Gore is a scientist.

"...Cullen, who was perfectly correct ..."

Do I understand that you agree with the attempt by Dr. Cullen that the correct response to disagreement as to the controversy is to remove credentials from those who don't toe the 'party line'?

 

[IanC]

Gore got all sorts of things wrong. It always baffled me as to why people believe CO2 was the driving force behind historical warming and cooling cycles when the evidence shows that the CO2 was being increased and decreased according to temperatures. the lag is temperature first, then carbon dioxide

 

[Big Fitz]

Fortunately, TWC dumped Heidi Cullen's skinny ass about a year ago.

Now, if they would also just dump the goofy series crap (i.e. When Weather Changed History) and just get back to guessing what the weather might do tomorrow.

I agree with what you say, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Big Black Dog]

You can't trust anybody anymore... Politicians, weathermen, police, members of the clergy, doctors, car salesmen and the list goes on and on. The only two people you can trust is me and my brother. To tell the truth, he's a little bit more honest than I am!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can't trust anybody anymore... Politicians, weathermen, police, members of the clergy, doctors, car salesmen and the list goes on and on. The only two people you can trust is me and my brother. To tell the truth, he's a little bit more honest than I am!

There seems to be a logical paradox there...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gore got all sorts of things wrong. It always baffled me as to why people believe CO2 was the driving force behind historical warming and cooling cycles when the evidence shows that the CO2 was being increased and decreased according to temperatures. the lag is temperature first, then carbon dioxide

Your post reminds of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."

Was a great book, and now I can't decide whether it should be called fact or fiction.

 

[Oddball]

You can't trust anybody anymore... Politicians, weathermen, police, members of the clergy, doctors, car salesmen and the list goes on and on. The only two people you can trust is me and my brother. To tell the truth, he's a little bit more honest than I am!

I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.

 

[Big Fitz]

Gore got all sorts of things wrong. It always baffled me as to why people believe CO2 was the driving force behind historical warming and cooling cycles when the evidence shows that the CO2 was being increased and decreased according to temperatures. the lag is temperature first, then carbon dioxide

Your post reminds of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."

Was a great book, and now I can't decide whether it should be called fact or fiction.

Did you hear that Crichton started to write the book as a PRO green novel, but as he did his research he discovered more and more what a fraud the whole thing was and how corrupt, false and dangerous these supporters were? That's what turned his whole view around and then he put out this book.

 

[Oddball]

Michael Crichton Speech - Environmentalism as Religion

 

[Toronado3800]

Crichton and Congressman Inhofe who oft quoted him misunderstood some data as to flowing ice if we are talking about the same book. In regards to that they are both wrong.

On a side note we can all agree increased solar activity will increase temperature more easily than increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Folks just don't have good climate models for either. We do know though one helps make heat, the other helps retain it.

I'm a stick in the mud conservative type fellow though who thinks "Why push our luck changing the atmosphere."

 

[Toronado3800]

Yup, same book. I stole part of a discover magazine article with this screen capture.

It is not an argument for or against the CO2/Greenhouse Gas issue. Just talking about how ice flows. Interestingly some Petroleum Company gave him a reward

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can't trust anybody anymore... Politicians, weathermen, police, members of the clergy, doctors, car salesmen and the list goes on and on. The only two people you can trust is me and my brother. To tell the truth, he's a little bit more honest than I am!

I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.

That's not what his brother said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fortunately, TWC dumped Heidi Cullen's skinny ass about a year ago.

Now, if they would also just dump the goofy series crap (i.e. When Weather Changed History) and just get back to guessing what the weather might do tomorrow.

Did you recall this:

"(News | Grist ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” (An excerpt from a new book by George Monbiot | Grist )

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist's advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase "global warming deniers" to describe scientists and others who don't share his view of the Earth's climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities,"
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


Now they will probably want trials for the East Anglia fakers!

I'll bet.

 

[Toronado3800]

lol, some people get pretty wound up if their point of view gets any criticism!

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Global Warming is a potentially big issue, just like eliminating lead paint, DDT, PCBs, and some of the other widely accepted faux pas of the past.

These environmental missteps lead folks who study the systems tend to be the most conservative. They have an eye on the future and would like to error conservatively on the side of caution instead of the side of industry.

Still, war crimes trials? I'll settle for conventional trials for any scientist essentially faking results after being hired by RJ Reynolds, British Petroleum, or found faking results thanks to stolen emails.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

...that the correct response to disagreement as to the controversy is to remove credentials from those who don't toe the 'party line'?

By the way, this deserves one more look as your choice of words "toe the party line" is especially interesting.

It seems that Conservatives are very much in favor of this approach. How many Conservatives have advocated tossing out politicians that do not "toe the party line" 100%. It wasn't very long ago that a GOP Purity test was a popular topic here at USMB. How is that any different than what Dr. Cullen is saying?

The bottom line is this: If you want credentials from a particular group, you are responsible for conforming with the guidelines of accreditation from that group. If you dislike that, find a new group to seek accreditation with.

My earlier post still stands. If you are a meteorologist, you have a responsibility to be up to date on the facts on global warming, regardless of opinion. You can disagree, but you have a responsibility to do so in a reasoned, fact based, manner if you want to claim the title of "Expert."

 

[code1211]

...that the correct response to disagreement as to the controversy is to remove credentials from those who don't toe the 'party line'?

By the way, this deserves one more look as your choice of words "toe the party line" is especially interesting.

It seems that Conservatives are very much in favor of this approach. How many Conservatives have advocated tossing out politicians that do not "toe the party line" 100%. It wasn't very long ago that a GOP Purity test was a popular topic here at USMB. How is that any different than what Dr. Cullen is saying?

The bottom line is this: If you want credentials from a particular group, you are responsible for conforming with the guidelines of accreditation from that group. If you dislike that, find a new group to seek accreditation with.

My earlier post still stands. If you are a meteorologist, you have a responsibility to be up to date on the facts on global warming, regardless of opinion. You can disagree, but you have a responsibility to do so in a reasoned, fact based, manner if you want to claim the title of "Expert."

To be clear on this, you are of the opinion that membership in a political party and memebership in a scientific society are governed by the same principles?

In my mind, membership in a political party implies that you share agreement with conclusions.

Also, in my mind, membership in a scientific society implies that you share agreement with a method.

One membership espouses the posession of the capital T Truth. The other membership espouses the pursuit of facts and the constant attempt to prove what is known and what is not.

If you are a proponent of the validity of AGW, then you are understandably confused as to the differences between the two.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

To be clear on this, you are of the opinion that membership in a political party and memebership in a scientific society are governed by the same principles?

More to the point that if you want to be associated with a group and have their "blessing", don't be surprised if you are asked to conform to their standards. If you are uncomfortable with their standards, seek a different affiliation.

I'm not a fan of AGW, as you'll see if you read my comments in other threads, but one thing Dr. Cullen is correct about is this: If you claim to be an expert on Meteorology, then you ought to be up to date on the Global Warming Debate.

I'm currently a member of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, two of the professional organizations of my profession. They do not have high certification requirements, but if they required, say, basic proficiency in the Intuitionalist vs. Axiomatic approaches, I'd be obliged to pay attention if I wanted to continue my affiliation with them. I'd still have a right to disagree with one side or the other, but it would be expected that my reasoning be on an informed, mathematical, basis.

Does that make sense?