Dr. Heidi Cullum, of "The Weather Channel," recommends AMS decertification of broadcast meteorologists who do not agree that Global Warming is a manmade phenomenon (or that we are, in large part, to blame).
James Spann, an ABC-TV broadcast meteorologist from Alabama, disagrees, saying that in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in GW.
TWC, for its part, is supporting Dr. Cullum and has not backed off her suggestion to strip dissenters of their credentials.
Is this a political fight?
Are "Global Warming Doomsayers" receiving huge grants to hype this story, as Mr. Spann suggests? (The same as has been suggested in relation to Exxon/Mobil, but for "the other side")
Does this increase/decrease your opinion of TWC?
Does this change your mind at all?
Discuss:
IP: Logged
09:00 AM
PFF
System Bot
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
Apparently the right is no longer in lock step denial of mans role in accelerating the warming process. Evangelicals are beginning to take mans stewardship of planet earth to heart:: [QUOTE] Slumbering giant awakens on global warming
Alan Farago | Special to the Sentinel Posted January 20, 2007
On global warming, the American public is slowly rising to attention. Congress and the White House cannot be far behind.
The occasion for optimism is a first-of-its-kind collaboration between evangelical and scientific leaders who met in December to find common ground in the greatest threat to humanity: global warming and climate change.
These are no longer unlikely allies. On Wednesday, the nation's leading scientists and evangelicals joined in Washington, D.C., to urge action to reverse rapidly escalating environmental problems, including global warming and species extinction....[SNIP] "We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen throughout the natural world, including a cascading set of problems such as climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinctions, as well as the spread of human infectious diseases, and other accelerating threats to the health of people and the well-being of societies.
Each particular problem could be enumerated, but here it is enough to say that we are gradually destroying the sustaining community of life on which all living things on Earth depend. The costs of this destruction are already manifesting themselves around the world in profound and painful ways. The cost to humanity is already significant and may soon become incalculable. Being irreversible, many of these changes would affect all generations to come." [QUOTE] Interesting, isn't it? Heads are being removed from the sand all over the place. Sources (among others): http://www.orlandosentinel....rl-opinion-headlines AND http://www.washingtonpost.c.../A1491-2005Feb5.html
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-20-2007).]
"in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in Global Warming"
empirical observation aside, which in this case is completely discountable, i wonder when the tv weathermen found the time to do the exhaustive research that would lead them to their consensus - was it in between visits to the cosmetic dentist? was it during the lengthy stints in the tanning booth? or during the reflective moments spent in the makeup chair? i'm sure they squeezed in some heavy-duty report reading in there somwhere. tv weathermen. the last word in climatology. i am humbled.
it is a fight between science and the flat earthers line up is very close to the creation science fight with nuts and denighers fighting againts the facts there is no room for conned people in true science you eathor prove your points or shut up
while throwing people out is a extream act some standerds need to apply and crackpots removed who will not see reason and it is a sugestion at this point not a practice
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
"in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in Global Warming"
empirical observation aside, which in this case is completely discountable, i wonder when the tv weathermen found the time to do the exhaustive research that would lead them to their consensus - was it in between visits to the cosmetic dentist? was it during the lengthy stints in the tanning booth? or during the reflective moments spent in the makeup chair? i'm sure they squeezed in some heavy-duty report reading in there somwhere. tv weathermen. the last word in climatology. i am humbled.
LOL
IP: Logged
11:05 AM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
This one is interesting, because, in the realm of Judeo-Christianity, the tone is correct. We are responsible for how we treat the gifts that we have been given, and the Earth and its ability to sustain us, is one of the greatest (after Salvation).
For my part, my family of six now uses half the water that we did when we were a new family of five. But I still don't like how those compact flourescent lamps look.
TW, what is your occupation? How does it allow you deep reflection on the subject? How does Dr. Callum's research (Her degree is in Near Eastern Religions) differ from Mr. Spann's? Are [i]you[\i] more qualified than Mr. Spann?
ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side? Or are they not extremists becasue they agree with your particular dogma?
Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?
Is one active volcano a far greater contributor of greenhouse gasses than we ever have been since we discovered fire?
IP: Logged
12:03 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20656 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
1) Ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side?
2) Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?
?
1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health." In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion. Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.
2) There are so many cows, because you, me and our families eat so many cheesburgers. So, yes, it IS our own by product..
------------------ "What I'm tryin' to say Is, don't they pray To the same God That we do? Tell me How does God choose? Whose prayers does he refuse?" -Tom Waits
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-20-2007).]
IP: Logged
12:55 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health." In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion. Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.
So, the people in the government who's job it is to create, legislate, litigate and enforce environmental regulations, have no agenda when giving out grants regarding climate issues.... If only we'd listened to the government and driven 55mph. All this misery would never have materialized.
ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side? Or are they not extremists becasue they agree with your particular dogma?
Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?
Is one active volcano a far greater contributor of greenhouse gasses than we ever have been since we discovered fire?
cow gas release [methane] doesNOT last as long in the air as CO2 what is released today from a cow is gone in ten years vs more the 500 years for CO2 volcanos cause cooling by the dust lessening the total effect of other gases released and NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT VOLCANOS WITH CURRENT TECK ANYWAY
WHAT IS THE PRAYER/SAYING GRANT ME THE POWER TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE
if that is applyed CO2 is the thing eazyest to change and other stuff the sun, volcanos, ect goes into the beyond our current powers group why is that so hard to understand? doing what can be done NOW before it is too late is the eazy answer costs will only go up the longer the wait and see people control the crises by inaction
worst case if the global warming people are wrong what is the cost vs floods and famine and resulting loses if we wait too long to act?
saving of pennies today vs lost dollars and lives tomorrow does not seem wise
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
So, the people in the government who's job it is to create, legislate, litigate and enforce environmental regulations, have no agenda when giving out grants regarding climate issues.... If only we'd listened to the government and driven 55mph. All this misery would never have materialized.
well if we still had 7+ liter 2 ton 10 mpg cars the arabs would be far richer and have a tighter grip on our lives
the neo-conned have controled spending and environmental regulations from 1994 to date without real changes in the basic laws that were created under nixon rule
I would like speed limits based on mpg limit suv's and other gas hogs to lower speeds and let econo boxes go as fast as they can!!!!!
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
02:00 PM
PFF
System Bot
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
If you think that doesn't happen with government grant money YOU are the one with your head in the sand.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:
1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health." In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion. Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.
IP: Logged
08:45 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
If you think that doesn't happen with government grant money YOU are the one with your head in the sand.
John Stricker
Well I do happen to know a couple of research scientists. Its a big thing, here y'know. But heaven forbid pure science should stand in the way of firmly held, preconceived notions. There's no sand in MY ears, pal. Nice to have you back, John. This argument comes up every couple of weeks here on the old forum. I doubt that anyone has changed their stand based on what they've read here. It'll be interesting to see if you still believe mans contribution to global warming is all a fraud a year from now. With the church people behind Kyoto - like ideas, will you still ignore the issue?
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-21-2007).]
TW, what is your occupation? How does it allow you deep reflection on the subject? How does Dr. Callum's research (Her degree is in Near Eastern Religions) differ from Mr. Spann's? Are you more qualified than Mr. Spann?
interesting bait and switch. ask for opinion, only to reject opinion when it dosn't agree with your own... on grounds which, if they were to be taken seriously, would moot the entire discussion, since no one here, let alone yourself, is an expert.
ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame?
when a single scientist actually receives $400 million in personal compensation for his or her work on climate change, i might give this suggestion some credence.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]
IP: Logged
11:01 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
since no one here, let alone yourself, is an expert.
Which does not invalidate the opinions the poster asked to be expressed. Let's face facts, the Global Warming issue is mroe about politics than it is about saving the planet. NO ONE disagrees with the idea of reducing pollution. Bush has in fact signed dozens of bills limiting the production of pollutants from a host of manufacturing and other industires. That is not the point. The arguement began like ALL scientif arguements do with one group interpreting data one way and another group interpreting the data differently. Low and behold, the politicians get hold of it and you have a gloriously powerful mind control tool to ensure your party returns to power.
The DNC is falling out of favor with the American people due to it's extreme radical ideology of centralized government control of everything we do. In order to win votes the Democrats have been forced to take drastic action. In 2006 they took the drastic step of recruiting conservative candidates to run for Congress to ensure a chance of taking back control of the House and Senate. In addition they exploited GOP ineffectiveness in getting meaningful legislation passed on important issues like Immigration reform, etc. and barely won a majority. These conservative candidates however are ALL on the outside of the power structure with dangerous people like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and other convicted felons taking control of Congress. But they know it can't last. In order to HOLD onto power they need to terrify the American people and lead with fear. Instead of leading with optimism like Bush, who wishes to extend freedom through-out the world in order to improve the lives of all Americans by establishing peaceful and prosperous trading partners, the Democrats have taken the terror approach claiming the Mid East is a hell hole and our only chance for safety is to run and hide and lock down every port and terminal in America under military control and let the world go to hell because "we'll be safe here"...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, tell that to the 9/11 families. Since that plan is not working they have latched onto global warming claiming that only THEY have the solution to saving us all from, not the mid east bad guys, but OURSELVES! Yes, we are all lazy, overindulgent, consumaholics who can't control our impulse spending urges if our lives depended on it. And I can actually see why they think this since they all live in New York City and San Francisco where such people are attracted to move. The rest of the country however is the hardest working group of people in the world, efficient, and thrifty. They are called "conservatives" for a reason, they conserve. They waste nothing, they recycle, they til the soil and use it again and again, they have compost heaps, they make home made pies from apples they grow themselves, and they sort through their paper and plastic for collection day. How do I know? because I am "they". I can't help but find it terribly ironic that the liberal narcisists who tell us we are all going to hell globally for our consuming habits are teh worst consumers of all, Babs and her 6 mansions, Michael Moore and his hat...and Park Avenue Penthouse, yes it is all so inspiring to see these pillars of virtue telling me that I consume too much after squeezing my glass of OJ from my own oranges off my own orange tree that I water with well water. Yep, I'm really convinced.
The tragedy is that Golbal Warming IS an interesting phenomenon that I want to know the cause of and if the polticians will just shut the **** up so science can reveal the reality without the bias of agenda driven slobs like Al Gore, I may actually get to discover the truth. But as long as fools like Ray B and others run around with their foam fingers and blue numbered jerseys yelling "we're #1" and the rest of you are "flat earthers", I have little optimism about ever learning the truth.
Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming is really man made and the Al Gores of the world CAUSED us to fail to take action by politicizing the issue.
Originally posted by Euterpe: aha. so you actually agree with the point. very good.
If by that you are referencing the point that the discussion of global warming should be taken seriously by serious people with open minds then yes. I do agree with you.
Whcih leads one to question the value of your contribution with THIS close-minded remark....
quote
as for the rest of your inevitably irrelevant lecture...TL : DR.
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Regardless of one theory's validity over another, how is calling for the decertification of anyone that holds a contrary view fostering debate? In spite of what rayb(id), you, or anyone else might BELIEVE, there is still a lot of question on what's causing the warming of the last two DECADES, and that really is what it amounts to. That should be examined, analyzed, and viewed from many angles and not just from the angle that man is the cause of everything.
Calling for the decertification IS a call to silence contrary opinion, and you darn well know it.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
when a single scientist actually receives $400 million in personal compensation for his or her work on climate change, i might give this suggestion some credence.
Originally posted by Euterpe: aha. so you actually agree with the point. very good.
If by that you are referencing the point that the discussion of global warming should be taken seriously by serious people with open minds then yes. I do agree with you.
Whcih leads one to question the value of your contribution with THIS close-minded remark....
quote
as for the rest of your inevitably irrelevant lecture...TL : DR.
that's a real trope of yours... "open discussion", "free inquiry", "open minds"...
i've noticed that the people who most frequently trot out that little rhetorical gesture are the ones who are in fact themselvews the most hidebound ideologues, far more given to reinforcing their sense of their own authority, than actually... you know... discussing anything, let alone asking any questions or taking any input that doesn't fit that tiny little window in their head.
you're not the only conservative on this board, todd. you're just one of the two most reliably paranoid and arrogant. i've said elsewhere that i can get pretty much the same essential arguments that you might provide (when not spluttering off into the ozone) from many other people here, with far less of the chaff.
IP: Logged
11:59 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
i've noticed that the people who most frequently trot out that little rhetorical gesture are the ones who are in fact themselvews the most hidebound ideologues, far more given to reinforcing their sense of their own authority, than actually... you know... discussing anything, let alone asking any questions or taking any input that doesn't fit that tiny little window in their head.
If by this post you are trying to convince us that you have an open mind I can only say, work on it.
Regardless of one theory's validity over another, how is calling for the decertification of anyone that holds a contrary view fostering debate? In spite of what rayb(id), you, or anyone else might BELIEVE, there is still a lot of question on what's causing the warming of the last two DECADES, and that really is what it amounts to. That should be examined, analyzed, and viewed from many angles and not just from the angle that man is the cause of everything.
Calling for the decertification IS a call to silence contrary opinion, and you darn well know it.
John Stricker
now that's a different question than the one i was addressing.
if you haven't read it, here's the original post, about which marc morano went batshit.
actually, outside of the immediate context, i agree with the basic premise. there has been a lot of fake "controversy" about basic scientific process and findings (remember that ridiculous to-do about the age of the grand canyon? i mean, come on). i don't think that people who can't tell the difference between actual, informed inquiry (and disagreement) and the tossing back and forth of ideological buzzwords, should not be certified as scientific investigators or communicators.
however, in the context of the state of present-day argument, saying outright that "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," was just asking for it.
"silencing"? maybe. if that's how you want to see it, i won't quibble. personally, i think there's a lot of it about these days, and a lot of dishonesty to boot. and even though i am currently persuaded that global warming does have a significant anthropogenic component, i am also far more open to the substantive counter-arguments based on quantitative thinking and sound theory (some of which have even been provided to me by members of this forum), than i am to the useless flailing of someone like marc morano.
in short, i'm just not going to get all that exercised about it.
"silencing"? maybe. if that's how you want to see it, i won't quibble. personally, i think there's a lot of it about these days, and a lot of dishonesty to boot. and even though i am currently persuaded that global warming does have a significant anthropogenic component, i am also far more open to the substantive counter-arguments based on quantitative thinking and sound theory (some of which have even been provided to me by members of this forum), than i am to the useless flailing of someone like marc morano.
in short, i'm just not going to get all that exercised about it.
Your attitude surprises me.
Is Marc Morano flailing any more uselessly than Dr. Cullum? I don't see it.
I know you're an analytical thinker. You've also said in the past that while you feel the facts are leaning you towards the idea that man is a major cause of global warming you're still open to new data and could go the other way, given enough evidence. I have no problem with that idea. I'm pretty much in the same boat, just leaning the opposite direction of you. But let me ask you this.........
How are you going to get any evidence of any other theory if this type of behavior is accepted as normal? If people that have a contrary opinion are decertified in their field, where will the opinions come from?
I've been trying to find Dr. Cullum's education credentials and her experience, trying to figure out if she's even qualified to make such a recommendation, and that information is apparently a little hard to find. Having "Dr." in front of one's name hardly qualifies them to speak about things authoritatively if they haven't been trained in that field, particularly if her doctorate is in Near Easter Religions as PD stated in his post.
John Stricker
edited to add that I finally found a partial bio for her. The reason I couldn't find it is the original post mis-spelled her last name. She's listed as a "severe weather expert" and there is no mention of her phd in Near Eastern Religion, although there is mention here of a doctorate in climatology.
Dr. Heidi Cullen Climate Expert
Dr. Heidi Cullen has joined The Weather Channel as climate expert and will have the key responsibility of adding explanation, depth and perspective to climate stories.
Dr. Cullen most recently was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. She has done research in the U.S. Southwest and the Middle East, publishing on domestic and international climate topics.
As a post-doc, she received a NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship and spent two years working at the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction. She received a B.S. in Engineering/Operations Research from Columbia University in NYC and went on to receive a Ph.D. in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Her dissertation focused on trying to understand the impacts and dynamics of the North Atlantic Oscillation, an important climate influence.
Dr. Cullen joins a staff of experts at The Weather Channel who are each renowned in their own fields. Led by Senior Meteorologist and Director of Weather Communications Stu Ostro, the 'severe weather alley' at The Weather Channel includes: Dr. Steve Lyons, hurricane expert and Dr. Greg Forbes, tornado expert.
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 01-21-2007).]
IP: Logged
12:35 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Is Marc Morano flailing any more uselessly than Dr. Cullum? I don't see it.
considering his own resume, yes, i think so. but...
quote
How are you going to get any evidence of any other theory if this type of behavior is accepted as normal? If people that have a contrary opinion are decertified in their field, where will the opinions come from?
point taken, and agreed in principle.
as a meta-comment, by the way, i'd like to point out that this discussion, and many others we've had, is a good example of how an exchange between people with significantly opposed worldviews (in some areas), but actual commitment to discourse, usefully proceeds.
[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]
IP: Logged
12:50 PM
Jan 22nd, 2007
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I get enough of this sort of retort from ray b. Come on Euterpe, I expected more from someone who can spell venal. Just don't give yourself a papercut thumbing through that thesaurus.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-22-2007).]
IP: Logged
10:37 PM
Jan 23rd, 2007
Steve Normington Member
Posts: 7663 From: Mesa, AZ, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by Toddster: with dangerous people like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and other convicted felons taking control of Congress.
What felonies have Pelosi, Murtha, and Reid been convicted of? In fact, which current members of Congress (either party) are convicted felons?
quote
But they know it can't last. In order to HOLD onto power they need to terrify the American people and lead with fear. Instead of leading with optimism like Bush,
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You ought to take that routine on the road.
IP: Logged
10:56 AM
G-Nasty Member
Posts: 2099 From: woodlands,TX,USA Registered: Jan 2001
Dont listen to Terdster-that guy is an idiot. He may know R/E but thats it. Doesnt know up from down anymore since his president is a proven dirty POS.
Hey when the market crumbles in CA (you know it will). Go sell dogs on the side of the road asswipe. -See if you'll still be a Repug OUT>
