Weather "expert" calls for decertification of skeptics

[Jennifer123]

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

“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.]"
climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

"“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. "

 

[Lance]

Being “The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist” and $3.00 will get you a regular cup of coffee at Starbucks!

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Typicle of the left. Silence anyone who does not agree with them. In this case, liken the skeptics to “Nazis” and “Holocaust Deniers”.

This is repugnant and must not go unanswered. Does anyone have an eMail address for the Weather Channel? I went out to their “Contact Us” and they only let you comment on certain things.

I guess they do not like criticim.

 

[b_justb]

WanderAimlessly:

Does anyone have an eMail address for the Weather Channel?

Click this link. Then click on “Assistance Request Form.” You may use it to ask or comment as you like

If you don’t believe me, then I’ll demand your Question Asking and Comment Making Certification be revoked

 

[Jeffrey]

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650

 

[ribozyme]

I am curious if anyone here has evidence against anthropogenic global warming, but I will only watch this thread for a distance as politics brings out the sordid thoughts in most people.

 

[hoosiertoo]

I was going to start a new topic with this, but it fits nicely in this one. It really is a decent article and is well worth your time.

Reason article by Cathy Young of the Boston Globe

Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy studies at UCLA and a self-identified liberal, noted this recently on his blog…“To those who dislike a social system based on high and growing consumption and the economic activity that supports high and growing consumption and maintains high and growing demand, to those who think that the market needs more regulation by the state, to those who think that international institutions ought to be strengthened . . . global warming is a Gaia-send” – since it justifies drastic worldwide public action to curb production and consumption. While Kleiman sympathizes with environmentalists, he notes that “their eagerness to believe the worst” – for instance, in Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” – “is just as evident as the right wing’s denialism.”

… those on the left who embrace environmentalism as their substitute religion don’t want to hear about scientific and technological solutions to climate change – from nuclear power to geoengineering, the artificial manipulation of the global environment – that do not include stepping up regulation and curbing consumption.

Her conclusion?

Most journalists and pundits have limited knowledge of science…(and) an ideological crusade can be as strong an inducement to bend the truth as the profit motive.

There is a ways to go in the science; we have even further to go in deciding the best way to attack the problem - if indeed it can be solved by humans. I know the solutions I’ve seen so far have been less than satisfactory and the idea that I think shows the most promise is the one that is most ignored - for reasons of politics.

(That would the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Google it, or PM me with an e-mail address and I’ll send you a .pdf file of the ABARE report.)

Surely we can quit villifying the skeptics and instead address their concerns rationally. Many of their concerns are based on the political agenda of true believers as much as - or more than - the science itself. Contrary evidence as to causation is simply being shouted down and labeling the opposition seems to be a substitute for rational argument. We surely don’t need to brand skeptics or those who hold competing theories as heretics and shun them.

 

[b_justb]

I am curious if anyone here has evidence against anthropogenic global warming, but I will only watch this thread for a distance as politics brings out the sordid thoughts in most people.

There are theories both for and against, both arguments supported by studies. I am sure this debate will rage for at least another 6 minutes. But in the case of this thread and the OP, does a person on one side of the debate really need to villanize any opposing viewpoints by tossing in the Nazi trump card?

Maybe there is global warming maybe there is not. If there is, maybe it is caused by humans maybe not. Maybe it’s all cyclic and there is nothing to do about it save observe and record data for future prosperity. Or maybe it is any of many other ideas of those yet to be penned and disseminated for review by God and nature.

In any event, does Ms. Weather Channel do science any justice by her absolutist stance here? I don’t think the she does.

Truth is truth; no matter what anyone thinks of it. If it is true that humans are in fact causing global warming and it is detrimental to the planet, then no matter what anyone thinks of that truth does not alter it as a truth. Forcing anyone to accept truth never seems to work well.

Politics are a field on all sides of this debate so it seems to me, b_the non-science guy.

 

[Jennifer123]

But in the case of this thread and the OP, does a person on one side of the debate really need to villanize any opposing viewpoints by tossing in the Nazi trump card?

Just for the record, as the OP, I did not call anyone a “Nazi”.
I purposely put quotes around the text I cited, I did start the thread, but I’m not sure how that implicates me into calling anyone names.
Let it be known though the original article mentioned the fact that the global warming skeptics were called names first, FYI.

 

[hoosiertoo]

Just for the record, as the OP, I did not call anyone a “Nazi”.

I didn’t read the thread that way at all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I loved this part:

“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.]

And this is the meteorogist who wants to strip other meteorogists of their certification.

 

[Jeffrey]

Saturday, January 20, 2007 BOB CARLTON
News staff writer

James Spann is used to covering storms.
Not being in the middle of one.

But the ABC 33/40 meteorologist finds himself at the center of the global-warming controversy after the Internet site The Drudge Report posted a link to comments Spann made on his weather blog Thursday night.

“Everything kind of exploded,” Spann said Friday. “Writing stuff like that is something I always do, but when Drudge links to it, it just brings the world to you all of a sudden.”
All that controversy is over a cyber-disagreement Spann has with a climate scientist from The Weather Channel.

al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1169288539262650.xml&coll=2

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Ohoh. He better watch out for the wrath of Dr. Cullen.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Looks like Dr. Cullen is trying to spin her way out of the mess she has gotten herself into. The latest from her blog:
A Very Political Climate
Just from the title, she is trying to make it look like everyone else is being political against here. I have responded to here last two blog entries. Neither have show up on her blog. However, there are many other replies that are eccoing my position.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am curious if anyone here has evidence against anthropogenic global warming, but I will only watch this thread for a distance as politics brings out the sordid thoughts in most people.

Actually there is tons of evidence against the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW).

For starters, visit:

www.sepp.org

and read the TWTW newsletter.

Please, above all, keep in mind that the arguments in favor of AGW are based on computer models that are of highly dubious validity.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am curious if anyone here has evidence against anthropogenic global warming, but I will only watch this thread for a distance as politics brings out the sordid thoughts in most people.

Here is a list that I edited down for brevity. It is merely a summary. I make no defense of any of these, but you suggested you would be curious if there is any evidence against AGW. My own Web site has some essay that I wrote on this subject, but I have been cautioned to not use them on this forum.

Each of these can explored more fully at the reader’s own pace. Almost all is explorable on the internet. Some refer to books which are available for cheap at www.Abebooks.com

The two most common arguments were:
• Climate has varied naturally long before humans ever arrived on the scene, so it seems likely that the present trends are simply a continuation of that.
• The prediction of global warming is just another instance of doomsaying, which has proved so wrong in the past.

Categories have some overlap among them.
I Warming may not actually be occurring. Most commentators seem to agree that the global average temperature is rising, but some did not. Their doubts hinge mostly on the reliability of temperature and CO2 reconstructions.

A 	This past winter was so cold. Where's the warming?
B 	The hockey-stick graph, which suggests the present warming trend is historically anomalous, is flawed. One commentator said it "has been proven false by many papers." Others worried that, at least, it downplays the natural variability in climate.
C 	The ice core data, one of the ways used to reconstruct past climate conditions, are dubious. They may not represent the global paleoclimate because they sample only a few locations; they appear to contradict the paleobotanic (leaf stomata) data; and they cannot be meaningfully compared with modern surface temperature readings, because they are distinct data sets.
D 	Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect. One commentator went further and complained that the Climatic Research Unit raw temperature data are "kept under wraps," so outside observers cannot verify that selection effects were properly accounted for.
E 	Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.
F 	Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.
   G.  Check out the work of Kahl who analyzed more than 20,000 readings by the Soviets and Americans around the North Pole regions.   No increase in temperature.

II 	The present warming could be a natural uptick. Commentators pointed out that climate conditions fluctuate because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal (chaotic) variability. Why do climate scientists attribute all pre-industrial fluctuations to such natural causes and all industrial-age ones to anthropogenic ones? One put it this way: "Every time I read that we have had 'the hottest summer in 100 years' I wonder what caused that hot summer 100 years ago."

A 	It could be a rebound from the Little Ice Age or indeed the last Pleistocene glaciation.
B 	It correlates nearly perfectly with solar output.
C 	It could be explained by variations in cloud cover, which alter how much sunlight the planet absorbs. The cloud cover could, in turn, be explained by variations in cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar magnetic cycles.
D 	It could be explained by decreases in Earth's magnetic field strength.
E 	It could be explained by natural methane sources, ranging from termites to the recently discovered aerobic processes in plants.
F 	It could be partly anthropogenic, but the natural variability is larger.  It is hubris to suggest that humanity could have such a large effect on the planet. "Many people seem to have a very exaggerated view of how significant we---and our activities---are," one wrote.
  G.   The CHANGES in solar cycle also match the changes in temperature.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Despite my editing, my previous post was too long, so I cut it and continued it.

Please keep in mind that this is merely a LIST of the arguments against the theory of (man-made) anthropogenic global warming.

Continuation:

III 	CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming. This is complementary to the previous item on natural causes ... a variety of hypotheses for why CO2 cannot cause warming.

A 	Negative feedbacks stabilize the climate system against the direct effect of added CO2. The Earth's ecosystem is far too robust to be affected by this minor change [in CO2 levels over the past century].
B 	If CO2 drove climate, changes in gas levels should be followed by changes in temperature. Yet paleoclimate data show the opposite: temperature changes first, then the gas levels.
C 	In modern times, temperature and CO2 have been only weakly correlated. For instance, there have been long periods of declining temperatures even as CO2 levels have risen. Climate scientists attribute this to masking by aerosol cooling, but their explanation struck many respondents as ad hoc. Also, most human emissions came after 1950, yet the rise in temperature started earlier.
D 	High CO2 levels earlier in geologic history (for example, during the late Ordovician) did not correlate with high temperatures.
E 	CO2 is a pittance compared to water vapor. By one estimate, it can cause only 0.2% to 0.3% of the warming.
F 	The greenhouse effect has "saturated"---further CO2 (name removed by moderator)ut does not increase it.
G 	No one has done lab experiments to study CO2 absorption.
H 	If CO2 causes warming, then the warmed air should rise, reducing air pressure at the surface. That is not observed.  See Marcel Leroux's "Mobile Polar Highs" theory.
I 	Although CO2 may be a factor, rising levels of this gas are due not to emissions but to reduced uptake by the oceans (perhaps caused by a diminished phytoplankton population).
   J.  There is absolutely no consideration of the 1000 surface and perhaps as many as 20,000 undersea volcanoes.

IV 	Climate models are unconvincing. In this category, is the argument that, whatever the inherent plausibility of anthropogenic global warming, climate scientists have yet to present a solid case. The concerns here revolve around the inability of models to capture the complexity of the climate system.

A 	The correlation of CO2 levels with temperature is not causation.
B 	Weather forecasting is so unreliable. How could long-term climate forecasting be any better?
C 	The range of model predictions is wide, casting doubt on their reliability.
D 	Models can't even predict El Nino.
E 	Models can't even explain past data. Claiming the models can predict climate is either wishful thinking, ignorance or deceit. Others were more circumspect. As a test, feed environmental data from the 1970s into today's climate models and see how closely the 'predictions' match what actually happened.  Can models can explain climate over geologic time?
F 	Models are not proof. They cannot be used to prove anything. Being falsifiable, they are not really science.
G 	The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts---not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong.

 

[Al_Masetti]

This is a continuation of the LIST of arguments against the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming:

---

V 	Warming is a good thing, so we shouldn't try to stop it. The arguments here varied from specific benefits of warming to general reassurances that Earth and its inhabitants have done just fine in earlier periods of warming.

A 	It will increase humidity in tropical deserts and improve the lot of high-latitude regions.
B 	Higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth, and that's good.
C 	Sea level will rise gradually enough that we can readily adapt. The example the respondent gave was beachfront property. Its value will gradually decline as sea levels gradually rise, encouraging a move farther inland over the usual cycle of property investment.
D 	Historically, humanity has done better during periods of warmer climate.
E 	For most of its history, Earth has been warmer than today. The idea is that global warming is nothing to fear because it merely takes us back to a more natural set of conditions. Animals and plants seemed to do just fine in those periods of warm climate. Our present chilly climate is the aberration when judged on a geological time scale. Over geologic time, the global mean temperature is 22 degrees C, versus today's 15.5 degrees C.
F 	It staves off the next glaciation, which we're due for.
G 	Claims that global warming has worsened storm damage, or will do so, are overblown. If storm damage seems to have increased, it is simply because more people live in storm-prone regions and their plight is more widely publicized than before.
H 	Attempts to stop global warming would do more damage they than avert. Warming might be bad, but it is better than the alternative, be it Kyoto or some other mitigation strategy. The underlying assumption here is that the null strategy---letting the economy adopt non-carbon energy sources as commodity prices dictate, without any explicit reference to global warming---carries the least costs.


VI 	Kyoto is useless, or worse. There are many complaints specific to the Kyoto Protocol, which sets up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.  [Assertions include the Russian financial benefits to trading their pollution rights.]

A 	It would bankrupt us. Kyoto mandates a practically unlimited expenditure of effort (and money, naturally).
B 	Even it would not bankrupt us per se, it would divert resources from other, better-established priorities.
C 	It would reduce warming by a meager 0.02 degrees C.
D 	It exempts developing countries, whose emissions intensity and growth rates are much higher than those of developed countries.
E 	People may claim to support it, but their energy-wasting habits belie their true sentiments.

VII 	People who argue that human activity causes global warming can't be trusted. The single biggest complaint: doubts as to the competence or motivation of scientists and others who accept anthropogenic climate change ... a perception that scientists as jumping to conclusions, haughtily dismissing doubters, refusing to take the time to explain things, and adopting absolutist positions. One person wrote: "What data would convince me? I don't know if data is the problem as much as needing to perceive an objective voice." 

A 	Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.

1 	They used to predict an imminent ice age.
2 	They falsely attributed the ozone hole to CFCs. The respondent who raised this point wrote that the ozone hole was clearly not due to CFCs because it began to recede before CFCs were phased out.
3 	They uncritically accepted the hockey-stick graph, which was clearly "fraudulent" from the start.
4 	They are guilty of doomsaying, which has been so consistently wrong in the past.
5 	They were too quick to connect last year's hurricane season with global warming.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Posts # 16, 17, 18 and 19 are merely a LIST of the arguments against Anthropogenic Global Warming. Each of these arguments is worthy of a thread all by itself. A poster had stated they had not seen any arguments against the AGW. So, in greatly abbreviated form, I have presented them.

Here is the last bit.

My recommendation is that they be copied in sequence starting from post #16, which is the start of the list. And then paste them onto a new document in your word processing program.

On my own web site, there are some essays that I wrote for a hard copy newsletter and then posted on-line. They are very concise as they were intended to fit onto one piece of paper for ease of mailing. These are essays on arguments in opposition to the theory of man-made global warming.

In addition, the NSA issued a declassified report that is a little technical, but has some useful suggestions for additional research. I have a copy on my Web site under “Links” and then to “the Gerson Report”.

---

B 	Climate scientists behave unscientifically.

1 	They ignore contrary data and alternative explanations. There are complaints that climate scientists are guilty of groupthink. For them to admit they might be wrong would hurt their reputation and funding chances, so they tend to cling to positions with a fervor that the data do not justify. The IPCC was said to seek out evidence that supports its preconceived conclusion. Similarly, people complained that scientific journals do not publish contrary data, presumably because of negative peer reviews by dogmatic climate scientists.
2 	They are arrogant. Comments range from "Researchers go ballistic if anyone voices doubt."  to  "A person with doubts, or simply unanswered questions, is shut out of the debate. One can only ask questions when it is phrased with unwavering support for warming."
3 	They have let themselves get caught up in activists' agendas.
4 	They themselves have an activist agenda. There are suspicions that global climate change fits a little too conveniently into a certain environmentalist narrative that holds that humans can do no good (least of all if those humans are Republicans). Moreover if taken at face value, global warming seems to demand Soviet-style government action, which is problematic in its own right and a sign that the hypothesis is ideologically motivated. Because the U.S. is often singled out for its policies, there is a whiff of anti-Americanism, too.
5 	They have a financial interest in global warming. Now we're starting to get into more serious accusations that scientists push global warming because it helps them curry favor with granting agencies. One writer: "There are no grants available to disprove global warming.... [Researchers] gather at government's teats for monetary nourishment, telling mommy whatever she wants to hear." Kyoto, too, has created vested interests and a strong incentive to "massage data."

C 	Activists and journalists have gone overboard.

1 	Experts do not, in fact, argue that humanity is the main cause of global warming.
2 	The media sensationalizes warming. It focuses on worst-case scenarios and presents tenative research as definitive.
3 	Scientific American lost its own credibility on the subject when it printed a one-sided critique of Lomborg's book. One respondent claimed that the magazine "threatened legal action to stifle debate" about Lomborg's book.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am curious if anyone here has evidence against anthropogenic global warming, but I will only watch this thread for a distance as politics brings out the sordid thoughts in most people.

I want to apologize for having been so wordy.

The debate about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has produced such statements as “the science is settled”.

Well, there are in fact numerous pieces of evidence against AGW.

In attempting to merely list them, … well, the list was according to the CAF counter … more than 13,000 characters and posters are only allowed 5000 per post.

The arguments are serious. And they are not amenable to light-hearted witty banter, nor will they fit on a bumper sticker.

Some posters in the past have complained that I dared to make them actually read. And … no joke … they said they really didn’t have time for it.

I guess it’s easier just to lob one-liners.

Well, ANYWAY, if anyone is actually, seriously interested in this (or any) scientific topic, reading is essential.

Hope you all enjoy the list I posted.