Despite receiving over 1000 comments by the public (as of 9am ET Friday), most of them harshly critical of Cullen’s call for suppressing the voices of manmade global warming skeptics [http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ] The Weather Channel’s climate expert has refused to retract her call for scientific decertification of global warming skeptics but instead blamed the whole controversy on “spin.”
For the best response by a climate scientist to Cullen’s chilling call for decertification, please see AMS certified ABC-TV weatherman James Spann’s devastating critique of Cullen. Spann, who has been in the weather business since 1978 noted “I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype” and he says that climate alarmism is driven by huge research grants that become “the motivation for a scientific conclusion” Read Spann’s comments here: [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf ]
Now Back to Cullen’s Response:
“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.”
She calls “freedom of scientific expression” essential, but her proposal for decertification amounts to nothing less than intimidation and suppression of science.
“Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.”
Really? Calling for scientists to be stripped of their certification because they do not agree with your conclusions, is beyond political -- it’s censorship.
As for political --what about the Weather Channel’s participation in the Hollywood disaster 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow? Isn’t that a tad political?
What about Cullen’s March 14, 2005 call for “simple measures” to limits C02 emissions while participating in a Capitol Hill press conference? Cullen said, "The UK has cut emissions by 15 percent and it hasn't hurt their economy." Isn’t that wading into the political arena?
“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.”
According to Cullen the Weather Channel’s “goal” requires muzzling scientists who have different opinions than her own. Calling for the revoking of the certification of scientific skeptics seems to Cullen appears to believe that silencing dissent on global warming is part of her stated mission to protect the public and “keep people out of harm’s way.”
Cullen also insists that the science supports her views that mankind is creating a climate catastrophe.
“Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.”
If it is Cullen’s “job” to give the Weather Channel viewers the “facts on global warming” and she is certain she is so correct, why does she fear dissenting voices?
The answer is obvious.
In the three decades that the global warming alarmists have been hyping the coming “climate emergency” they have roundly failed to convince policy makers and the public of their cause.
In April 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future… If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.