A storm is brewing among some meteorologists in the broadcast community. Recently, Heidi Cullen, the host of a prominent climate change program on The Weather Channel has written a blog entry calling for withdrawing the certification (granted by the American Meteorological Society) from broadcast meteorologists who dare to question the claims that global warming is a result of human activity (hold on to your hat - the hypocrisy is thick):
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.
First, a primer on the AMS Seal of Approval. The seal of approval is a certification process by a professional organization that is a respected, sought-after label by many in the broadcast industry. For this reason, it is a great boost for a resume, a show of acceptance by the professional community. For this reason, the certification process should be taken seriously by all scientists in the community.
As stated by James Spann, a broadcast meteorologist out ABC 33/40 in a recent blog entry (emphasis mine):
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.
This story seems to be gaining attention by the hour - even internationally (The Independent: Forecasters do battle..). So as the discussion continues, I have a couple of questions of my own for Heidi Cullen and others who agree with her stance on stifling discussion of the issue:
- If skeptics should be denied certification, what about their on-air presence?
- Do you have any co-workers who don’t toe the line on anthropogenic global warming? Should they be fired?
- Before being granted a degree in climatology or meteorology (another version of “certification”), should some sort of oath be taken regarding global warming?
- Why no discussion of other influences on the earth’s climate that may be responsible for warming: termites, solar variability, cattle emissions, volcanic activity, etc…?
- Is peer review, healthy skepticism, and other forms of critique utilized by meteorologists and climatologists the world over not a cornerstone of science?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.notesinthemargin.com/archives/267/trackback/
February 27, 2007 at 11:11 am
Pingback from Notes in the Margin · Another Global Warming Skeptic Rebuked
January 19, 2007 at 7:23 pm
JL
After reading the entry, I don’t know what to think. The blog entry title makes me think one way, but she came out with a plausible clarification for her statement (”Meteorologists are among….”) on TWC last night. She came across as saying that the guy on tv should be able to help the public sift through what’s junk and what’s sound research w/out advocating one viewpoint. That is my impression, though the original post may not have been meant in that way. I will say the whole stripping of seals is wrong on so many levels I am surprised it was even suggested.
While it isn’t a bad idea to suggest broadcast mets be able to discuss such a prevalent topic, making it mandatory is just folly. IMO, that’s akin to asking a pediatrist about your sore elbow…sure they’re a doctor, but they only work on a specific part of the body. Broadcast mets are synoptic forecasters who generally confine themselves to 7 days or less…and unless otherwise noted shouldn’t be seen as an authority on climate dynamics. (or earthquakes or meteors, but that’s another issue: )
One thing I was surprised to see was that the original post was Dec 21 and the vast majority of comments have come over the last 2+ days…who picked up this story to belatedly enflame conservative members of the nation?? Why didn’t is happen until almost a month after the blog entry?
January 20, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Jake
I didn’t see anything she stated on TWC - I haven’t tuned in for months. I don’t have an issue with her stance on global warming (even if I do disagree with it) itself, it is the decertification call that I dispute.
Decertifying broadcast mets for their viewpoints that differ from hers could potentially result in holding them back from professional advancement - that is where I get the “silencing the skeptics” title.
I first read about this issue on Thursday on the Drudge Report which is likely the cause of the firestorm. It has since been covered in detail in many other venues.
I would hardly argue that it is a politically-defined segment of the population (”conservative members of the nation”) that were “enflamed” by Cullen’s sentiments, but rather anyone who doesn’t, like I said, toe the line on anthropogenic global warming. It isn’t just conservatives who disagree with Cullen’s sentiments.
January 23, 2007 at 5:09 pm
JL
Yes there are plenty of people who think that the sentiments contained in the original post were out of line (including the two doing the commenting here). However, my brief look at some of the comments a few days ago certainly leads me to believe that it was a lot of right-wing individuals posting comments based on the plentiful usage of terms like ’socialist’, ‘liberal elite’, ‘left-wing propaganda’. I just looked at it now, and mysteriously there are a couple dozen comments left from over 1000 earlier this week…not sure what happened there.