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?

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.