UPDATE: The national website www.junkscience.com has referenced this blog entry.
From the waaaayyyy over the top department:
The Weather Channel’s climatologist, Dr. Heidi Cullen who hosts the program “The Climate Code”, is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be denied certification (or re-certification) if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade global warming. She posted this revelation in the blog she runs on the Weather Channel website and you can read it here: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html
She writes: “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.”
Them’s scientific fightin’ words lady.
So, apparently any free speech, scientific debate, and public dialog that doesn’t agree with the peer reviewed popular scientific opinion is grounds for denying an AMS Broadcast certification?
This reminds me of Galileo and his fight with the Roman Catholic Church in 1632. Galileo wanted to publish a book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems which totally revised the earth centric view of the universe favored by scientists, scholars, and clergy of the time and built on the work of the earlier astronomer Copernicus. Galilieo was tried and imprisoned for daring to speak out against the “consensus” of the time for what he saw as a scientific truth.
I think we would all do well to follow this maxim: “People who live in greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones”.
Open scientific debate is essential to the scientific process, to call for castigating and silencing TV weathercasters who see other evidence is not only against American free speech values, it’s unprofressional for a scientist. Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.
I support Cullen’s freedom of speech to make the claim that Global Warming is entirely an affliction caused by humanity, but I don’t support her call for decertifying of proponents of alternate theory
Despite receiving over 1000 blog comments by the public, most of them harshly critical of Cullen’s call for suppressing the voices of manmade global warming skeptics Cullen has refused to retract her call for AMS decertification of broadcasters who may also be global warming skeptics but instead blamed the whole mess on “spin.‿ Here is her latest post on the controversy. No mention of the word “sorry” or mea culpa in that post.
The Weather Channel has yet to officially comment on the matter. They are most likely being very careful as they are now in the middle of a scientific and political firestorm.