UPDATE: 11/25 I now have word from a reputable source close to TWC that Cullen was indeed part of the layoff. – Anthony
I’ve been following this story since yesterday, but the details kept being somewhat nebulous. Since WaPo has it, I’ve decided it is safe to consider reasonably accurate now. It looks like TWC has ditched their entire environmental unit, and possibly also host Heidi Cullen, who once said:
“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.”
Needless to say, I and many other current and former TV meteorologists took exception to the issue. I posted on it almost two years ago here.
TWC’s Heidi Cullen
From the Washington Post: (h/t to Jason Samenow)
NBC Fires Weather Channel Environmental Unit
Some on-camera meteorologists also let go
*A very cold evening: PM forecast update*
NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s “Green Week”, as well as several on-camera meteorologists. The layoffs totaled about 10 percent of the workforce, and are the first major changes made since NBC completed its purchase of the venerable weather network in September.
Keep reading for more on The Weather Channel cuts…
The layoffs affected about 80 people, but left the long-term leadership of the network unclear, according to a source who requested anonymity due to the continuing uncertainty at the station.
Among the meteorologists who was let go was Dave Schwartz, a Weather Channel veteran and a viewer staple due to his lively on camera presentations. USA Today reported that meteorologists Cheryl Lemke and Eboni Deon were also let go.
The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC’s “Green is Universal” week, during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms. Forecast Earth normally aired on weekends, but its presumed last episode was shown on a weekday due to the environmentally-oriented week.
Forecast Earth was hosted by former CNN anchor Natalie Allen, with contributions from climate expert Heidi Cullen. It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject. Cullen’s future role at the network is not known.
By Andrew Freedman | November 21, 2008; 5:00 PM ET
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I used my whole name it would be obvious I’m a dog.
===================================
On relative anonymity ( relative because in this day and age everybody can be found out):
In this field, where there is such a polarization of true believers and heretics, if there were no anonymity many people would not take part because of real fears of job security. There are other reasons people might have for not in appearing full name.
The blog would be much poorer in that case, in my opinion.
I agree that new proposals and work cannot be taken seriously unless anonymity is lifted. The internet has given an extra dimension to scientific discourse, though : It used to be that a work would be sent in at least to a workshop or conference, to get a discussion on its merits. Often it was just sent in for publication and the response would possibly be another publication. Now it is as if one has telepathy and can hear the thoughts of all the readers of the publication . If telepathy existed we would not know the real life identity of the speakers, just the thoughts. This is something like that, an extra dimension.
In a year or two I will have tenure and shall have no qualms about using my real name
I am learning about AGW. As a learning tool I visit here and other sites. At this point I’m leaning towards AGW not being real. However I do feel GW is real, but we may just be in a warming cycle. Time will tell. I need to see temps FALL over a long period of time not just slow their rate of rise which is what I see from looking at all the temp charts…..The beauty of the non-AGW side is they just have to prove the earth isnt warming or even easier that if it is warming its not caused by man. Unfortunately if their side is right, it may be proven after many political changes have been made. This means harm may come.
Anyways, I have been impressed with the Coaches comments especially towards Mr. Small. I thought some of you were way too quick to jump on Mr. Small. That in turn made him go into a natural human defensive mode and come back with some anger. That almost started a vicious cycle of more harsh posts. Luckily the Coach made some great comments.
Now back on topic. I am soooo glad Forecast Earth is off the air! I have a feeling that this doesnt mean TWC has dropped its AGW viewpoint since GE is clearly a proponent of it. I think we will see it on TWC in another form once the financial crisis is over. In fact I think TWC will be even more Green in the not too far future.
Just my opinions.
Old Coach:
I have already tenure, because I am retired. I also do not mind speaking up eponymously in my part of the globe ( Greece) against the CO2 stampede for global warming. These forums though have a large readership and I happen to have a relative advancing in an international scientific field where one of the head people ( whom I know) has come all out for global warming a few years ago. I am just being a bit cautious for that reason. Greek is all greek to the powers that be, but english is different :).
It jut kills me to read that people who are skeptical about AGW feel compelled to post “eponymously” (a term I am well familiar with, having intensely studied Greek myth) because to do otherwise may threaten their careers or the careers of those near and dear to them.
you mean “forced to post anonymously”, no?
Well, one does hear stories. The whole field has become so politicized, is so much dependent on feeding from the public funds that anything can be expected. I would suppose the same would hold true for an AGW working in a den of skeptics, no?
Hmmm, Eponymanonimondas. Perhaps she lays it out in the land of Epamindondas.
====================
Anthony: REPLY: It is about credibility. With so many ideas and opinions being posted, it is often difficult to sort our truth from fiction. A name that you put to any idea or opinion says that you stand behind it. To me it is a distinction of importance. Questions evaporate when answered, facts can be checked, and anonymous contributions don’t matter much there. But when someone puts forth an idea, such as Bill Illis does, with the full weight of his name behind it, it is automatically up a notch on the respect meter.
Anthony,
I am in a position where I can have tremendous infuence on our future scientists. It is my life, and I am very passionate about it. I had a co-worker dismissed last year because of these politics. It was an absurd situation, of course, and eye-opening. I agree with every point you made, but it is more important for me to stay in a position where I can help my constituents educate themselves about these matters than to add more weight to my discussions on these boards. Yes, it is hypocritical. I am even a member of a union of which I both pay dues and disagree with almost every decision they make. Yet, the alternative is not having any protection or security. Yes, I am a coward. But, I have a much bigger influence by working on the “inside” than I would in a new line of work.
Sorry, Phildot, but I’m not interested in your posts unless you show at least alittle courage & reveal your real name.
Ben Flurie
anna: It’s true one wouldn’t necessarily detect an eponym if the poster was anonymous. But it’s a pity so many of us feel the need to be anonymous here in “Wattsville”. #B^1
In my opinion (and from what I have seen) tenure doesn’t require one to have any specific opinions, but it depends on how they express those opinions. If a AGW skeptic publish (and this is the requirement) enough AGW skeptical papers in respected journals, he/she will get tenure if other requirements (namely teaching and service) are satisfactory. But if one gets carried away posting rude articles by calling others names, then tenure is going to be a problem. But such characteristics are going to be a problem even after tenure – academic people review each other and get reviewed by each other all the time, for promotion, proposals and papers, etc. One cannot afford to be disrespectful to others and other opinions at anytime. From what I understand people like Lubos Motl and Mike Adams got into alleged troubles not because of what they said, but how they said it.
In my view anonymity does not really diminish the value of an opinion (I think we should judge the opinion by its merit, not because who said it). But anonymity certainly promotes disrespectful behavior in blogs.
beng (07:22:34) :
Sorry, Phildot, but I’m not interested in your posts unless you show at least alittle courage & reveal your real name.
Ben Flurie
Ben as I explained above, but Anthony saw fit to erase, the reason for not putting my full name is that in the past I have been subjected to spam attacks which significantly disrupted communications between me and my students and colleagues. Everything I post on the science can be verified in the scientific literature.
REPLY: The reason for the deletion was you put words in my mouth, stating your opinion as my own. Keep your opinions yours and leave it at that. – Anthony
John McLondon (08:47:25) :
“If a AGW skeptic publish (and this is the requirement) enough AGW skeptical papers in respected journals, he/she will get tenure if other requirements (namely teaching and service) are satisfactory.”
Sounds like an ideal world. 35 years of observing how scientific decisions were made in my discipline ( particle physics) do not bear this out. I have seen mediocre people pushed into professorships because of “connections”: who knows you and whom you know. There are fads and fashions in science, people can be “in” and “out”. This influences many decisions including tenure or the offering of a job.
Now in addition, when most scientific publications are cornered by AGW reviewers, is it realistic to expect peer reviewed skeptic articles to go through? They are often summarily refused. It is pitiful to read papers which have little to do with global warming that have a small sentence appended, a bow to global warming. I guess it is in the same ball park as anonymity here, better safe than sorry.
anna v is right. John McLondon is mistaken.
Recall the recent situation where Viscount Monckton could not find any climate related journals willing to publish his work, so he was forced to resort to publishing in the acs.org journal.
The editors and referees of many climate related journals are part of gaming of the system by playing favorites. They deliberately and unethically keep skeptical submissions out.
On the other hand, submissions by those with a pro-AGW point of view are very often accepted uncritically — to the point that they accept fraudulent submissions.
As the Wegman Report to Congress makes clear, there is a clique of pro-AGW people who review each others’ papers uncritically. And this same clique colludes in keeping out skeptical papers.
The peer review system in the climate sciences has been largely corrupted. Read Prof. Richard Lindzen’s recent paper to understand how bad the situation has become.
Climate science publication and peer review is now at the level of the Ward Churchill debacle, in which Churchill was hired and given tenure simultaneously, not for his accomplishments, but for his political views.
anna v (12:43:47) : “I have seen mediocre people pushed into professorships because of “connections”: who knows you and whom you know. There are fads and fashions in science, people can be “in” and “out”. This influences many decisions including tenure or the offering of a job.”
Of course, I will not deny the effect of connections and friendships. One has to get so many external reference letters for tenure and if the others are comfortable with the candidate then they will take the time to write a stronger letter. It is just natural. On the other hand, if reviewers feel like this person is highly opinionated and rude, they may not want to write letters for him/her. But I do not believe that in order to get that letter the candidate has to be in agreement with all the reviewers about scientific matters, he/she just has to be able to cultivate a positive relationship with them even while disagreeing with them, but when we disagree we need to do so with the proper scientific tools and arguments. This is done all the time, and can be done without much trouble.
On AGW believers being the dominant group of reviewers, well, that is a reality. Most climate scientists (and most members of the National Academy) subscribe to AGW. In order to counter the generally accepted AGW theory, one has to offer very strong reasons to show that AGW is wrong. That is a fair scientific standard. For example if one wants to show that cold fusion works, then they better be prepared to give extremely good evidence, since they are going against the currently accepted scientific norm. The requirement is more demanding if one wants to challenge any of the accepted items in science. But there are plenty of examples from history where scientists had met such high standard to overturn an accepted theory, while working in universities. AGW is not different. In addition, there are couple of other issues. It is very rare for someone to write a paper to conclude that AGW is wrong, scientific papers are directed at more specific smaller aspects, one of the thousands of aspects involved in the general climate science. Conclusions on such smaller aspects are less contested compared to the larger conclusion on AGW. In addition, we know that Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, etc. all publish in respected journals, not all of them are supportive of AGW, which shows clearly that given sufficient reasons, papers written by known skeptics are still going to make it through the review.
Smokey, Thanks for Lindzen’s link.
Nixing people in the media may become a national pastime. Read the article about canning local anchors to save money from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/business/media/01anchor.html?hp
We may speculate endlessly about the merits of “Forecast Earth” but as a former presidential candidate once said “Its the economy stupid”. With advertising revenue forecast to decline 7% next year and with cable diluting the audience for existing outlets, the contractioin in the media is just getting started.