Dr. Heidi Cullen answers her critics

[forrestkc]

I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

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.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

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.

Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.

The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.

However, know that we here are focused on moving this discussion forward.

Source: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.ht..._deg_commentary

[hmh]

Unfortunately for her and the Weather Channel the political position has been taken. And for her to suggest any meterologist who will not take the global warming stand be booted from the AMS is a serious show of bias on her part.

If there is to be any real scientific debate the politics needs to first be removed.

[forrestkc]

I don't know her motivations, but I would suspect that she is very frustrated that the handful of deniers left out there issue propaganda to the masses rather than taking the ethical route and submitting their work to scientific journals for review.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I discount this article because it an OP/ED generated on a Website Blog.

Let her submit her complaints to a Peer Reviewed Journal.

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

I discount this article because it an OP/ED generated on a Website Blog.

Let her submit her complaints to a Peer Reviewed Journal.

Peace,

Dave

Haha, the difference is she is answering political critics. She is not making a scientific statement.

[Pizzaguy]

AND after more than a century of research -

A CENTURY of research? More baloney.

... based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up --

That's the story today. In the 70's (after 75 years of this "research" she mentioned above) the word was that we were COOLING! Doesn't sound like a very good scientific discussion if they can't make up their mind - and she can't get her facts right.

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.

After her recent statements, this quote makes her come across as the world's worst debater - or simply, just another political figure.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.

If she actually allows a contrary opinion to be aired on the "CLIMATE CODE", then I might give her some credit.

However, know that we here are focused on moving this discussion forward.

And just what DOES that mean? It means that she's tired of being questioned!!! Any further questioning of the religion of Human Driven Climate Change is the same thing as "not moving forward."

Edited January 19, 2007 by Pizzaguy

[Arthur Durnan]

The A.D. 2000 defeated socialist out of Tennessee, LIVES ON! Pulleeze, not a hat in the ring again!

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Forrest, Love ya brother, I just couldn't resist.

Haha, the difference is she is answering political critics. She is not making a scientific statement.

Isn't that exactly what the other fellow in Alabama was doing when she attacked his Credentials as well as others based upon a Politically driven assumption?

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

Forrest, Love ya brother, I just couldn't resist.

Haha, the difference is she is answering political critics. She is not making a scientific statement.

Isn't that exactly what the other fellow in Alabama was doing when she attacked his Credentials as well as others based upon a Politically driven assumption?

Peace,

Dave

There is a difference, there are those who would look to that as evidence against Global Warming. It is not though. The problem with the fellow in Alabama is that he is not actually conducting any scientific research, he is simply using a blog to attack those that are.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

There is a difference

Yes based upon one viewpoint.

In her initial bias it would appear that this Weather Channel Reporter was trying to use her viewpoint and bias to silence any dissension. Since by removing the dissentors Credentials she would then remove their ability for any further "Peer Review". Leaving only the current dominant viewpoint. Dominance does not necessarily mean accuracy. Unless it is Political Correctness.

One only need look to Galileo and his generation to see what transpires under such a practice.

Peace,

Dave