In the spirit of the holiday, can we all try to not be so sensitive?
I hope that got your attention, because I think this is important. Sensitivity to the less fortunate and family is a given. Sensitivity that leads to road rage, and for the purpose of this venue- the CLIMATE CRUSADE by some- needs a chill pill. Sorry for the '80s reference. I will take the same pill after I respond here. For the record, I believe some here need a lump of coal in ther stockings, but that would not be environmentally friendly.
This latest chapter started with a simple interview from the folks at www.capitalweather.comFor the record, we do support the site and get along with a few folks over there. They spoke with a meteorologist at WJLA in Washington, DC, and did not like his answer on the climate change issue. Rather than respect a scientist's opinion, Andrew Freeman used it as a platform to bash TV mets and promote his own agenda. Not very diplomatic. In the most recent posting (Dec. 22), Steve Scolnik had to take it a step further...not only with the issue itself, but by dragging Tony and me into it. Come on man! We extended an invitation to Steve last summer when we first met. Those of you who listen regularly know that we are kind to our guests (even the writer for the Baltimore City Paper who misquoted me to enhance his article) and support intelligent discussions. Steve has not only forgone our offer, but has been so blinded by his beliefs, that he missed my true opinion. That is the sign of bias and not good for scientific deduction. Sorry, but it's true. I personally have never wavered from my view that the planet is warming. I studied the Vostok ice core sampling at Cornell and the relationship of CO2 and CH4 to heat retention in the atmosphere. I believe in pollution control, energy independence and cleaner sources to do so. Then there are cyclical weather patterns: The reason for the warm start to this winter is El Nino. Then there other patterns such as the NAO, PDO, MJO, just to name a few. Also past warming centuries before the industrial revolution, and the prospect that there is a combination of elements at work now.. well those don't fit well with the anti-administration paradigm. Yes I do think the argument is tied politically. However, my views on climate don't dictate all of my views, but try convincing some and its a lost cause. Those who use the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 in their arguments should remember: While Bill Clinton signed it, a democratic majority senate voted 95-0 against it before it was even sent to them. I voted for Bill, supported Kyoto, and have learned better in my research since.
Steve's posting puts Dr. Heidi Cullen from The Weather Channel on a pedestal for her supportive response. Please read what she said and come back here to finish.
Dr. Cullen wants the AMS to withold Seals of Approval to folks might have a different opinion. Does that also mean revoking the seal from those who already have it? There are many TV mets who are more conservative than me! I must remind you of the debate of heliocentrism in the 1600s. Galileo's belief in the sun, not Earth, as the center of our solar system was seen as blasphemous. It was a scientific issue that crossed over into religious and political circles, which were interrelated at that time. While his belief was later proven closer to the truth, he was seen as a heretic and sentenced to house arrest by Pope Urban VIII until he died. The issue of global warming is a similar situation. Many say let's keep politics out of it, but politics are at the root of the issue. It's resulting policy and future officials that are on the stand. Quieting scientists who disagree with popular culture sounds communistic to me. If this were the 1950s, what would McCarthy say??? Must I remind you all that this country was founded on freedom. Freedom of scientific exploration. Freedom of religious expression. Oh yeah, and FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Joe Bastardi from Accuweather wrote online a few months ago that he was not able to share his views anymore on the climate issue for fear of losing his job. How many others have been silenced? Ironically, many of you will look to him for long range winter and hurricane projections. He was quoted for the 2006 hurricane season by the same media he disagrees with on climate change. Why not allow a healthy discussion with a range of scientific views? Hasn't our culture taught us to get a second opinion when a doctor renders a diagnosis we may question? While Dr. Cullen has a PhD and is a climatologist, she also has a show on The Weather Channel called The Climate Code. Of course this debate will support her cause... it may lead to higher ratings too. TV mets don't need this debate because we deal primarily with synoptic meteorology, which is short to medium range forecasting. Tony has argued that atmospheric models, both short and long range, are subject to so much variability that they become less reliable farther out in time. We rarely have 100% accuracy when we forecast 5 days out, so how can we take a decade or century expectation at face value? Many of us don't buy into the over-hype, yet many of our newsrooms will frequently post stories about climate issues. Al Gore's movie showing a 50 foot wall of water over-taking Manhattan does not accurately portray the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) stance of a 1.5 to 3 foot sea level rise by 2095. Stretching the truth to scare the public is what turns some people off right away. It is what will turn others away if the worst case scenario does not verify.
Please, let's enjoy the wonder of weather and our complex atmosphere. Lets learn more and share with each other. Stop the name-calling and attack of credentials. If we lose our ability to respectfully debate, then we lose the foundations of our culture. The atmosphere is chaotic, we don't have to be.
