| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
The Weather Channel Goes McCarthy
Who do you suppose said the following on his/her Internet
blog:
“If a meteorologist has an AMS [American Meteorological
Society] 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 . . . .
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. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global
warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like
allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes
rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an
incorrect statement.”
Okay, so that was too easy. It had to be Al Gore, everybody’s
favorite fire-and-brimstone-breathing, global warming
fundamentalist, right? Wrong! Al was the most logical guess,
of course. But in actuality, it was -- are you ready? -- drum roll,
please . . . here we go . . . the answer is . . . Heidi Cullen, The
Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”
Heidi Cullen? Who the heck is that, you ask? Well, like I
said, she’s The Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”
(By the way, in case you’re wondering why “The” is capitalized
in The Weather Channel, that’s just the way they do it. In fact,
at one time, if you looked it up in the phone book, it was listed
under “t” rather than “w,” which wasn’t exactly helpful to
finding the listing.)
But wait a minute, back up for a second. Let’s examine part of
Heidi’s blog: “Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global
warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like
allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes
rotate clockwise.”
Uh, no it’s not. That is an utterly illogical analogy.
Determining which way a hurricane rotates requires no
analysis, just simple observation, and for all of two seconds at
that. Determining the cause of climate change, on the other
hand-- Well, does it really even have to be pointed out what a
complex challenge that is?
But the main problem with Dr. Cullen’s blog entry was not the
wildly illogical analogy, but rather the wildly inappropriate
suggestion that the AMS withhold its Seal of Approval from
meteorologists who don’t march lemming-like in lockstep with
what has become apocalyptic, Al Gore-style, global warming
orthodoxy. What the good doctor of climatology is basically
recommending is a kind of blacklisting against television
meteorologists who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of
climate change,” or at least who won’t speak to it in the way in
which the good doctor would prefer.
So, let’s say, for instance, that Wendy Storm is your typical
yackety and adorable on-air meteorologist at a station in -- I
don’t know -- Kalamazoo. She’s cheerful, she’s bubbly, she’s
easy on the eyes and she can speak in complete sentences. She
doesn’t always nail tomorrow’s forecast, but the viewers like
her and everybody knows this forecasting business is pretty
dicey anyway, so they allow for the usual mistakes.
But there’s a dark side to pretty Wendy in that she’s not
enthusiastically preaching global warming dogma to the
viewing masses. In fact, one time, when one of the news
anchorpersons asked her on the air about global warming, she
expressed a bit of uncertainty about its cause and failed to
blame it all on mankind. According to Heidi Cullen, Wendy is a
climatological apostate, her AMS Seal needs to get yanked and
the rest of her career might be better spent reporting live from
the scene of apartment fires and traffic pile-ups.
Here‘s what it comes down to. You say you’re an average
citizen who’d like to hear what the many global warming
skeptics have to say? Sorry about that, but the debate’s over,
it’s already been settled. Heidi Cullen, Al Gore and the rest of
the gang down at Doom-mongers & Co. had the last word and
they’re not interested in hearing any more. Everybody else,
particularly professional meteorologists, needs to pipe down --
or else. Or else what? Or else they might never work in this
business again.
Doesn’t seem particularly open-minded, does it? Not when
you consider there’s plenty of good reason to maintain at least
a modicum of healthy skepticism. Just for starters, if we hark
back to the 1970s, it had pretty much become climatological
gospel that sometime in the not-too-distant future the earth
would be entering a new ice age. In fact, many scientists were
so certain that one of them made this now laughable
statement: “We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot
risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting
irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon
change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.”
Sound familiar? Funny thing is, the predictions in the ’70s of
a new ice age went out almost as fast as disco and leisure suits.
Now the current outlandish doomsday forecast is for exactly
the opposite result. Do you believe the science of climate
change prediction has come so far in 30 years that it should
now be unhesitatingly trusted? If you do, I’ve got a bridge I’d
like to sell you.
It’s not difficult to understand why The Weather Channel
would like to cash in on the global warming hysteria. It’s called
“ratings,” and let’s face it, the only time The Channel has
particularly good ratings is when meteorological disaster is
either happening or threatening to happen. That’s why
hurricanes are to The Weather Channel what Christmas is to
retailers.
Just think about the potential of global warming in terms of
ratings. It’s the biggest doomsday scenario going in the world
today and it happens to be weather related. What more could
The Weather Channel ask for? It’s like meteorological manna
from heaven. True, it lacks the immediacy of fast-moving
synoptic weather events, but the potential for catastrophic
damage to the planet and humanity is off the chart and that’s
something that can be hyped endlessly -- unless, of course, the
whole thing is eventually proven to be a crock. But in the
meantime, it can be milked for all it‘s worth.
There is a danger, however, when the resident climate expert
gets a wee bit overly intoxicated with her own self-perceived
knowledge and power, turns into a loose cannon and starts
throwing around reckless talk about withholding professional
approval from those who aren’t fully onboard with her version
of the “fundamental science of climate change,” which is to say,
we’re all doomed unless we take civilization back to the Bronze
Age.
Like it or not, global warming has become a powerfully
polarizing political issue that divides people generally along
party and ideological lines. Democrats/liberals are drinking
the global warming Kool-aid like there’s no tomorrow (which in
their minds there may not be) and Republicans/conservatives
remain skeptical, especially about the worst case scenarios
that get presented. The problem for The Weather Channel is, if
they come on too strong, they risk alienating roughly half their
audience.
This is the age of the Internet and people can get all the
weather information they want without having to listen to
smarmy, overweening television presenters, particularly ones
who have gone off the deep end and recommended what
amounts to blacklisting. It would be a real shocker if the
higher-ups down at The Channel didn’t rein in Ms. Cullen
before she kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Who do you suppose said the following on his/her Internet
blog:
“If a meteorologist has an AMS [American Meteorological
Society] 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 . . . .
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. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global
warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like
allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes
rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an
incorrect statement.”
Okay, so that was too easy. It had to be Al Gore, everybody’s
favorite fire-and-brimstone-breathing, global warming
fundamentalist, right? Wrong! Al was the most logical guess,
of course. But in actuality, it was -- are you ready? -- drum roll,
please . . . here we go . . . the answer is . . . Heidi Cullen, The
Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”
Heidi Cullen? Who the heck is that, you ask? Well, like I
said, she’s The Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”
(By the way, in case you’re wondering why “The” is capitalized
in The Weather Channel, that’s just the way they do it. In fact,
at one time, if you looked it up in the phone book, it was listed
under “t” rather than “w,” which wasn’t exactly helpful to
finding the listing.)
But wait a minute, back up for a second. Let’s examine part of
Heidi’s blog: “Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global
warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like
allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes
rotate clockwise.”
Uh, no it’s not. That is an utterly illogical analogy.
Determining which way a hurricane rotates requires no
analysis, just simple observation, and for all of two seconds at
that. Determining the cause of climate change, on the other
hand-- Well, does it really even have to be pointed out what a
complex challenge that is?
But the main problem with Dr. Cullen’s blog entry was not the
wildly illogical analogy, but rather the wildly inappropriate
suggestion that the AMS withhold its Seal of Approval from
meteorologists who don’t march lemming-like in lockstep with
what has become apocalyptic, Al Gore-style, global warming
orthodoxy. What the good doctor of climatology is basically
recommending is a kind of blacklisting against television
meteorologists who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of
climate change,” or at least who won’t speak to it in the way in
which the good doctor would prefer.
So, let’s say, for instance, that Wendy Storm is your typical
yackety and adorable on-air meteorologist at a station in -- I
don’t know -- Kalamazoo. She’s cheerful, she’s bubbly, she’s
easy on the eyes and she can speak in complete sentences. She
doesn’t always nail tomorrow’s forecast, but the viewers like
her and everybody knows this forecasting business is pretty
dicey anyway, so they allow for the usual mistakes.
But there’s a dark side to pretty Wendy in that she’s not
enthusiastically preaching global warming dogma to the
viewing masses. In fact, one time, when one of the news
anchorpersons asked her on the air about global warming, she
expressed a bit of uncertainty about its cause and failed to
blame it all on mankind. According to Heidi Cullen, Wendy is a
climatological apostate, her AMS Seal needs to get yanked and
the rest of her career might be better spent reporting live from
the scene of apartment fires and traffic pile-ups.
Here‘s what it comes down to. You say you’re an average
citizen who’d like to hear what the many global warming
skeptics have to say? Sorry about that, but the debate’s over,
it’s already been settled. Heidi Cullen, Al Gore and the rest of
the gang down at Doom-mongers & Co. had the last word and
they’re not interested in hearing any more. Everybody else,
particularly professional meteorologists, needs to pipe down --
or else. Or else what? Or else they might never work in this
business again.
Doesn’t seem particularly open-minded, does it? Not when
you consider there’s plenty of good reason to maintain at least
a modicum of healthy skepticism. Just for starters, if we hark
back to the 1970s, it had pretty much become climatological
gospel that sometime in the not-too-distant future the earth
would be entering a new ice age. In fact, many scientists were
so certain that one of them made this now laughable
statement: “We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot
risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting
irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon
change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.”
Sound familiar? Funny thing is, the predictions in the ’70s of
a new ice age went out almost as fast as disco and leisure suits.
Now the current outlandish doomsday forecast is for exactly
the opposite result. Do you believe the science of climate
change prediction has come so far in 30 years that it should
now be unhesitatingly trusted? If you do, I’ve got a bridge I’d
like to sell you.
It’s not difficult to understand why The Weather Channel
would like to cash in on the global warming hysteria. It’s called
“ratings,” and let’s face it, the only time The Channel has
particularly good ratings is when meteorological disaster is
either happening or threatening to happen. That’s why
hurricanes are to The Weather Channel what Christmas is to
retailers.
Just think about the potential of global warming in terms of
ratings. It’s the biggest doomsday scenario going in the world
today and it happens to be weather related. What more could
The Weather Channel ask for? It’s like meteorological manna
from heaven. True, it lacks the immediacy of fast-moving
synoptic weather events, but the potential for catastrophic
damage to the planet and humanity is off the chart and that’s
something that can be hyped endlessly -- unless, of course, the
whole thing is eventually proven to be a crock. But in the
meantime, it can be milked for all it‘s worth.
There is a danger, however, when the resident climate expert
gets a wee bit overly intoxicated with her own self-perceived
knowledge and power, turns into a loose cannon and starts
throwing around reckless talk about withholding professional
approval from those who aren’t fully onboard with her version
of the “fundamental science of climate change,” which is to say,
we’re all doomed unless we take civilization back to the Bronze
Age.
Like it or not, global warming has become a powerfully
polarizing political issue that divides people generally along
party and ideological lines. Democrats/liberals are drinking
the global warming Kool-aid like there’s no tomorrow (which in
their minds there may not be) and Republicans/conservatives
remain skeptical, especially about the worst case scenarios
that get presented. The problem for The Weather Channel is, if
they come on too strong, they risk alienating roughly half their
audience.
This is the age of the Internet and people can get all the
weather information they want without having to listen to
smarmy, overweening television presenters, particularly ones
who have gone off the deep end and recommended what
amounts to blacklisting. It would be a real shocker if the
higher-ups down at The Channel didn’t rein in Ms. Cullen
before she kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.