by Kelsey Golden

Created on: March 03, 2007   Last Updated: December 07, 2010

DISCLAIMER: To be perfectly clear, I am not denying nor am I arguing for any part of the theory on global warming. I am writing this to examine the detrimental effects that politicizing the issue has on objective scientific research and funding.

"Heidi Cullen" is a leading "climatologist" for the Weather Channel. She is calling for meteorologists to be stripped of their approval from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) if they question the human role in global warming which is essentially a death sentence for an approval stripped meteorologist's job. What is the purpose of that? Aren't scientists interested in providing an environment where existing theories can be questioned, modified, discussed, or even disproved? How is firing a meteorologist that disagrees with "man-made" global warming anything other than a political game?

"Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the "seal of approval" that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism [sic] about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures." (1)

Ms. Cullen's attitude towards scientists that disagree with her is from a belief according to her blog that, "Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms."(2) Among other things, Ms. Cullen of course believes that the idea of global warming is unequivocally correct and therefore, it is irresponsible for meteorologists to present information to the contrary. However, even she makes the following statement on the same blog that "the topic global warming has gotten too political." (2)

In a rebuttal to Ms. Cullen's inflammatory remarks, a meteorologist and opponent of the idea of "man-made" global warming by the name of James Spann out of Birmingham, Alabama had this to say:

"I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go." (3)

Indeed they have. While acknowledging that global warming has gotten "too political" in one breath, Ms. Cullen has at the same time, called for the removal of any meteorologist that disagrees with her political acceptance of the theory.

So why care that scientists with alternative views are being squashed? After all, the public consensus is that global warming is something that "all or most scientists agree on" right? Not necessarily. This public consensus is rather recent with

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>