Click on image to enlarge
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
WHAT Problem?
Storm Hits Weather Community Over
Expert's Global Warming Claims
WASHINGTON — A Weather Channel climatologist is taking some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should lose their professional certification.
Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree with her conclusions.
Click here to read Cullen's controversial global warming blog.
"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," wrote Cullen, host of "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen," a weekly global-warming program on The Weather Channel. "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."
Cullen raised Cain last month when she suggested that the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change.
"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," Cullen wrote in the blog. "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."
The AMS certifies broadcast and consulting meteorologists with three programs. The Seal of Approval, introduced in 1957, aims to "recognize meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public," according to the AMS Web site.
According to a statement by the AMS, the society agrees with Cullen on the science of global warming, if not the certification of its approved meteorologists.
"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," the statement reads.
On Friday, Matthew de Ganon, executive director of the blog, backed Cullen wholeheartedly.
"We believe that by presenting her perspective in her blog, the site was able to put into action its mission statement, which states, 'One Degree's mission will be to present an open, balanced dialogue around the scientific facts concerning global climate change. We will provide a place where sound science can be heard and a forum where all people can question and debate,'" De Ganon wrote.
But James Spann, chief meteorologist for ABC 33/40 in Alabama, who has been in operational meteorology since 1978, said Cullen is wading into dangerous waters when it comes to judging her colleagues.
"I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them," Spann said on his blog. "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."
Kent Laborde, a spokesman at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, suggested the whole argument may be off the mark since Cullen and her critics are two different categories of weather experts — climatologists who look at long-term trends and meteorologists who look at short-term conditions.
Meteorologists are "really not going to have as much of a climate perspective," Laborde said.
NOAA doesn't have a position on climate change but contributes to assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"We have a strong feeling that what they'll do is upgrade their certainty of whether humans are inducing climate change from likely to very likely," Laborde said.
The issue of man-made global climate change has long stirred debate in the scientific and political communities.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers have pledged to devote time to the controversial subject in the coming months. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to create a new House special committee to study global warming and suggest ways to cut back on greenhouse gases. If approved, the panel will draft legislation that aims to cut greenhouse gases.
President Bush also plans to lay out a response to challenges of global warming in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Cullen said she and The Weather Channel don't have a political position on global warming.
"Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a land-falling hurricane or global warming," Cullen wrote. "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."
Expert's Global Warming Claims
WASHINGTON — A Weather Channel climatologist is taking some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should lose their professional certification.
Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree with her conclusions.
Click here to read Cullen's controversial global warming blog.
"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," wrote Cullen, host of "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen," a weekly global-warming program on The Weather Channel. "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."
Cullen raised Cain last month when she suggested that the American Meteorological Society decertify meteorologists who don't warn about climate change.
"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," Cullen wrote in the blog. "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."
The AMS certifies broadcast and consulting meteorologists with three programs. The Seal of Approval, introduced in 1957, aims to "recognize meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public," according to the AMS Web site.
According to a statement by the AMS, the society agrees with Cullen on the science of global warming, if not the certification of its approved meteorologists.
"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," the statement reads.
On Friday, Matthew de Ganon, executive director of the blog, backed Cullen wholeheartedly.
"We believe that by presenting her perspective in her blog, the site was able to put into action its mission statement, which states, 'One Degree's mission will be to present an open, balanced dialogue around the scientific facts concerning global climate change. We will provide a place where sound science can be heard and a forum where all people can question and debate,'" De Ganon wrote.
But James Spann, chief meteorologist for ABC 33/40 in Alabama, who has been in operational meteorology since 1978, said Cullen is wading into dangerous waters when it comes to judging her colleagues.
"I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them," Spann said on his blog. "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."
Kent Laborde, a spokesman at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, suggested the whole argument may be off the mark since Cullen and her critics are two different categories of weather experts — climatologists who look at long-term trends and meteorologists who look at short-term conditions.
Meteorologists are "really not going to have as much of a climate perspective," Laborde said.
NOAA doesn't have a position on climate change but contributes to assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"We have a strong feeling that what they'll do is upgrade their certainty of whether humans are inducing climate change from likely to very likely," Laborde said.
The issue of man-made global climate change has long stirred debate in the scientific and political communities.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers have pledged to devote time to the controversial subject in the coming months. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to create a new House special committee to study global warming and suggest ways to cut back on greenhouse gases. If approved, the panel will draft legislation that aims to cut greenhouse gases.
President Bush also plans to lay out a response to challenges of global warming in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Cullen said she and The Weather Channel don't have a political position on global warming.
"Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a land-falling hurricane or global warming," Cullen wrote. "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."
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Some Good News from CBS
Viewership Down, Down,
Down
By Peter Johnson
USA Today
During 10 winning years at NBC's Today, Katie Couric became a household name thanks to her friendly banter with guests and her probing newsmaker interviews - key ingredients of morning TV.
But when you anchor a 30-minute newscast, as Couric has since she jumped to The CBS Evening News last fall, every second counts. What clicks with viewers every morning may not at night. Couric said as much in an interview last week with The New York Observer and hinted at how she feels about it.
"I think that, probably, it may be off-putting at times to some people who are used to a very, very buttoned-up newscast that doesn't have much leeway for an occasional glimpse of personality, but you know, I try," Couric said. "I've always had the 'less is more' philosophy, believe it or not, but there are times when I think it's personally fine. If people feel discomfort, maybe they should consider a suppository."
Maybe. Or maybe Evening News should cut back on Couric's interviews. That was the impression some staffers came away with after a meeting last week in which that subject arose. Evening News producer Rome Hartman, who ran the meeting, has this version: "We're not giving up on Katie's interviews, but I did emphasize that in order to be as newsy and fresh and distinctive, that we want those interviews to be real newsmakers, that's all. We don't want to interview the same folks that everyone is doing."
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Iran Law Demands Death for Woman
You women readers, imagine you are assaulted in a park while out walking with a young female relative. The three men obviously will rape you but you surprise one of them with a knife, staving off the attack.
The same day, it is you who are arrested, charged with murder. Soon, you are convicted and sentenced to death. Never is there a doubt about the motives of the three men. But the law is the law, after all.
On Jan. 3, 2006, 18-year-old Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi was sentenced to death for murder by court in Iran after she stabbed one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj (a suburb of Tehran) in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Iran is signatory to international treaties which forbid them to execute any one under the age of 18; however they continue to do so.
Nazanin
You women readers, imagine you are assaulted in a park while out walking with a young female relative. The three men obviously will rape you but you surprise one of them with a knife, staving off the attack.The same day, it is you who are arrested, charged with murder. Soon, you are convicted and sentenced to death. Never is there a doubt about the motives of the three men. But the law is the law, after all.
On Jan. 3, 2006, 18-year-old Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi was sentenced to death for murder by court in Iran after she stabbed one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj (a suburb of Tehran) in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Iran is signatory to international treaties which forbid them to execute any one under the age of 18; however they continue to do so.
Nazanin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)