Much like you, I used to believe that nothing could be more boring than The Weather Channel (TWC). In light of a recent controversy that has arisen over at TWC, I must admit that I was wrong.
Dr. Heidi Cullen, climate expert and host of TWC's "The Climate Code" recently advocated that meteorologists who have their doubts about global warming (man-made or otherwise) should be stripped of their American Meteorological Society (AMS) certification.
Cullen was responding to the comments of meteorologist Brian van de Graaff who made the following heretical statement: "I try to read up on [global warming] to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data."
Cullen points out that this statement is at odds with official statements of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). She concludes that because van de Graaff is AMS-certified, the next logical step is to strip van de Graaff and similar-minded meteorologists of their certifications.
According to Cullen, "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… Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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."
In one paragraph, Dr. Cullen demonstrated exactly what is wrong with many scientists today; namely, that they've become distinctly unscientific. Dissenting voices and pleas for further study are so dangerous that they need to be shut out and systematically decertified.
It's circular logic. How do we know that climate change is real? - Because there is a consensus of scientists on the subject. But, what about the scientists who aren't convinced? Well, they aren't real scientists, because they don't subscribe to the consensus. If you accept the theory of man-made global warming, then you get your certification. If you dissent, then you are advocating "junk science".
Such an approach to pertinent questions is not scientific. It's dogmatic.
I know that this winter has been the warmest any of us can remember. Our campus pond still has geese on it, a quizzical occurrence without a doubt. But if you look outside of our little New England world, you will see that freakish weather of another variety has been striking much of the country. Multiple blizzards smashed Denver. Ice storms killed 55 people in nine states including Oklahoma and Texas, freezing rain made roads slick as far south as San Antonio, and President Bush declared Oklahoma and parts of Missouri national disaster areas. Southern California was hit with a cold snap so severe that it froze crops of citrus fruits, avocadoes and berries, causing their prices to triple. Snow was even reported around tropical Malibu.
So it's a big world out there, and the question of global warming is debatable. Or is it? For some "experts" like Cullen, you can only join her exclusive club of experts if you agree with her. Ergo, no debate, just blind submission. Not exactly the scientific method.
At least Cullen isn't as harsh as David Roberts of Grist magazine, a self-styled "eco-journal". Roberts actually advocated putting global warming "deniers" on trial for their beliefs. "When we've gotten serious about global warming… we should have war crimes trials for these bastards [the skeptics]; some sort of climate Nuremberg," said Roberts.
Having dissenting opinions on global warming puts you in the same boat as Nazi war criminals. Well, that sounds like open debate. Sure, once all the skeptics are standing trial in Nuremberg, there will truly be consensus in the scientific community. No one will dare contradict prevailing wisdom.
The pattern repeats itself again and again. The theory is simply postulated with a degree of certainty with which all "reasonable" people agree. Those who express doubts become unreasonable by definition. People scramble to be on the "reasonable" side of the debate, and all others are accused of being "flat-earthers". Scientific "facts" are determined by a consensus of scientists who dare not disagree lest they be deemed unscientific. Pretty soon, "everyone knows" that the original theory is as undisputed as the spherical earth, and no one asks further questions.
Call that science if you want. I call it intellectual bullying. Reasoned debate does not threaten science, it is the very essence of science. When scientists jettison that very principle of their craft, they abandon their own principles and cease to be trustworthy. We shouldn't put dissenting scientific voices into war crimes tribunals, we should listen to them. Sadly, that is not the state of science today.
Be the first to comment on this article!