Weather Channel Goes Political, Infuriates Viewers

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. If you were making a list of the least offensive channels on cable or websites, you'd probably think The Weather Channel would be on the list. Friendly voices giving us the day's forecast, what could be more innocuous? Well, apparently those friendly faces on camera are not the whole story. It seems The Weather Channel also harbors some hardcore PC warriors who are intent on pushing the whole Al Gore Global Warming scare story. One of them used her Weather Channel blog to issue a thinly disguised threat that meteorologists who didn't swallow the Al Gore line should not be allowed on the air. See http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html#readcomments

    Her crude threats drew a tsunami of angry responses, forcing her to back off slightly. Among the responses were numerous posts from senior scientists who pointed out the flaws in her simple-minded acceptance of a highly politicized scientific theory.

    One of the Left's time-honored tactics is to rule issues off-limits for further debate. That is the whole basis of the political correctness terror. They know their positions cannot stand up to reasoned debate or that they are highly unpopular, so they declare them off limits. To even discuss them is racist, homophobic, mean-spirited, hurtful, nativist, anti-woman, etc. Now they are attempting to stifle debate on this important issue of what if any effect mankind has on global climate.

    One tactic is to label skeptics as "deniers", clearly trying to link them with Holocaust deniers. The problem is the Holocaust is an objective historical fact. Greenhouse gasses causing climate change is not. It is at best a theory, one that many scientists accept, but one that they cannot scientifically prove. If they could prove it or if they had reliable, robust models to explain it, they wouldn't need to try to stifle debate.

    What is all too obvious is that many scientists have signed on to this movement for career reasons or because they are hardcore environmentalists and see it as the best way to achieve what they view as desirable policy changes. Then they trot out absurdities like the "consensus view" of scientists agrees with them. Science is not decided by consensus but by the scientific method, which requires proof. Consensus is a political term, and those using it are admitting that their argument is political, not scientific.

    It seems our hyper-polarized politics spoils everything it touches. Add The Weather Channel to that list.
     
  2. AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
    January 19, 2007

    After EPW blog post yesterday Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 check out this blog post from ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann http://www.jamesspann.com/blog.htm

    Also check out Weather Channel response to the controversy http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-430e-1c42aad22006&Region_id=&Issue_id=

    From his blog - his bio:




    "In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188

    The Weather Channel Mess
    January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

    Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

    I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. 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. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

    *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

    *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

    If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

    In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

    WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

    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.

    Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
     
  3. Congratulations to Al Gore! Not only did he invent the internet, he managed to politicize weather as well.
     
  4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Con job at The Weather Channel

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: January 5, 2007
    1:00 a.m. Eastern




    This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
    Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.

    The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.

    What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.

    But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.

    The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.

    Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.

    Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that CNN's turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel's embraced its model.

    Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel "is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional."

    Emotional weather forecasting?

    The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.

    The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)

    The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.

    Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.

    Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to toe the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.

    George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.

    The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.

    Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.

    Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.

    As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

    If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly?

    This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.

    There's a con job going on at The Weather Channel, and it's time that viewers let the network know it's time to stop the liberal politicization of weather reporting.

    You can contact The Weather Channel's vice president of public relations, Kathy Lane, at klane@weather.com to let her know what you think about the new direction of The Weather Channel and voice your opinion.
     
  5. Arnie

    Arnie

    So if someone criticizes or otherwise doesn't accept the theory of man made global warming, then that's political. But if you accept it, then that's science. Got it. :D