Another weather viewpoint....

[dixiebreeze]

Con job at The Weather Channel
WorldNetDaily ^ | 1-5-07 | Melanie Morgan

Con job at The Weather Channel

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 tow 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.

[Sanibel]

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.

Isn't this a political post?

I'd really like to answer this the way it deserves seeing how we are experiencing one of the warmest winters ever globally this year. I think it takes real nerve to ignore that and promote defiant right wing rhetoric in the face of it.

[Derek Ortt]

lets not get political and maybe continue this discussion in USA weather

Speaking from scientfic terms, of course there is global warming. There is consensus on that. Saying otherwise is going against ALL of the scientific data.

The issue is anthroprogenic global warming, and the jury is still undecided on that. Many numerical simulations do suggest this is the case. However, there is also conclusive evidence of equatale climates (Ferrell, 1990). In that climate regime, the tropics extend to the poles. Alligators and palm trees were found in the arctic circle. Those are known to have existed 50 million years ago, without anthroprogenic global warming. Those occur with an extention of the Hadley cell.

Some of the criticisms of the current simulations I have relate to the fact that they are only considering the past couple thousand years before our time, which may mean the studies are unable to detect longer term trends (on a scale of several thousand years or longer)

[Ptarmigan]

lets not get political and maybe continue this discussion in USA weather

Speaking from scientfic terms, of course there is global warming. There is consensus on that. Saying otherwise is going against ALL of the scientific data.

The issue is anthroprogenic global warming, and the jury is still undecided on that. Many numerical simulations do suggest this is the case. However, there is also conclusive evidence of equatale climates (Ferrell, 1990). In that climate regime, the tropics extend to the poles. Alligators and palm trees were found in the arctic circle. Those are known to have existed 50 million years ago, without anthroprogenic global warming. Those occur with an extention of the Hadley cell.

Some of the criticisms of the current simulations I have relate to the fact that they are only considering the past couple thousand years before our time, which may mean the studies are unable to detect longer term trends (on a scale of several thousand years or longer)

It is obvious the world is warming up regardless. No arguement and not open to debate on that. The disagreement involves computer models and such. Earth's climate is never static. It changes because of the axis position. Also, our Sun is getting larger, which would explain why it is warming up. Sun will become a red supergiant. It does not stay for long. Think of Earth's continental plates. North America is moving towards Asia and we will be a supercontinent again, but not anytime soon.

[TreasureIslandFLGal]

the way i see it, everyone sees a warming trend, but the debate is still out over whether it is a natural swing or caused by humans.

from what I understand, when they look at ice cores and mud and seabed cores, they see many fluctuations of climate change that have occurred. the difference is in the amount of time the swings have taken in the past. apparently this "swing" is occurring at an increased pace, which therein lies the problem.

mother nature isn't giving enough time for animals and environments to slowly adapt to the changes. evolution is being outpaced.

at this point, all we can do is try to slow it down, because the "cause and effect" has already been laid down. the gas mixture in the air now will dictate the resultant temps over the next 15 years - and that we won't be able to do anything about. the question then is... do we want to try and do anything about the next 20-30-100 years? -or just go with whatever happens and hope for the best?

many would like to see us "fix" the situation, whether manmade or naturally occurring, but to fix such a thing would take immense changes and cooperation of everyone in the world. it just ain't gonna happen.

from a 3rd or even 2nd world view... that means that they can't come into the 1st world of increased technology and wealth that comes from manufacturing if they can't use the fossil fuels that got us there first. in other words... the world's poor countries have to stay poor and the rich stay rich. that's not so fair.

and if the rich are the only ones agreeing to tougher restrictions, they lose the money and "edge" while those other countries keep polluting and make gains.

America likes being on top, as do the other industrialized, modern countries. why would they voluntarily want to let that lead go?

I can see both sides of the argument, but neither offers a solution on how to fix it and still hope to keep everyone happy.

[Tstormwatcher]

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.

If its a national day of Mourning then why did the American people vote them in?
And also Global Warming is real and a threat, anyone who doesn't see that is living in a Bush dream world.

One other thing, aren't political post supposed to be illegal here?

[Aquawind]

Locked.. No Politics! REread the rules please..