Of course not. That would release CO2, and we'd have to buy an offset or plant a tree or something.
I jest, of course. The reason this comes up is a flaming debate going on right now.
Over on the weather channel blog, Heidi Cullen asks:
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.
(FYI: AMS is the American Meteorological Society.)
Marc Morano, the high-strung Inhofe staffer, responded on the EPW blog:
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen's call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now.
(If you read the post, you'll see Marc even gives a shout out to our own Dave Roberts! Way to go, Dave! Your mom must be sooo proud.)
On one hand, I can definitely see Heidi's point. As a member of the AMS, it burns me up to see a nutcase with AMS credentials. I wouldn't shed too many tears if meteorologists who disagree with the following statements have their AMS certification yanked:
- The Earth has warmed by 0.6 deg C over the last 100 years.
- Humans are likely to blame for most of the recent warming.
- Models run with plausible estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions predict warming of 1.4 to 5.8 deg C.
- This warming might lead to serious impacts.
On the other hand, it's clear that the forces of reason and science are winning the climate change debate. For example, in his last hearing, Inhofe couldn't even get two credible U.S. skeptics to show up -- he had to fly one in from Australia. They are truly getting scarce (see also this).
And from a political standpoint, the scientific community should not be seen as censoring anyone.
At any rate, this isn't something we need to do. We're winning the war already. And the skeptics generally hang themselves with their own rope anyway. Stripping their AMS credentials is simply not worth the hassle.
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:24 am
19 Jan 2007
I'm not sure what the hoopla is about. The AMS study guide lists the following sources on climate change: EPA's Global Warming page, NOAA's Anthropogenic Threats to Corals, Climate.org, and the Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment. All very simple and easy to understand, and all based on the IPCC.
Of course, the idea that reading a few websites and passing a multiple choice test makes one a an "independent scientist" is laughable. If that's all there is to it, the best you can hope for is some passing familiarity with a few facts.
Much more important for meteorological literacy is an understanding of the interrelationships between weather and climate; an understanding of the relevant scientific processes -- reconstruction, modeling, uncertainty, etc.; and the ability to evaluate peer-reviewed literature.
Permalink
pbearden47 Posted 6:14 am
19 Jan 2007
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 6:34 am
19 Jan 2007
After you torch the meteorologists skeptical about global warming, will you please find a way to silence the following as well:
-- all trained scientists skeptical about the safety of genetically engineered food. All properly conducted scientific studies demonstrate there are NO dangers.
-- all trained scientists who don't believe in evolution. The evidence is in. Done deal. We evolved from other life forms!
-- all trained scientists who support homeopathy. It is RUBBISH!
That is all FOR NOW. I'll add more after I think about it for a few hours.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 6:40 am
19 Jan 2007
Since meteorologists will be increasingly called upon to discuss climate directly as well as interpret weather events in terms of climate change, I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the AMS to change the testing regime so as to ensure that certificate holders know at least the basics. AMS certifications are really just advice to employers, so a less controversial alternative to modifying the main test might be to have a separate test with an added certification. For broadcast meteorologists, this would then entitle those who passed the separate test to add CBC(C) to the existing CBC appellation. Pressure from employers, peers and informed viewers might be expected to do the rest.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 6:50 am
19 Jan 2007
Permalink
Wisco Posted 7:02 am
19 Jan 2007
Coincidence?
The Bearer of Bad Tidings
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:12 am
19 Jan 2007
I think as drug development enters the next century the line between homeopathy and traditional medicine will continue to blur. We may find that some homeopathic remedies actually do have pharmacological activity that we were unable to detect before. We may also find, in well-controlled clinical trials, a significant placebo effect. So what? If a sugar pill cures your pain, and has little to no potential to do you harm, I say Huzzah! for the sugar pill.
FWIW I tend to be pretty skeptical of all homeopathy and alternative medicine routes, which is why I find it karmically amusing that I now rely heavily on acupuncture & arnica gel to deal neck pain from herniated disks.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:13 am
19 Jan 2007
That's a great idea ... put more climate change questions on the certification test. I'll drop an e-mail to Franco Einaudi, AMS president, suggesting that.
Thanks!
Permalink
jaybor Posted 7:18 am
19 Jan 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:19 am
19 Jan 2007
Some wing-nut from MIT named Emmanuel or something, who sounds more like a gardener in Key Largo, posited the hypothesis that since Global Warming is getting worse, hurricanes will get worse as a result. A few like-minded Emmanuels followed his line of reasoning but his thesis is pretty much viewed as being voodoo science. They are much in the minority and are viewed as being wing-nuts and common gardeners.
Over the years I have been a champion of raising awareness about Global Warming and its plausible or possible effects, long before it was fashionable. I have no doubts or qualms about that position. However, to link Global Warming to a specific weather regime is pure bullshit.
Plain and simple, folks.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:04 am
19 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 5:50 am
20 Jan 2007
Safety after eating it didn't seem to be a problem to me at that time. After all, how could adding a single gene for a particular enzyme be bad for you? The companies producing these products were not too helpful or honest in describing what they were actually doing.
After a while it began to leak out that there were numerous other genes added to the plants, some of which were of considerable concern as to what their effect could be (the Camv promoter gene is one of the most guilty in this regard). Very little testing was done in which the results were available for public scrutiny. The first results to become publicly available were the negative effects found by Dr. Arpad Pusztai who showed many deleterious effects in animals fed genetically modified potatoes. He was immediately vilified by the large corporate sponsored body that is pro GMO's (see any parallels with AGW yet?).
It is interesting to note that a large report submitted by Monsanto to the US Dept of Ag. contained many of the same findings as were reported in Pusztai's paper but they were glossed over and the particular strain was approved for human consumption (the authors suggested that the effects they noted were due to "biological variation" even though some parameters were altered by 50%).
As for effects noted in the real world, well look no further than what happened in the Philippines where a whole village had to be evacuated because of adverse health effects from a field of GM maize. Terje Traavik, the scientific director of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, who was asked to analyse blood samples from 39 of the 100 people who fell ill, has said that a link might exist between GM crops and human health.
Also, soy allergies in the UK rose by 50% after the introduction of GM soy into the UK.
There are now many examples where it is being shown that GM crops are not as safe as we were originally told.
I see many similarities between AGW and GMO's and they way the truth is being hidden or muddied by large corporate interests and government complicity.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 3:01 pm
20 Jan 2007
Good post
Less seriously, the American Physical Society has (had??) a rule that all members could present a talk at National Meetings. There always were a fair sprinkling of nuts. They were shoved into a session at the end of the program. If you didn't have to run out of town, the goings on were entertaining, at least for physicists. AFAIK no one ever brought ripe tomatos, but.....
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 12:37 am
21 Jan 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:56 am
21 Jan 2007
What about poison ivy KMP? The active ingredient fools the immune system into thinking the body is being attacked. Then the immune system actually attacks the body.
I find similarities to homeopathy in this somehow. Even a trace amount, almost imaginary, causes the reaction. Inject a few molecules of poison ivy venom in a tumor, what would happen?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink