Let me try this again. I tried twice to post on this woman the last time TH wrote about her, but my posts mysteriously never showed up. Censorship will bite you in the rear, my TH friends. Screen shots can be effectively used to prove such things.

Anyway, she is an absolute moron, or works for the other side. Why? Because she is an extremist. She wants a witch hunt of the nay sayers, rather than letting them fade into obscurity naturally. All the business as usual crown wants is someone like this to whom they can point and say "see, look at the extremists and how they want to stifle free speech and countering viewpoints". The American public hates witch hunts. People in positions of power or who's statements actually carry some weight need to practice some self restraint. Leave the extremist comments to the peanut gallery folks like me. I advocate tar&feathering for the nay sayers.

--
editor note: You call people "absolute moron" and then you wonder why some of your comments get moderated? It would be a lot more effective to politely explain why you disagree.

TreeHugger wants to create an inclusive atmosphere that encourages everybody to join the discussion. Please be constructive and tactful, write as if you were speaking face to face. Even strong criticism is more effective when polite and restrained.

Ah, Mr. Blo, why, when I read your comments, do I think of the wolf in Grandma's nightie? But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are serious. It seems to me that Dr. Heidi is actually just stating the obvious: if you are a weather person you ought to know something about the most important weather story of the century, like the fact that the overwhelming majority of all climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it is really dangerious. If you don't know that, you should be required to turn in your pointer and let someone else read the teleprompter for a change. That is hardly analogous to a witch hunt. It is the other side that believes in magic: we are trying to uphold scientific accuracy.

Then you obviously don't keep an eye on the other side of the isle. She's already being held up as an example of climate change fanaticism by the Drudge Report style media. That stuff panders to a huge segment of the population.

Again, scientific certainty is by definition, never certain. Allow the dwindling group of naysayers to fade naturally. If you try to enforce something that is, be definition, not certain, you open up a huge can of worms.

Or, play right into the hands of the business as usual crown like she is. That, by definition, is being a "moron". If that term gets under you skin, toughen up, bucko, as the world is a heck of a lot nastier than that.

"Then you obviously don't keep an eye on the other side of the isle. She's already being held up as an example of climate change fanaticism by the Drudge Report style media. That stuff panders to a huge segment of the population."

So your strategy is basically to concede? Everytime someone gets attacked (usually because they are seen as "dangerous" and effective, f.ex. Al Gore) by Ad Hominem crap they should just give up and be ostracized?

If you don't agree with her approach, that's your right and you should explain why. But if your reasons for disliking her is because the status-quo-bunch is attacking her, you need to toughen up! Everybody gets it when they are successful, even John Muir and Henry David Thoreau were labelled as all kinds of things..

I suggest you read "The War Against the Greens", great book (with scary stuff).

Do you really not get it? Gore??? He's a statesman and professional diplomat. At no point does he call for punishing those who disagree with him. Why? Well, children, see, if you don't win their hearts and minds, you can't win at all. Putting this woman's name in the same post with his is an absolute outrage.

Wake up. You too young to remember McCarthy? Read up on him then. Extremism fails no matter if the cause is just or unjust.

And if none of that gets through to you, then remember the first amendment. Case friggin closed.

Um, ok, I think I'm missing something here. Dr.Cullen had the guts to say that people in the media should be accountable for what they tell us, or in this case fail to tell us, about the world we live in. Maybe if more "people in postions of power" were as vocal about the stunning lack of concern in the weather community about climate change, then they might just start reporting about it. Now theres a novel idea.

And just for the record, the American public LOVES "witch hunts". Just watch network television.

The problem I have with Dr. Cullen's actions is that she's elevated science to the status of religion. Believers and non-belevers. Those who don't believe are blasphemers and don't deserve to be part of the Church of Climatology.

Why do I say this? The scientific method will do the best to prove or disprove an hypothesis. Whether for or against global warming, all you can do is gather evidence, test for data, and draw a conclusion. If the naysayers are wrong, nobody needs to be calling them names, calling for their revocation of their certifications, etc. Their data will stand or fall on its own under peer-review.

But, with all that said, nobody here can claim with complete certainty that they know global warming is caused by humanity. There's no possible way to know this for sure until we've observed the full cycle, effects, etc. We can look at the evidence that's been gathered and draw conclusions from it, but it's not proof and people need to stop portraying it as such. That doesn't do anything but hurt the cause.

We want green energy, sustainable farming, clean and reliable transportation, etc. It's all within our reach, and there are dozens if not hundreds of benefits that don't necessarily involve global warming! Energy independence, healthier crops, healthier population, low or no pollution, I mean ... the list goes on and on without even mentioning global warming. So why the hot button issue? I feel that global warming is definitely influenced by humanity, but the problem is so vast and so complex that it's not easy to deal with. Yet there's proven evidence for going green and solving all these other problems, which in turn should hopefully have the side-effect of lessening global warming. So why not push those where it's not so controversial, and then just let the scientific method deal with the rest? That's my $0.02 anyway.

can i ask what is Dr. Heidi Cullen a doc. in?

Dr. Cullen has a Ph.D in Oceanography and Atmospheric Science from Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

Most scientists studying climate change will be oceanographers (Physical, Chemical), atmospheric scientist, pale oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists or Chemists. The systems involved are physical and chemical. The tools used are historical written records, ocean sediment cores, real-time atmospheric measurements and computer models. New ways of determining past conditions, proxies, are continually being developed. Computer models using these proxies try to simulate past conditions, and more recently have been turned to future conditions.

Heidi has experience with computer modeling (especially since her Bachelors was in Operational Engineering at Columbia) as well as looking at historical evidence ( archeological and ocean sediment core research on the collapse of the Akkadian Empire in present day Syria).

Her main research as a Post-Doc was how to better integrate climate predictions on a short time scale, 2-5 years, into the planning of end-users like farmers in dry area, water-power authorities in charge of dams, etc.

Her interest has always been to transfer knowledge from the strictly scientific realm to a wider audience that could make use of this information.

Her recent comment, which was related to another blog entirely, was a call for accountability for those in a position to bring information to the public. A blog is a blog. She was writing in her blog. Hardly a systematic effort to censor people.

You can say what you want, but when representing an organization, you should be able to speak to that organizations standards. And the AMS has stated position that anthropogenic causes are likely. The meteorologists she was responding too didn't want to take on the responsibility of standing by that statement.

No local weatherman really wants to get involved it seems. Which is fine. They deal with a dramatically different timescale and physical world scale in their forecasts.

"That's my opinion, based on the facts"

She knows the science, it's the politics she's learning about.

As a scientist I am horrified when people close the door on discussions about anything. If science had gone this route then we would still be using ancient methods of healing and riding horses. To say that the global warming debate is over is shear stupidity. To suggest those who want to have an open and honest debate should be kicked out of the AMS is nothing short of hysteria. I am disgusted that anyone would call themselves a scientist and try to squelch the flow of ideas in the same sentence.