It’s not difficult to understand why The Weather Channel would like to cash in on the global warming hysteria. It’s called “ratings,” and let’s face it, the only time The Channel has particularly good ratings is when meteorological disaster is either happening or threatening to happen. That’s why hurricanes are to The Weather Channel what Christmas is to retailers.
Just think about the potential of global warming in terms of ratings. It’s the biggest doomsday scenario going in the world today and it happens to be weather related. What more could The Weather Channel ask for? It’s like meteorological manna from heaven. True, it lacks the immediacy of fast-moving synoptic weather events, but the potential for catastrophic damage to the planet and humanity is off the chart and that’s something that can be hyped endlessly — unless, of course, the whole thing is eventually proven to be a crock. But in the meantime, it can be milked for all it‘s worth.
There is a danger, however, when the resident climate expert gets a wee bit overly intoxicated with her own self-perceived knowledge and power, turns into a loose cannon and starts throwing around reckless talk about withholding professional approval from those who aren’t fully onboard with her version of the “fundamental science of climate change,” which is to say, we’re all doomed unless we take civilization back to the Bronze Age.
Like it or not, global warming has become a powerfully polarizing political issue that divides people generally along party and ideological lines. Democrats/liberals are drinking the global warming Kool-aid like there’s no tomorrow (which in their minds there may not be) and Republicans/conservatives remain skeptical, especially about the worst case scenarios that get presented. The problem for The Weather Channel is, if they come on too strong, they risk alienating roughly half their audience.
This is the age of the Internet and people can get all the weather information they want without having to listen to smarmy, overweening television presenters, particularly ones who have gone off the deep end and recommended what amounts to blacklisting. It would be a real shocker if the higher-ups down at The Channel didn’t rein in Ms. Cullen before she kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Article comments
1 - Martin Williams
"meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . ."
- true.
Not sure why so much brouhaha over this; seems to be too much suppression of scientific discussion by politically misguided pundits.
2 - Dave Nalle
I was wondering how long it would be before someone on BC covered this. Glad to see the article.
And Martin, trying to keep meteorologists who question climate theory is ALSO suppression of scientific disucssion.
Dave
3 - Deano
Oh, please spare us the hyperbole. One person on The Weather Channel blogs about her opinion on the AMS and global warming and you claim a McCarthy-like atmosphere is crushing poor dissident meteorologists...
Give me a break. If I recall the Bush administration flunkies were acting far more McCarthist in discouraging government scientists from speaking out on subjects the Bushies did not agree with - global warming, the Big Bang etc.