Weather Channel Goes Political

by Mike on January 21, 2007

in Politics

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the science of global warming, but I have to wonder why scientists on one side of the issue seek to silence scientists on the other side of the issue. The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen is the latest example. According to Cullen, meteorologists who disagree with the conclusion that human activity causes global warming should be stripped of their AMS certification. Rush Limbaugh has an interesting take on Cullen’s “logic.”

Any valid scientific theory should be able to withstand opposing hypotheses and free and open inquiry. I think it’s only reasonable to question the validity of one theory when its proponents hysterically attempt to silence proponents of the other. Disagree with them, lose your career. The man-made global warming scientists do themselves no favors with such hysterics.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz January 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Hi Guys,

Personally I agree with the scientists who state that man is having a serious impact on our earth and we need to take steps to reduce/reverse that damage and I have serious dispute with the stands being taken by the US and Australian governments on this.

Havin said that, I totally agree with you. If you make a scientific statement you MUST be prepared for it to be subject to peer review and dissent. One of the key principles of scientific research!

Grouping two subjects into one. She Who Must Be President – Scary!!!! In another post you mentioned the Clintons desire to achieve and hold power at all costs. I agree with you on that, however any objective research of family Bush has to come to the same conclusion. Maybe it’s Just like that with all Dynastic families! Right or wrong to fight with all your ability to achieve the dynasty – who’s to say.


rightonoz January 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Hi Mike,

I trust you will excuse me for hijacking your thread. I’d like your feedback on this.

Abortion or Broken Windows – How can the US be safer? I saw this on The Register and copied part of the post.

Who are these wankers and are they really taken seriously in the US??

Freakonomics proves concise in explaining New York’s phenomenal, oft cited crime drop.

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion . . . and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years – the years during which young men enter their criminal prime – the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.

Few could be so blunt and get away with it. Levitt and Dubner turned the harsh logic into a bestseller read with pride by hundreds of thousands.

Their success hinges on the solid looking evidence behind the assertion that wiping out potential criminals in the womb wipes our crime.

The number of “at risk” youth dwindled as poor, single teenagers turned to legal, affordable abortions, so the authors argue. That’s in large part because poverty and single-parent homes “are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future.”

Anyone can fiddle with numbers to prove a point, so the authors do their best to back up such a strong claim with multiple sources of data. They show that states with legalized abortion in place before Roe v. Wade enjoyed an earlier drop in the crime rate than those that followed the landmark court decision. They also show that states with the highest abortion rates enjoy the most severe drops in crime.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link. In states with high abortion rates, the entire decline in crime was among the post-Roe cohort as opposed to older criminals. Also, studies of Australia and Canada have since established a similar link between legalized abortion and crime.

And the post-Roe cohort was not only missing thousands of young male criminals but also thousands of single, teenage mothers – for many of the aborted baby girls would have been children most likely to replicate their own mothers’ tendencies.

The authors also explore the myriad reasons often listed for New York’s crime drop such as innovative police strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in the drug market, an aging population, tougher gun control laws, a strong economy and more police. The researchers found that most of these factors had little actual affect on lowering crime, although the longer prison terms did account “for roughly one-third of the drop in crime.”


Mike January 22, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Hi Oz:

I have encountered some people who have read Freakanomics. It is a pretty popular book with people who are generally uninformed with current events and politics. Outside of that, I haven’t encountered many people who have read it. Fortunately, the people I know who have read it don’t seem to swallow everything offered in the book. That said, it took alot of explaining to rebut some of the ludicrous assertions. (The assertions were explained to me by someone pwho has read it). None of my well-informed liberal friends have mentioned it to me. Basically, the people who read the book are people who typically don’t follow current events.

One quick distinction between the Bushes and Clintons. Although I agree that almost any politiican will do alot to hang on to power, the Clintons have taken to the level that none of their principles are sacred enough to jeopardize their power. They will sell out any and every one of their causes even for a bump in the polls.

Say what you will about Bush, he is stubborn in doing what he thinks is right. I know that frustrates you on an issue like Iraq just as it frustrates me on spending and immigration. He thinks he’s right, polls be damned. I don’t think the Clintons can even distinguish between right and wrong, hence the Lady MacBeth behavior.

Good to hear from you.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: