From this post on the founder of the Weather Channel planning to sue Al Gore for whipping up Global Warmening HysteriaTM, is this interesting tidbit:
Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.
Ms. Cullen’s actual statement (from 2007) reads:
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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.
I find this statement a source of pure hilarity. Per Madam Cullen, meteorologists should distinguish between “peer-reviewed science” and “junk political controversy,” but if they don’t say Global Warmening is totally the fault of all of us stinky old humans then their license should be revoked. That’s quite the devotion to scientific ethics, no?