[ RadSafe ] Electric power. How?

[Dukelow, James S Jr]

Maury&Dog and Marc Morano wrote and Jim Dukelow interpolates some comments:
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Maury Siskel
Sent: Fri 1/19/2007 3:18 PM
To: Mailing List for Risk Professionals; radsafe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How?
 
This brief article is related to radiation safety and risk to the extent 
that anthropogenic global warming (GW) is related to nuclear power vs. 
other means of power production. This anecdotal article sums the issue 
well aside from the fact that all of us know excellent scientists who, 
without pay, are convinced mistakenly <g> of the human role in GW. The 
idea of decertifying GW Skeptics is about as silly as adults can be.
Best,
Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com)
PS What was polar bear population 20-30 years ago compared with most 
recent survey?
========================

AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR 
DECERTIFICATION
January 19, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano at epw.senate.gov

After Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global 
Warming Skeptics 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 


"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified 
Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of 
certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air 
performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.
Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188
The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take 
away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global 
warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh?

[JSD comment -- There is a more generous possible interpretation of Heidi Cullen's suggestion that the AMS should not be "certifying" broadcast meteorlogist that do not believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming).  The AMS, like the Health Physics Society and many other professional societies, has developed a number of consensus position papers on science policy issues, in an attempt to give the wider society and its leaders the benefit of their considered position on the scientific issues involved. In July 2005, the AMS issued a position paper, <www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html>, that simply endorses the "Joint Academies Statement: Global Response to Climate Change", issued by the national academies of science of Braxil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  The Joint Academies Statement is available at <nationalcademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf>. In February 2003, the AMS issued a position paper, "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences" <www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html>.  This position paper is one of the nicer short summaries of the state of climate science (as of early 2003) and the conclusions that ought to be drawn from a balanced consideration of what we knew about climate.  End JSD comment]

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and 
dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: 
look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather 
forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV 
meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know 
there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic 
facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those 
on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, 
the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always 
follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The 
Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on 
climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. 
Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the 
motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For 
many, global warming is a big cash grab.

[JSD comment:  The Romans had a name for this argument -- ad hominem.  End JSD comment]

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet 
here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not 
much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. 
And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice 
covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

[JSD comment:  The Romans also had a name for this argument -- non sequitur.  The fact, admitted by all who study climatology, that climate is naturally variable on every time scale, due to variability in insolation and volcanic eruptions and to the internal dynamics of the complex, non-linear, climate dynamical system, neither confirms nor refutes the separate assertion that man's interactions with the global environment are leading to global warming and other climate changes.  End JSD comment]

If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no 
tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to 
anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is 
generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, 
featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains 
episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State 
University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the 
line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go.

[JSD comment -- What Heidi Cullen and number of others within the climatology community (see <www.realclimate.org> and do a search on "AMS certification") are saying is that the AMS should not give its "Seal of Approval" to weather broadcasters who deny the accepted consensus on global climate change.  Cullen and the others are not contesting Morano's right to state his beliefs, they are simply saying he should not be able to do it with the AMS imprimatur.  End JSD comments]

Best regards.

Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow at pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy