The NYTimes recently ran an article in the defense of Dr. Heidi Cullen on the Weather Channel. Before we start though, understand that if the New York Times writes an article like this you can probably rest assured then that Cullen is most likely a political tool in need of defending.

You may recall that Dr. Cullen speaks out from the Weather Channel that we are in the death grips of man created global warming. She essentially parrots Al Gore's Earth in the Balance nonsense while parading about with questionable credentials.

To be sure, she is NOT a climatologist as she claims, as the Weather Channel claims, as the New York Times claims. On a personal note, I probably have more anecdotal experience and meteorological/climatological education than she'll ever have. But this isn't about me or the thousands of REAL meteorologists and climatologists out there that REALLY disagree with Cullen. This is about Cullen and her facades as a researcher. She majored in religion for her undergraduate degree (where's the science?). She has no Masters Degree. Her doctorate is from a matchbook cover school in which she did one research paper on droughts. But the NYTimes now claims it's from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. Wow... revisionism at its best since this is not what earlier web biographies stated! Anyway - Ta Da! One research project makes her an expert in climatology? I think not. Not by a long shot.

So what is the bottom line here?

First, the Weather Channel has gone political. As a sibling of CNN, they've taken on a full left tilt fully and outrageously in blind support of Al Gore's mythologies. Secondly, the Weather Channel hired on some new bosses - directly from CNN. I would assume their political mindset went with them (and it shows). Third, the Weather Channel has become stupid. With such gems as "Animal Storm Stories", and their bland incorrect and wildly inaccurate predictions peppered with such descriptions of storms as "Wild", "Extreme", "Pounding", and even "Angry"... they've become the bastard step child of the National Inquirer with their blatant sensationalism. And that's insulting to the National Inquirer.

So, is Heidi Cullen a credible source of climatological information as she spews dire warnings about global warming? Not according to thousands of REAL climatologists and meteorologists. But, since Cullen has become the global warming goddess, any dissension about her comments are now taken as heresy. Hence, the New York Times to the rescue. And we all know they're a politically neutral source of news.... NOT!!!


If you wish, here is the NYT article link: click HERE.