Minnesota Public Radio can’t handle comments on climate change

Like Others Of Its Ilk, The Minnesota Public Radio Censors Comments On Its Climate Blog

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

MPR_Capture

Click to visit website

This morning while checking blogs with the phrase “sea surface temperature” I happened on the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © climate change blog. Meteorologist Paul Huttner authored a post there titled “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” Link:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2009/10/could_2010_be_the_hottest_year.shtml

The post begins with, “The numbers are in, and it looks like the “global cooling” theory just melted away.” It has the requisite link to the typical news release (Seth Borenstein’s (AP) article “Statistics experts reject global cooling claims”) and a two-year-old GISS Annual Global Temperature Anomaly Graph, even though a graph of current data would have better helped his cause. But what struck me and caused me to comment there was, first, Huttner’s use of the Climate Change Attribution graph…
http://i39.tinypic.com/2s0o2uo.jpg
…which he wrongly attributes to Kerry Emanuel, and, second, his projection that 2010 could be the warmest on record while hinting that ENSO would ultimately be responsible for it.

I felt obligated to advise him of his error in attribution of the graph and of the fact that the Climate Change Attribution graph uses outdated TSI data. I also reinforced the ENSO-global climate link over the past decade by quoting from Knight et al (2009), but noting that Knight et al make an error in their assumption that the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. Here’s what I wrote:
############
Paul Huttner: A few things. You attribute the Climate Change Attribution graph to Kerry Emanuel, but it’s actually from Global Warming Art:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

The graph is obsolete. It relies on an outdated (1993) Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction that was manufactured, in part, to explain the rise in global temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The current understanding of TSI variability shows little change in solar minimum:
http://i40.tinypic.com/zjb977.jpg
I discussed this in detail here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/agw-proponents-are-two-faced-when-it.html

As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

They write, “El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.”

So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.

Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

Have a nice day.
############
And what did Meteorologist Paul Huttner do?

He rejected my comment.

UPDATE from MPR:

The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I’ve released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.

The comments that didn’t post had a large number of hyperlinks – suspect that’s why the filter didn’t like them.

Paul does not screen comments beforehand.

– Ken Paulman, managing editor for online news, MPR

Posted by Ken Paulman, MPR News | October 30, 2009 5:24 PM

It did take them almost 36 hours to find this and correct it.

Updraft

 

Could 2010 be the hottest year on record?

Posted at 8:59 AM on October 27, 2009 by Paul Huttner (67 Comments)

The numbers are in, and it looks like the “global cooling” theory just melted away.

A new independent statistical analysis of climate records for the past 130 years confirms that the global temperature trend continues upward. The study was performed for The Associated Press by four independent university statistics experts. The four were given blind data sets and asked to analyze the trends, not knowing they were analyzing temperature data to remove any possible bias.

1nasa-2007.jpg
NASA annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature.

Some climate change skeptics have been claiming that the earth has been cooling since 1998, which until that time was the hottest year in the 130 global year surface record. 2005 was slightly hotter according to a NASA analysis. According to NOAA the last 10 years are the hottest decade anywhere in the modern global historical record.

It is remarkable statistically that the 13 warmest years in the modern record have all occurred since 1990. The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have occured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10 000. That’s the equivalent of flipping a coin and having it come up “heads” 14 times in a row.

Some climate change skeptics point to solar variability as the primary reason for climate changes on earth. The problem is, we’ve just observed two of the least active sunspot years in the last century in 2008 and 2009 during the current solar minimum. You would expect then that those two years would be cooler than average globally if the solar cycle theory is valid.

Instead, 2008 was the 8th warmest year in the global temperature record. And event though parts of the U.S. have been running cool in this year, globally 2009 is on pace to be the 6th warmest year on record. That pretty much shreds the solar variability only theory on global temperatures. Why did we observe two “top 10″ warmest years during the lowest period of solar activity in nearly a century? Something else is at play here. Atmospheric changes are likely overcoming any natural solar variability.

Climate Forcing Graph.png
Climate forcing graph shows solar variability as a much smaller climate change forcing component than greenhouse gasses.
(Sent to me by Kerry Emanuel MIT, based on Meehl et al. (2004) courtesy globalwarmingart.com)

This brings us to 2010, which is right around the corner. Several key elements appear to be in place that could produce one of the hottest years, if not the hottest year, in the modern global record.

1) The cooling effects of La Nina are gone in the Pacific Ocean. A moderate El Nino is gaining strength as we enter 2010. This may aid a rise in global temperatures in 2010.

2) The deepest solar minimum in nearly a century appears to be over. Sunspot 1029 formed rapidly this week and is the strongest this year. This could indicate the ramping up of solar cycle 24. Most astronomers expect a dramatic increase in solar activity in 2010.

If all these elements fall into place and the trend of recent decades continues, 2010 could be one of the hottest years on record.

Stay tuned.

PH


Comments (67)

Thanks for the nice article. I came across an article at http://www.icecap.us entitled “Comments on AP story: Statistics experts reject global cooling claims” that suggested the study overlooked something called the upper ocean heat content. What do you think about that?

Thanks.

Posted by Andy | October 27, 2009 3:38 PM


Hi Andy:

 

Thanks for the comment.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that all measures of the planet are statistically much warmer than any sort of normal level in recent history would suggest.

Let’s see where we are after 2010 and in the next 5 to 10 years.

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 27, 2009 5:04 PM


Paul Huttner: A few things. You attribute the Climate Change Attribution graph to Kerry Emanuel, but it’s actually from Global Warming Art:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

 

The graph is obsolete. It relies on an outdated (1993) Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction that was manufactured, in part, to explain part of the the rise in global temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The current understanding of TSI variability shows little change in solar minimum:
http://i40.tinypic.com/zjb977.jpg
I discussed this in detail here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/agw-proponents-are-two-faced-when-it.html

As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

They write, “El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the ‘ENSO-adjusted’ trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.”

So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.

Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

Have a nice day.

Posted by Bob Tisdale | October 29, 2009 4:32 AM


Here is a history of temperatures in Illinois. 2009 will likely be one of the coldest years on record. We could use a little warming so I hope you’re right. The state crop yield was horrible because of the cold.

 

http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/Climate_change/iltren-temp.png

Posted by Windy City Kid | October 29, 2009 8:23 PM


Could you give an example of why a comment would not be accepted on this site? Even from a fellow meteorologist?

 

Posted by Sera | October 30, 2009 2:12 AM


Let’s parse that AP article:

 

“The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

Strawman. 2009 is warmer than 1979 and 1880. But the period between those two start points is not what skeptics have in mind by “over time.” They are referring to the most recent trend.

“And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.”

Another technically correct pseudo-refutation. Since the first half of that period preceded heavy man-made CO2, and therefore warmed from another cause, it indicates there’s a non-anthropogenic component to the long-term warming trend—a component that could still be active. (I.e., the rebound from the LIA.)

“Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998.”

Another strawman. Most skeptics (on WUWT, anyway) don’t choose 1998 as their starting point. Instead, they either claim it’s been cooling during the present century, or since 2002, or since 2004.

“They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.”

A red herring (diversion). It IS that simple, because a short-term flattening and cooling trend falsifies the IPCC’s prediction for this decade, casting doubt on its models’ reliability; because it casts doubt on the implacability (and the urgency of the threat) of CO2’s alleged “forcing”; and because the PDO has flattened and turned negative at about the same time, which suggests that the PDO is the climate “forcer,” not CO2.

If a patient has a fever and the fever “breaks,” that breakage can’t be waved aside with the diversionary argument that the temperature decline hasn’t lasted long enough to be a long-term trend. No one is claiming it is a long-term trend–just that the fever (most likely PDO-driven) has broken.

Posted by Roger Knights | October 30, 2009 2:14 AM


The Climate Change Attribution chart you show is now known to be incorrect.
1. The sun TSI figures are out of date.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf
2. Sulphate emissions were once thought to explain the cooling which took place between 1945-1975. It is now known that these emissions were very localised & were almost exclusively in the northern hemisphere and could not have had a global cooling effect.
This is a problem for the GHG hypothesis. How can one then explain the warming in the 1920’s & 1930’s, not dissimilar to the degree & pace of the 1980’s & 1990’s warming? How can we explain the cooling which followed the warming in the earlier period?

 

Posted by Geoff | October 30, 2009 2:56 AM


I have read Anthony Watts comment which you rejected. It seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me. Perhaps you could explain why you decided to censor his comments.

 

Posted by Rodney Molyneux | October 30, 2009 3:09 AM


Please explain why Bob Tisdale’s science-based comment was rejected.

 

Posted by Molon Labe | October 30, 2009 3:23 AM


Paul,

 

I’ve read Bob Tisdale’s comment to your post and don’t understand why you haven’t replied to it. Here is the link to your colleague Anthony Watts’ WUWT blog site where it is posted so it can be compared to your post and evaluated:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/minnesota-public-radio-cant-handle-comments-on-climate-change/

Your reply that “I think the evidence is overwhelming that all measures of the planet are statistically much warmer than any sort of normal level in recent history would suggest.” may be fine if you exclude the more reliable RSS and UAH satellite temp results showing near anomaly levels. But, why do that in favor of unreliable and openly selective GISS and NOAA results?

Posted by CO2isLIFE | October 30, 2009 4:19 AM


Regarding the “Global Climate Change” graphic at the top of this page, what is really being measured? Does the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) measure the temperature of the earth or the temperature of the network?

 

The two are not the same.

The GHCN and its companion United States Historic Climate Network have a troubling problem with site quality. One that has been well documented by Climatologist Roger Pielke and Meteorologist Anthony Watts.

Many of us Minnesotans have seen the hilarious photo of an air conditioner in Detroit Lakes that exhausts hot air into a weather station sensor. However, few of us are aware of the more subtle problems – like with the station at Zumbrota where an asphalt parking lot has encroached on the USHCN station there.

No wonder NOAA and NASA claim that satellite data is “cooler”. It lacks their station siting bias.

Posted by GregS | October 30, 2009 5:24 AM


Paul,

 

RSS and UAH satellite temperature records exclude high latitude arctic regions which show the highest temperature anomalies. This is why they show a slightly lower warming tend the GISS record which includes these regions.

Regards,
Chris

Posted by Chris | October 30, 2009 6:32 AM


Meteorologists are not having much success predicting annual or even seasonal temperatures of late. The UK Met Office similarly predicted that 2007 would be the hottest year ever (in Jan 2007) only for average temperatures to drop with the result that it was one of the coolest this century. And they have been wrong for about 6 winter / summer seasons in a row predicting mild winters and barbeque summers.

 

Predictions would be somewhat more believable if you could adequately explain why the IPCC2001 predictions have so far completely failed to materialise. Plotting actual temperatures against the predictions (p34 of the Summary report for policy makers) shows them underneath the ENTIRE RANGE. Why is that ?

Rgds
Imran

PS Its not cool to reject comments that are factual and scientific.

Posted by Imran | October 30, 2009 6:46 AM


Chris,

 

What is the source of your assertion that RSS and UAH “exclude” high latitude arctic regions?

As for GISS including these regions, I would hardly credit a single thermometer in areas larger than Texas, as in inclusion.

On the other hand, to achieve the “hottest years ever” claim, NOAA has excluded the more accurate satellite data set of the oceans, and reverted to reliance on reports from buoys and tramp steamers.

It is all more the stuff of politics than science.

Posted by GregS | October 30, 2009 6:52 AM


That last graph is awesome! The drop in sulfates and volcanics show an uncanny correlation to the rise in temperatures, far more than the CO2 does.

 

Volcanics have been proven and witnessed to have far more affect on climate than trace gasses.

Posted by Rick | October 30, 2009 7:04 AM


I find it disturbing that an NPR related site would use outdated, politicized graphs and data, and then reject a comment from a highly qualified responder that merely attempts to update and de-politicize the graphs and data. Censorship of this type seems highly Nixonian, and contrary to the innate mores of NPR. Doesn’t TRUTH matter anymore?

 

Posted by Mike O’Kelly | October 30, 2009 7:06 AM


I’m a bit curious as to why the second graph seems to end in the early 1990’s? Surely, we have some more current information. I’m also intrigued by the term, “greenhouse gases”. It’s a very prominent line, but quite a broad term, really.

 

Posted by BradH | October 30, 2009 7:26 AM


Why is a government funded media outlet misrepresenting the facts so blatantly?
Journalism used to be about skeptical, tough looks.
Now, especially in the publicly funded media, the job is to sell the leftist view of any given issue.
That not one global warming prediction has been accurate will not change, no matter how much spin, misleading reporting, or suppression tax payer supported media engages in.

 

Posted by hunter | October 30, 2009 7:29 AM


One thing in the statistical review article that seems curious to me is that their description of the data is not what anyone would use to describe the CO2 concentration over time (the Keeling curve). Given that CO2 increases are the foundation of the the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, perhaps something other than CO2 is important.

 

Personally, I like Akasofu’s hypothesis that shows good correlation with a steady recovery from the Little Ice Age plus a 60 year periodic oscillation that fits the PDO.

See the full paper at http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
or comments and discussion at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

[Aside - my url is down, apparently due to too many downloads. It'll be back Nov 1 or sooner if I throw money at the problem.]

Posted by Ric Werme | October 30, 2009 7:29 AM


I just read that you rejected a comment to this article from Bob Tisdale. His comment can be found here:

 

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/like-others-of-its-ilk-minnesota-public.html

I have read it, and it does not appear to contain anything that would cause a blog moderator to reject it.

Please post his comment so the readers here can see some well-documented information which is very pertinent to this article.

Thanks.

Posted by Fred C | October 30, 2009 7:31 AM


Like Rodney Molyneux and other posters, I’d like to know how you can justify removing posts by those, such as Anthony Watts, who are capable of providing a coherent alternative to your arguments. What would be the public service in denying your readers the opportunity of the realization that you might be wrong? Or do the ends justify the means?

 

Best Regards,

Dr. Stritmatter

Posted by rstritmatter | October 30, 2009 7:34 AM


Giss must be measuring another Arctic to the Danes.

 

Is there two of them?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Posted by Ripper | October 30, 2009 7:59 AM


As an Australian I am gobsmacked that censoring an esteemed person such as Bob Tisdale could happen in the so called land of the free.

 

Posted by Ripper | October 30, 2009 8:01 AM


Silly article, silly “guess” at what will happen in 2010. Yes, it’s warmer than it was in 1900, or 1901, or 1902 etc.

 

Warming trend since 1998 according to Nasa
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend

Cooling trend since 1998 according to Hadley
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

Warming trend since 1999 Nasa
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend

Cooling rend since 2001Nasa
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/trend

Cooling trend since 2002 Nasa
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend

Do they not teach math or statistics in University level meteorology??

Posted by Dan Robinson, PE | October 30, 2009 8:42 AM


I warn you skeptics with great warning: Gaia will not be mocked! Cease all this endless caterwauling, or face her wrath!!! There are Three things, Three things you must do for Gaia: You must cease your mockery of the Faith, you must cease your vile consumption of meat, and you must make regular offerings to her prophets through the purchases of “carbon credits.” Oh, and you must dramatically reduce your industry and your emissions! Four, These Four things you Must do for Gaia, or She will smite you with great burning and endless woe and a really nasty heat rash!!!

 

Take heed, oh ye unbelievers!!!

Posted by The Goracle | October 30, 2009 8:51 AM


Your rejection of the salient and respectful comments of Bob Tisdale concerning your post is very telling. A person of intellectual honesty and integrity would not do such a thing.
That implies you are not such a person.

 

Posted by Preston Calvert | October 30, 2009 9:34 AM


As a native Minnesotan I am very disappointed in your lack of ethics in censoring a scientific comment. Pointing to the obvious propaganda piece by Seth Borenstein demonstrates a total lack of critical thinking. It is so blatantly cherry picked and unscientific.

 

Climate science is in its infancy. The warming claims are being made based on questionable data and simplistic computer models. Why do you think climate researchers are so much smarter than medical researchers that can’t cure the common cold (or cancers and hundreds of other diseases)? Yet, somehow in just a few years they’ve diagnosed the problem with a much more complex system called Earth and have a cure. More taxes. Why would anyone with an iota of common sense believe claims made about a poorly understood chaotic system when we already know that no scientist in any other field would make such bold claims with such limited knowledge?

Truly mind boggling.

Posted by Richard M | October 30, 2009 10:00 AM


In the last 2 weeks the Pew Poll and the Harris Poll has indicated that the percentage of Americans who think man-made global warming is real has declined significantly, to about 36%.

 

This issue deserves fair and objective coverage. There is no shortage of knowledgeable people who can speak for the climate sceptics. Why is this side of the debate being ignored, on a public funded station?

Posted by r.wright | October 30, 2009 10:11 AM


Do you really mean “hottest year ever”, or just the hottest year since the late 1800’s when we have some form of temperature record?

 

If reporters were honest with the facts then maybe the climate change discussions could be more reasonable. The fact that the earth has been much hotter in the past (and survived without any tipping points) is usually not mentioned and in fact hidden by headlines such as yours. Presenting the full facts to people might allow them to make sense of the discussions, rather than sensationalist headlines.

I wish the media would actual perform real journalism on climate change, where’s a good piece showing how the temperature anomaly graphs are created, the fact they use proxies, different number of temperature stations, how sparse the coverage is for a global temperature and how a global temperature is even calculated.

Posted by climatebeagle | October 30, 2009 10:15 AM


“It’s not hard to hear consensus if you don’t hear any disagreement.”

 

Posted by vanderleun | October 30, 2009 12:15 PM


Where is the report written by these expert statisticians?

 

The only report I am aware of written by expert statisticians on climate controversies was the Wegman report, which confirmed Steve McIntyre’s criticism of the hockey stick picture.

Your headline is up there with those that claimed in 2007 that the arctic would be ice-free in 2008.

The AP article is full of utter nonsense, for example
“Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared,…”
There has been no soaring at all, in fact temperatures have levelled out since 1998 – even the head of the IPCC (Pachauri) has acknowledged this.

Posted by PaulM | October 30, 2009 12:16 PM


On the other hand, although the silence from the author continues apace, it is indeed fortunate Watts noticed this item. Otherwise it would have the blog’s average comment stream: zero to two.

 

Posted by vanderleun | October 30, 2009 12:20 PM


One of the many problems with your report is that the GISS NASA data is dry-labbed. Hansen’s inscrutable algorithms massage (i.e. change) even recorded temperature data from the 1800’s to match his political beliefs. Add the urban heat island effect (which his data-changing algorithms exacerbate instead of mitigate), the unreliability of surface station data (caused by land use changes, for example paving a parking lot right next to the sensors, and moving sensors to be near or on top of buildings so that they can be automated), and the use of small numbers of measurements to cover vast unpopulated areas (thousands of square miles), and you find that GISS is just not trustworthy. It should never be used. Any time I see it used in an article, I disregard all of the author’s conclusions, because a reputable author who has done his homework would know the issues regarding it.

 

Posted by Scott | October 30, 2009 12:39 PM


Minnesota Public Radio:

 

“Our Mission is to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit, thereby assisting our audiences to enhance their lives, expand perspectives and strengthen their communities.”

How can one enrich the mind and nourish the spirit if one refuses to listen to another point of view? There is more than one perspective to this global warming business and only honest, unbiased reporting by publicly funded media – can deliver it.

Posted by Richard Just | October 30, 2009 1:05 PM


FYI:

 

I have not rejected Bob Tisdale’s or any other comments on the site. I (and MPR) accept all comments as long as they do not have profanity etc.

If a comment did not appear it was a techincal error. Please re-submit any comments.

You guys must be posting from Australia or something as many of the commetns came in the wee hours of the morning here. Don’t you guys sleep?

I was off duty at an appointment this morning through midday here Minnesota time. I do appreciate the comments and traffic!

More soon…

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 2:16 PM


//That last graph is awesome! The drop in sulfates and volcanics show an uncanny correlation to the rise in temperatures, far more than the CO2 does.

 

Volcanics have been proven and witnessed to have far more affect on climate than trace gasses.

Posted by Rick | October 30, 2009 7:04 AM //

Yes Rick, large volcanic eruptions have a significant temporary global cooling effect. Tambora and Pinatubo are great examples. They just don’t seem to occur often enough to play a role in long term climate.

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 2:47 PM


Is there a good reason why the graph shows an increasing solar influence when the current consensus is that over the long term (excluding the pseudo-11 year cycle) total Solar irradiance is near enough constant?

 

Posted by Sean Houlihane | October 30, 2009 2:51 PM


Minnesota Public Radio:

 

“Our Mission is to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit, thereby assisting our audiences to enhance their lives, expand perspectives and strengthen their communities.”

//How can one enrich the mind and nourish the spirit if one refuses to listen to another point of view? There is more than one perspective to this global warming business and only honest, unbiased reporting by publicly funded media – can deliver it.

Posted by Richard Just | October 30, 2009 1:05 PM //

Richard: I think you can see many perspectives right here in these blog comments. And MPR is roughly 90% funded by our wonderful members’ contributions and underwriting.

People support us precisely because we give a fuller, deeper, more balanced approach to news than any other media outlet. That is why we are the clear number one rated radio station in this market.

PH
——————————————————————————–

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 2:58 PM


//Do you really mean “hottest year ever”, or just the hottest year since the late 1800’s when we have some form of temperature record?

 

Posted by climatebeagle | October 30, 2009 10:15 AM //

Beagle:

Yes, a more accurate title might have been “Hottest Year on Record?”

I will change it.

Thanks..

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 3:03 PM


//As a native Minnesotan I am very disappointed in your lack of ethics in censoring a scientific comment. Pointing to the obvious propaganda piece by Seth Borenstein demonstrates a total lack of critical thinking. It is so blatantly cherry picked and unscientific.

 

Posted by Richard M | October 30, 2009 10:00 AM //

As I posted here, no comments have been censored. I have asked Mr. Tisdale to re-post his comment. If it did not make it thought it was purely a technical reason. It would be nice if people would check these things out before they claim “censorship.”

Clearly you can see all of the other posts made it through.

MPR does not censor commentary on blogs.

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 3:11 PM


I am SHOCKED that MPR would allow the above blog, but not the comments of comments of Bob Tisdale. As pointed out by Anthony Watts, many of what you call facts are outdated or just wrong.

 

For those who aren’t drunk on Al Gore’s cool-aid, and would like to become informed on this subject, Try going to Watts Up Wuth That.

Fewer Americans now believe in the Global Warming hoax than believe in Haunted Houses. Eventualy the truth will prevail.

2009 Hottest year BALONEY.

Posted by Ronald Hansen | October 30, 2009 3:15 PM


There are few things more disappointing than an NPR reporter refusing to accept valid criticism and then hiding behind the excuse of “technical error”.

 

The bottom line is Tisdale is correct and you made an error. A grotesque error. Not only in your analysis (which obscures the real science and does it a tremendous disservice), but in the intelligence and knowledge of your audience.

Posted by David Walton | October 30, 2009 3:17 PM


Bob Tisdale:

 

Neither myself nor anybody at MPR rejected you comment. It must be a technical issue. Please re-submit your comment. As you can see all other comments have posted just fine.

It would be good to check with me personally before you post a claim that MPR “censors” comments. We do not. My contact information is easily available on the MPR site.

It is ironic that all your comments must be approved by the blog author.(you) All comments to Updraft post immediately, without my approval.

From your site: “Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.”

Amazing.

I attempted to post this on your blog but cannot as I do not have a Google account.

PH
Paul Huttner
Chief Meteoroloigst
MPR
phuttner@mpr.org

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 3:30 PM


In the web address, it reads ‘publicradio’. Is it? Or does this website, like so many other media outlets that claim to be public, just another arm of ideologists that do not wish to see anything contradicting the AGW agenda.

 

Posted by David Alan | October 30, 2009 3:52 PM


To All:

 

Thanks so much for the great posts.

With all respect to those who somehow find a way disagree with the fact that our planet is getting warmer, just try this.

Take out a coin and try to get “heads” on a flip 14 times in a row today.

From my Updraft post:

“It is remarkable statistically that the 13 warmest years in the modern record have all occurred since 1990. The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have occurred by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10 000. That’s the equivalent of flipping a coin and having it come up “heads” 14 times in a row.”

This is perhaps the most compelling data that stack the deck in favor of AGW. How can anyone account for the fact that since 1984 we have not observed one year globally cooler than the 1961-1990 average?

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png

You would expect that half the years since 1984 would have been below that average. And yet there is NOT ONE YEAR COOLER THAN AVERAGE since 1984?

Instead, we have seen the 13 warmest years since 1990? That’s a one in 10,000 shot folks.

Global warming “skeptics” are simply on the wrong side of the data. The only way you come to a conclusion that does not recognize global climate change is if you have a preset opinion.

I am always open to credible peer reviewed science that changes scientific theory and thinking. Say what you want, but the overwhelming scientific evidence is on the side of continued planetary warming in the coming decades.

Let’s see where we are after 2010, and beyond.

Enjoy the weekend.

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 3:54 PM



Richard: I think you can see many perspectives right here in these blog comments. And MPR is roughly 90% funded by our wonderful members’ contributions and underwriting.

 

Paul,

My point is that given the content of the comments it is apparent there is another perspective to the global warming issue. One supported by well-meaning, honest citizens and scientists that does not get published by MPR, NPR or other mainstream media.

MPR receives 64% operating revenue from “public” sources including grants from endowments, foundations, and businesses. About 20% of your budget comes from listener/member contributions (which is admirable.)

One might reasonably speculate that the larger percentage of grants from corporate and foundations may color your selection of climate science news. Which does not necessarily “expand perspectives and strengthen their [audience] communities.”

Posted by Richard Just | October 30, 2009 3:55 PM


Paul,

 

Re: Instead, 2008 was the 8th warmest year in the global temperature record. And event though parts of the U.S. have been running cool in this year, globally 2009 is on pace to be the 6th warmest year on record. That pretty much shreds the solar variability only theory on global temperatures. Why did we observe two “top 10″ warmest years during the lowest period of solar activity in nearly a century? Something else is at play here. Atmospheric changes are likely overcoming any natural solar variability.

As a meteorologist, you no doubt understand seasonal lag. On an oceanic level, there is also a lag to heat or cool it, and then realize the affect on temps, and that lag is much longer. I think it may be a bit premature to declare the solar / temp theory “shredded.” I’m interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.

Posted by Terry | October 30, 2009 3:58 PM


Paul Huttner: A few things. You attribute the Climate Change Attribution graph to Kerry Emanuel, but it’s actually from Global Warming Art:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

 

The graph is obsolete. It relies on an outdated (1993) Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction that was manufactured, in part, to explain the rise in global temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The current understanding of TSI variability shows little change in solar minimum:
http://i40.tinypic.com/zjb977.jpg
I discussed this in detail here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/agw-proponents-are-two-faced-when-it.html

As you imply, global temperature variations are dictated by ENSO. This is confirmed by Knight et al (2009) “Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?”:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/global_temperatures_09.pdf

They write, “El Nino–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008) (Fig. 2.8a). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08 +/- 0.07 deg C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00 +/- 0.05 deg C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.”

So there hasn’t been the anticipated rise in global temperature because, after you remove the effects of ENSO, the trend is zero. Therefore, if this year is a record year, it should be attributable to ENSO, not AGW.

Also note that Knight et al (2009) assume the relationship between ENSO and global temperature is linear. It is not.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html

Have a nice day.

Posted by Bob Tisdale | October 30, 2009 4:17 PM


You MPR scientific types are getting a reputation. Is it true your easy?

 

Posted by Fred J Harris | October 30, 2009 4:30 PM


“Take out a coin and try to get “heads” on a flip 14 times in a row today.”

 

Paul, please don’t be so condesending. Many of the skeptics are hard core statisticians. No one is aurguing that the climate is Bernoulli process (like a coin toss process).

The correct question is: how likely is it to see the range of temperatures of the past few years, given the historical temperature range during this interglacial period?

To answer that question, you must know what the temperature variability has been over the past few thousand years.

Just because Google’s stock has traded high for the past month doesn’t mean that its in a run-away race condition and will never cycle back to lower prices.

Posted by mpaul | October 30, 2009 4:39 PM


@Paul Huttner

 

” All comments to Updraft post immediately, without my approval.”

“Clearly you can see all of the other posts made it through.”

I posted a comment early this morning regarding the fact that GISS not only show more of a warming trend than RSS and UAH; but it also shows more of a warming trend than HadCRUT3. That comment elicited a reply that my comment was being held in moderation pending approval of the blog owner. The comment never made it through.

Posted by Dave Middleton | October 30, 2009 4:42 PM


Paul Huttner: You wrote, “Neither myself nor anybody at MPR rejected you comment. It must be a technical issue. Please re-submit your comment. As you can see all other comments have posted just fine.”

 

I resubmitted my comment at ~5:15PM today and received the following reply page.
#####
Updraft
Minnesota Public Radio chief meteorologist Paul Huttner blogs about our region’s favorite conversation starter.
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
Return to the original entry.
####
Check your spam filter, Paul.

Posted by Bob Tisdale | October 30, 2009 4:43 PM



Paul,

 

My point is that given the content of the comments it is apparent there is another perspective to the global warming issue.

Posted by Richard Just | October 30, 2009 3:55 PM

//Hi Richard: “perspective” and “science” are two different animals. This is especially true in climate change discussions.//

PH
One might reasonably speculate that the larger percentage of grants from corporate and foundations may color your selection of climate science news. Which does not necessarily “expand perspectives and strengthen their [audience] communities.”

Posted by Richard Just | October 30, 2009 3:55 PM

Richard: I can assure you that NO ONE at MPR has or ever will tell me what to discuss or publish regarding climate change. If they did, I would walk immediately and make it public.

In fact MPR has the highest journalistic ethics of any news organization I have ever been fortunate enough to work for. And I have been fortunate enough to have worked at some of the best; including WCCO-TV in the Twin Cities and WGN-TV in Chicago.

My analysis and perspective on global climate change are my own, and are not dictated or influenced in any way by MPR or it’s supporters.

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 4:51 PM


Paul Huttner: You wrote, “Neither myself nor anybody at MPR rejected you comment. It must be a technical issue. Please re-submit your comment. As you can see all other comments have posted just fine.”

 

I resubmitted my comment at ~5:15PM today and received the following reply page.
#####
Updraft
Minnesota Public Radio chief meteorologist Paul Huttner blogs about our region’s favorite conversation starter.
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
Return to the original entry.
####
Check your spam filter, Paul.

Posted by Bob Tisdale | October 30, 2009 4:43 PM

Hi Bob:

I’m not an IT guy, so I don’t know why you would get that message. I will be happy to forward it to those who would know.

Obviously your comment above comment made it through…along with nearly all the 50+ others. Again, I do not personally approve any comments to Updraft.

I would be happy to respond to any data you can show me. But you are not being censored in any way.

Would you please remove or change your incorrect blog post headline below?

“Like Others Of Its Ilk, The Minnesota Public Radio Censors Comments On Its Climate Blog”

Again, you could have easily contacted me personally before inaccurately claiming to be “censored.”

PH

Posted by Paul Huttner | October 30, 2009 5:04 PM


“Skeptics are on the wrong side of the data”

 

Simple right? Except exactly what data, what time frame (no cherry picking); do we take into account the recovery from the LIA?
Do we demand that temps continue to rise with increased CO2 or excuse the lack of increase the last decade or so?

Is it necessary for skeptics to prove CO2 does not raise temps much or do AGW fans have to prove it does?

Or is it just get in, shut up and hold on?

Posted by Ed | October 30, 2009 5:21 PM


The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I’ve released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.

 

The comments that didn’t post had a large number of hyperlinks – suspect that’s why the filter didn’t like them.

Paul does not screen comments beforehand.

– Ken Paulman, managing editor for online news, MPR

Posted by Ken Paulman, MPR News | October 30, 2009 5:24 PM

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, media. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Minnesota Public Radio can’t handle comments on climate change

  1. Bulldust says:

    It must be that this site is moderated by the Real Climat crew… both reject anti-AGW arguments, therefore they must be the same mods. My logic is unfallable.

  2. timetochooseagain says:

    “breathless” reporting comes to mind.

    Hottest year “ever”? Really? Please tell me the man didn’t waste money on a college education.

  3. Steve Schaper says:

    Minnesota. We’d like some global warming ;-)

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist ;-)

  4. crosspatch says:

    His mind is made up. He isn’t going to listen. He is already convinced.

    Record high temperatures? Is he nuts?

  5. rukidding says:

    Maybe some one here can help me with a couple of questions to do with climate change.I thought I might get the answers from those nice chaps over at the IPCC site but I could not find the answers.

    So seeing how the science is settled where would I find the equation that shows the direct relation between the amount of CO2 in the air and the average temperature of the earth.

    What amount of CO2 must man limit himself to that he can emit into the air each year from now on until he has this global warming under control.
    I think I know the answer to the last one.NONE.But I guess that would really scare people.

    Thank You

  6. Roger Knights says:

    Hi, I’ve just re-posted the comment I’ve made here (twice) “parsing” the AP story, and appended the following paragraph:

    If a patient has a fever and the fever “breaks,” that breakage can’t be waved aside with the diversionary argument that the temperature decline hasn’t lasted long enough to be a long-term trend. No one is claiming it is a long-term trend–just that the fever (most likely PDO-driven) has broken.

    My comment now appears on their site. Maybe yours got rejected because of its complex graphics. Or, more likely, the site-owner wants to check out your claims and prepare a rebuttal or concession to appear along with it,.

  7. Luboš Motl says:

    Minnesotans for global warming have also corrected the recent British commercial about the “global warming bedtime story”. The new version is much better and much more true:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/cap-and-trade-bedtime-story.html

  8. Kurt says:

    What exactly is that graph supposed to demonstrate? Presumably, the model wasn’t run in the late 1800s, so it’s a pretty good guess that the model was calibrated post-hoc to fit the observations. Also, the right hand axis is labeled as the “modeled” forcing of the various inputs in degrees Centigrade so, at best, the graph only indicates that the climate models assume that the observed rise in temperatures were due to GHGs rather than other factors.

  9. rbateman says:

    There never was any C02 pollution-induced global warming.
    There is only the heat budget of Earth.
    Never trust Planetary Paregoric Salesman. They have nothing to offer but a pretty label on a bottle of Snake Oil. If you look closely, you’ll also discover that the bottle is as empty as thier predictions.

  10. rbateman says:

    Luboš Motl (01:07:05) :

    Corrected or not, that’s still a terrible thing to do to children.
    Reading them nighmarish sci-fi before bed.
    Did they bother to tell the parents that little Suzy needs an extra blanket tonight, now that the real monsters have stolen the family’s stove fuel?

  11. paullm says:

    I have just had my following comment posted on Huttner’s comments using a new handle I thought might add some pizzazz:

    Paul,

    I’ve read Bob Tisdale’s comment to your post and don’t understand why you haven’t replied to it. Here is the link to your colleague Anthony Watts’ WUWT blog site where it is posted so it can be compared to your post and evaluated:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/minnesota-public-radio-cant-handle-comments-on-climate-change/

    Your reply that “I think the evidence is overwhelming that all measures of the planet are statistically much warmer than any sort of normal level in recent history would suggest.” may be fine if you exclude the more reliable RSS and UAH satellite temp results showing near anomaly levels. But, why do that in favor of unreliable and openly selective GISS and NOAA results?

    Posted by CO2isLIFE | October 30, 2009 4:19 AM

  12. paullm says:

    rukidding (00:15:47) :

    I believe you’re looking for:

    CO2>0=T2Hi.

  13. Luboš Motl says:

    Rbateman: clearly, you didn’t listen to the video at all. ;-)

    It is a parody constructed by Minnesotans for Global Warming, a climate realist group in the state, saying that cap-and-trade is a very nasty bill. The girl is led to the opposite conclusion, and she is much less being scared. She’s just cold a bit, and the father says that in the past, they were freer and had a cheaper energy. He doesn’t tell her anything about about the future at all.

  14. hayesy says:

    “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?”

    Weren’t they saying that last year about 2009? They’re worse than certain sports fans. “There’s always next year…”

  15. Skeptic Tank says:

    )” You have your facts, and I have mine.” (

  16. RACookPE1978 says:

    I am from the approved press corpse (er, corps) of the government.
    I am here to help you.
    I am here to publicize only what has been given me from an approved source – and as proof, look at this press release (from an approved source that I approve of) that is presenting me with (approved) information (that I approve of) so I can publish (er, publicize and propagandize) all the approved information (that I approved of) to the masses who need my approved information…..

  17. Thomas J. Arnold. says:

    How is it possible to have a logical discourse with a twit like this?
    Is he a scientist? If he is why can he not see the wood (from the trees), is he blind or something else?
    It seems pretty plain to me, why can’t Huttner see it?
    Or does he think, AGW drives ENSO which in turn drives AGW – duh?

    Personally I wish that I and we understood more about oceanic currents and warming/cooling periods which are a consequence of PDO(PDV) and AMO’s. A fascinating and enormously complicated study, as a landlubber not one for me really.

    Obstinacy is one of man’s greatest failings open your mind Mr. Huttner.

  18. rukidding says:

    paullm (02:37:53) :

    rukidding (00:15:47) :

    I believe you’re looking for:

    CO2>0=T2Hi.

    Yes that must be the one thanks :-)

  19. Eddie Murphy says:

    I know what its like… I’m ignored and even hung up on when I try to do anything about Thom Hartmann or Mike Malloy.

  20. Pressed Rat says:

    What do you expect? This is the Modern Scandanavian Socialist State of Minnesota. Most folks here can’t wait to become part of the EU.

  21. hunter says:

    Yet another in the long, unpleasant list of examples as to why government controlled media cannot exist in a nation based on freedom without inevitably censoring freedom.

  22. Jim says:

    Given the fact that the US is broke, we could probably save some money by dropping state and local public radio anyway.

  23. Midwest Mark says:

    And so the AGW crowd continues to fiddle while Rome burns (or, in this case, freezes over). Their claims seem to be getting more and more outlandish as true science chips away at their long-standing assertions. We’re witnessing desperation! Halleuiah!

  24. Vincent says:

    Brilliant parody, Lubos – Minnesotans. Now let’s get it onto prime time British tv.

  25. Bill Illis says:

    On a related note, the current El Nino seems to be heating up now.

    We could have a moderate El Nino by the NDJ period (the usual peak of the ENSO) while a few weeks ago, not much seemed to be happening.

    The Trade Winds have really weakened lately, the SOI has moved strongly negative and we are starting to see some movement of the warm waters in the Pacific Warm Pool backwards into the Nino regions.

    Nino 4 is over 1.5C now and the Nino 1,2 region which was recently quite cold, has moved well above-normal in a short period of time.

  26. ew-3 says:

    “And what did Meteorologist Paul Huttner do?
    He rejected my comment.”

    In my best Jack Nicholson – “He can’t handle the truth”

  27. INGSOC says:

    … The eco-deists don’t care what the facts are. Facts also get in the way of their goals. There is no point in debating these loons directly as they have already discounted anything you might have to say. All one needs to do is imagine that instead of speaking with a responsible and thoughtful adult, you are instead speaking to a 5 year old child; an obstinate and easily distracted one at that. The best approach is to simply talk around them. They hate being ignored. It has been made clear during these past years of cooling that they are very effective at destroying themselves. It is good that they publish what they think in the open. More than half of the time, the eco-deists are doing damage control for their own words!

    Nice try though.

  28. Kum Dollison says:

    Both sides need to leave the children out of it.

  29. wws says:

    I just wrote a post that I know will get deleted, but I have got to copy it here:

    by: The Goracle

    I warn you skeptics with great warning: Gaia will not be mocked! Cease all this endless caterwauling, or face her wrath!!! There are Three things, Three things you must do for Gaia: You must cease your mockery of the Faith, you must cease your vile consumption of meat, and you must make regular offerings to her prophets through the purchases of “carbon credits.” Oh, and you must dramatically reduce your industry and your emissions! Four, These Four things you Must do for Gaia, or She will smite you with great burning and endless woe and a really nasty heat rash!!!

    Take heed, oh ye unbelievers!!!

  30. Ron de Haan says:

    Nice work Bob, this is the way to go.

    In the mean time at icecap.us: Lord Moncton is going to introduce an active campaign to prevent the political effects of policy making based on false climate data for which he intends to use th “Instrument of Repudiation”.

    It’s about collecting as much as possible signatures against Cap&Trade, Copenhagen or any other CO2 emissions reduction scheme and it has to stop the plans for a World Government.

    The campaign will be announced and Fox today during an interview with Lord Moncton and John Bolton, the US Ambassador with the UN.

    Oct 29, 2009
    Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

    By Janet Albrechtsen, Wall Street Journal

    UPDATE: from Bob Webster

    The current meeting in Copenhagen is anticipated to produce a follow-on to the Kyoto “global warming” treaty (a treaty to which few, if any, signers were able to meet their obligations). The U.S. was wise enough to not endorse that treaty (it failed overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate). Had Kyoto provisions been adhered to, after 100 years there would be little measurable impact on climate, even according to those who support the flawed human-caused global warming theory.

    Now we have the follow-on to Kyoto being fabricated in Copenhagen. There are provisions in the draft treaty that seek to overrule the U.S. Constitution and seek to create a world-wide authority with significant power to enforce treaty provisions. Adoption by the U.S. of this proposed treaty would be disastrous on many levels.

    In an effort to build opposition in the U.S. Senate to any proposed treaty based on the deeply flawed “science” of human-caused global warming, Lord Monckton of Brenchley (Christopher Monckton), who is an outstanding spokesman against the flawed global warming theory (and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher), has created an “Instrument of Repudiation” document which he is asking U.S. citizens to endorse. I have created the web pages to enable this process online. I urge each of you to go online here and follow the links to read and endorse this “Instrument of Repudiation.”

    This campaign will be linked from many other websites and will be announce with Lord Monckton’s appearance Friday on the Glenn Beck program (I believe it is the evening TV show, but he may also be on the radio program).

    We would like as many people as possible to endorse (sign) the “Instrument of Repudiation” TODAY. If you haven’t seen Lord Monckton in action, I can promise you, it is worth your time to watch (or listen to) Glenn’s program. Monckton is VERY intelligent and quite humorous, and he knows his stuff! Please pass this message along to those you know who you believe would be favorable to endorsing/signing the Instrument of Repudiation (which can be read by following the links to signing/endorsing). Thanks for all you can do to help stop this proposed monstrosity!

  31. Carlo says:

    I copy and paste the comment from Bob Tisdale and send it.

  32. Kate says:

    How do global warming alarmists react to hard scientific facts?

    La-La Land

    It would be much quicker and more instructive to their point of view if all the man-made global warming worshipers were simply to write and say “La, la, la, la, la, la, I’m not listening, la, la, la, la, la, we must be changing the climate because that is what I want to believe, la, la, la, la, la, not listening! I don’t know why you are talking because I am not listening, la, la, la, la, la, la, I can’t hear anything you’re saying, la, la, la, la”.

    They could also put their fingers in their ears, although it isn’t essential as we can’t see them all.

  33. KBK says:

    I’m thinking that your post may have been rejected by the MPR spam filter since, by a quick count, it contains five links. Perhaps you could ask about that and politely request they resurrect it from the trap?

    Also, as I’m sure you must realize, “Have a nice day” is widely considered to be a snide remark. Did you intend it that way, or do you still believe it means something like “Take care, see you later”?

  34. J. Bob says:

    The PBS station is in the pocket of the Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) party. Don’t confuse facts with policy.

  35. Jeff says:

    I’m not sure how things are rejected on the MPR site as I’ve never been there before. A commenter above speculated that the author of that post was preparing a rebuttal or perhaps the graphic was too complicated for the site. I don’t think the rebuttal idea works because that doesn’t preclude the comment being posted while the author makes a rebuttal. He could have left it up and made a short comment that he wanted to consider it more or was preparing a response to it.

    The MPR post clearly comes across as biased. Journalism seems to have died.

    At any rate, for those complaining about censorship, you might try contacting the station rather than voicing censorship complaints on a page where they may be rejected. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/about/contact/

  36. gary gulrud says:

    I’ve divided my life between Minnesota and Wisconsin, along with Iowa, the best educated populations in AmeriKKKa. What good is an education?

    Evidently, it enables one to discern the level-headed objectivity of formerly government-funded media with no agenda.

  37. Gene Nemetz says:

    Minnesota sent Al Frankin to Washington. WT*??

    (100 People Who are Screwing Up America,
    and Al Frankin is #37 ;-) )

  38. JC says:

    I have some relatives that live in Minnesota. They are farmers. They raise corn and soybeans. This year due to the weather 60% of their crops are late. They are concerned that they may loose as much as 40% if the snows come before they can get all the crops in. It’s not warm weather that’s the problem it’s the cold. I can’t believe this guy is trying to sell this there.

  39. Paddy says:

    Garrison Keillor has significant editorial influence over Minnesota Public Broadcasting. He used to be extremely humorous, that is until he became politically active. He evolved into a humorless uber-liberal ranter about AGW, our Dear Leader and his (George Soros’) agenda.

    To illustrate my point, I e-mailed Keillor and asked him how the citizens of Lake Woebegon would react if a Muslim group applied for a building permit to construct a mosque across the street for the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility. I am still waiting for a response form Keillor.

    As for as Al Franken is concerned, he is a Keillor copycat.

    I am confident that the coming winter in Minnesota will do more damage to AGWers belief system than the input from GW skeptics.

  40. J. Peden says:

    I check into the area NPR radio stations every so often just to make sure they are still as painfully deluded as usual, and feeding the same kind of infantile elitist pablum and fantasies to their audience, who they seem to take as utter ignoramuses.

    I am seldom not rewarded – and usually very quickly: last time, I found Garrison Keillor featured in a short ~”Journalist’s Comment” segment about truth and lieing, where he saw fit to strongly state twice that in regard to the Paula Jones suit vs Bill Clinton, ” the Judge dismissed the suit”.

    Well of course the Judge “dismissed” the suit, but only after Clinton had settled for $850,000-900,000, which Keillor did not mention. President Clinton was also sanctioned in some other ways by the Court and the Law Bar.

    Given that Garrison Keillor is perhaps NPR’s most popular figure, why wouldn’t his deranged “ethic” be assumed to permeate all of NPR?

  41. Mark Hugoson says:

    Temperatures versus energy. The prima facia indication of stupidity.

    Yes, it was BLISTERING HOT in AZ, and on the West Coast (for two weeks).

    But throughout the Midwest it was COLD. I took my electric bill out. The local
    power company gives some historical information. Lowest summer usage in 15 years!

    I visited a friend in Omaha about two weeks ago. He works for the local, “public” power company. “If we didn’t have the structure of a public utility, our stock would have BOTTOMED this summer. Our “summer peak” usage was 12% above the “baseline power demand”. Usually it is about 78% percent. This was the coolest summer in YEARS!”.

    Temperature versus ENERGY…atmospheric ENERGY. The real question.

  42. Gene Nemetz says:

    Luboš Motl (03:23:08) :

    The remake is funny!

  43. Scott says:

    I added this comment to the site. Donno if it will be accepted:

    One of the many problems with your report is that the GISS NASA data is dry-labbed. Hansen’s inscrutable algorithms massage (i.e. change) even recorded temperature data from the 1800’s to match his political beliefs. Add the urban heat island effect (which his data-changing algorithms exacerbate instead of mitigate), the unreliability of surface station data (caused by land use changes, for example paving a parking lot right next to the sensors, and moving sensors to be near or on top of buildings so that they can be automated), and the use of small numbers of measurements to cover vast unpopulated areas (thousands of square miles), and you find that GISS is just not trustworthy. It should never be used. Any time I see it used in an article, I disregard all of the author’s conclusions, because a reputable author who has done his homework would know the issues regarding it.

  44. Doug says:

    “Garrison Keillor has significant editorial influence over Minnesota Public Broadcasting.”

    Oh come on. No he doesn’t. He has significant editorial influence over his own show, A Prairie Home Companion. He’s almost entirely absent from MPR outside of that, barring participating in an occasional pledge drive.

    Keillor’s political views have nothing to do with the moderation of comment posts on the MPR climate blog. Let’s not fall into conspiracy mode about something far more simply explained.

  45. Yarmy says:

    You have to laugh a little. Could that graph be any narrower? I notice too it stops in 1990. The modelled versus observed is also amusing since the modelled was calculated after the observation. In my experience it’s easier to make predictions once you know what happened.

  46. Indiana Bones says:

    Strangely, MPR’s meteorologic site “Updraft” published an article two weeks ago titled:
    Is the record-setting October 12th snowfall a predictor?
    9:14 PM on October 12, 2009 by Mark Seeley

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2009/10/is_the_record_setting_october.shtml

    WUWT?

  47. Tenuc says:

    Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?

    Could Paul Huttner be so worried about AGW that he gnaws his right arm off?

    The answer to both ridiculous question could be yes, although I think the second one is more likely to happen.

    Poor quality data + Poor understanding of chaotic systems = Poor science.

  48. M White says:

    “The four were given BLIND DATA SETS and asked to analyze the trends, not knowing they were analyzing temperature data to remove any possible bias.”

    I wonder where those DATA SETS orriginated

  49. artwest says:

    hunter (05:25:02) :Yet another in the long, unpleasant list of examples as to why government controlled media cannot exist in a nation based on freedom without inevitably censoring freedom.

    —————–

    In the UK most of our media is not “government controlled” (none is entirely, but leaving that aside) and there are plenty of commercial TV channels – they are ALL showing this ghastly advert.

    ALL the commercial channels are wedded to AGW as much as the BBC.
    One commercial channel, Channel 4 (not to be confused with BBC4) did show The Great Global Warming Swindle a couple of times, but otherwise it’s programming is as pro-AGW as the BBC – including it’s widely-respected Channel 4 News. No other commercial channel has shown much, if anything, which questions AGW. AGW is generally treated as an absolute given by all TV channels.

    While we are at it, ALL mainstream UK parties from Right to as far Left as any party is these days is pro-AGW.

    I would suggest that this is the case in most countries of Europe and probably the world.
    In most places outside the US this isn’t much of a Right/Left issue as those with power and influence, of whatever political hue, versus the rest.

    Portraying this as a Right vs Left issue will be counter-productive in any country outside the US and I’m not convinced that it helps there.

    We need people to put aside their knee-jerk political positions if we are going to get people to look at the science (or lack thereof) with fresh eyes.

  50. jack mosevich says:

    Maybe someone posted already but I didn’t see it: Bob Tilsdale’s and many other comments are now displayed at Hunters site. Good work all!

  51. Indiana Bones says:

    Now it just looks like sloppy production work. Here is the post from Climate Chief Paul Huttner’s “climatologist” page on yesterday’s “Denver Mega (Snow) Storm:”

    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/

    This guy is effusive about record snows – yet purportedly is a staunch AGW cultist! Apparently the several writers of this character do not get together in the writer’s room long enough to agree on how to spin his dialog. Suggestion: check your sources for MPR funding before claiming it’s 90% from members. Sorry but, how lazy can you get?

  52. Don Smith says:

    SPAM filter takes the blame. THis is now included in the comments on the post:

    The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I’ve released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.

    The comments that didn’t post had a large number of hyperlinks – suspect that’s why the filter didn’t like them.

    Paul does not screen comments beforehand.

    — Ken Paulman, managing editor for online news, MPR

    Posted by Ken Paulman, MPR News | October 30, 2009 5:24 PM

  53. Tsk Tsk says:

    I get to listen to Huttner going to work and coming home and believe me that I was quite unhappy when I heard him echo his blog on the air. Incidentally, he also echoed the “3rd lowest arctic minimum ice extent” message after NOAA made that announcement. As others have said he is clearly a believer, but there is no conspiracy. Everyone should be happy to know that Huttner confessed to filter problems today and welcomed additional comments. In fact he even hinted that people should read the comments and referred to skeptics as… skeptics. While I don’t agree with his beliefs in the least I will give him credit for being polite about the topic. That is not something I can say about most true believers.

    BTW, this audience should be more interested in the series that Marketplace is running on the topic. They haven’t been nearly as unbalanced as I feared, but they did interview Gavin…

  54. Steve Schaper says:

    Pressed Rat, that’s just the Cities, full of foreigners. Most of Minnesotans outside of the five county area are like Canadians – with guns. Minnesota-nice, but very much old-style Americans.

    Goreacle, I’m confused. We aren’t supposed to eat animals, but animals give off methane gas. What are we supposed to do with the carcasses, once we’ve hunted them all down in accordance with your law? And won’t we be the ones giving off methane, if we turn herbivore? Oh, I see, that explains the ‘health care plan’, doesn’t it?

    Mr. Nemetz, we did NOT send Franken to DC. ACORN and a corrupt ACORN Secretary of State did. And it took them a while to conjure up enough fake votes even after roughly 100,000 fraudulent registrations, staff voting for nursing home residents, felons in Stillwater voting, college students voting at more than one campus, votes ‘discovered’ in a trunk, and over 100 duplicates ordered counted anyway.

    We’re set for more snow in the next hour or so.

  55. Bob Tisdale says:

    Don Smith: You wrote, “SPAM filter takes the blame.”

    And I revised my post with the following update…
    #####
    UPDATE (10-30-09): It appears we resolved the problem of missing comments at the Minnesota Public Radio Updraft © blog. The comments were held in a spam filter that the moderator Paul Huttner appears not to have known existed and that appears not to be checked on a regular basis.

    In response to Meteorologist Paul Huttner’s request on his “Could 2010 be the hottest year ever?” thread…
    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2009/10/could_2010_be_the_hottest_year.shtml
    …in which he asked me to resubmit my comment, I did as asked, but documented the text that appeared when a comment is being held for approval by a moderator; that is, “Thank you for commenting…Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner”

    I suggested he check his spam filter in a subsequent comment.

    He replied, “I’n [sic] not an IT guy, so I don’t know why you would get that message. I will be happy to forward it to those who would know.”

    Then later Ken Paulman, Managing Editor for Online News at MPR, added, “The missing comments were indeed being caught up in a spam filter. I’ve released the unpublished comments and they should be visible on the site now.
    “The comments that didn’t post had a large number of hyperlinks – suspect that’s why the filter didn’t like them.
    “Paul does not screen comments beforehand.”

    The comments do now appear on the webpage, and in response to Paul Huttner’s request,”Would you please remove or change your incorrect blog post headline below?” I have changed the post title.

    The new title of the post is, “Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog.”
    #####
    The number of comments on the MPR thread jumped when they posted the comments held by the spam filter. I wonder if the number of comments also increased on other threads.

  56. Ian in the Peg says:

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see”

    Is he oblivious to the fact that his part of the world has seen the coolest all-round temperatures in years? Oh right…weather isn’t climate.

  57. Melanie says:

    I just went over to the website and your comment has posted now..FYI

  58. David Alan says:

    So, spam filter a culprit. Looks like Bob Tisdales post from about 4:20 in the morning finally got put up around 5:00 this afternoon, and yet it looks like Tisdale reposted the same post several more times in the last few hours, but didn’t get caught in the spam filter. Interesting.
    Well either way, thanks to WUWT readers, I’m sure that blog site hadn’t seen this much activity in some time.
    We to go Poster Mafiosos! Or something like that.

    Oh yeah,Ken Paulman, managing editor for online news, MPR, posted something about you changing the title to this post. I think it irks his ilk.

  59. Bob Tisdale says:

    David Alan (18:08:44): You wrote, “So, spam filter a culprit. Looks like Bob Tisdales post from about 4:20 in the morning finally got put up around 5:00 this afternoon, and yet it looks like Tisdale reposted the same post several more times in the last few hours, but didn’t get caught in the spam filter. Interesting.”

    Actually, the reposts also got caught in the spam filter but were released in a more timely fashion. You also missed that my ~4:20 AM comment was posted the day before it was released by managing editor (almost a day and a half later).

    The MPR moderators need to clear their spam filter more often. I’ve got two more replies to Paul Huttner awaiting moderation. Who knows when they’ll get posted?

  60. Roger Knights says:

    Hi, y’all. Here’s what I just posted over there at MPR. My last two comments were rather vague, as I’m only a dilettante of this topic and don’t have the data at hand. Would someone please go over there and fill in the blanks in my argument? I.e., provide a summary of the case against tree rings as temperature proxies, and provide a link to a temperature chart that shows that the rise in the first half of the 20th century was steeper than the one at the end. TIA.
    ==========

    Paul Huttner wrote: “why would temperatures have risen so dramatically in the 80s and 90s after the relatively cool years in the late 70s?”

    A warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which has a 30-year cycle, superimposed on the rebound from the Little Ice Age. Here’s a link to “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF) by prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu (one of the dozen most cited scientists in the world):
    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

    Paul Huttner wrote: “Check out Dr. Malcom Hughes’ work at the University of Arizona Tree Ring Laboratory. I have interviewed Dr. Hughes and seen his lab and data. His work finds that at that time, 1998 was not just the warmest year in the modern surface record; it was the warmest year in 1,000 years!”

    Tree-ring data as a proxy for temperatures has many flaws, which have been discussed extensively recently on the skeptic WUWT site regarding Briffa’s tree-ring data from Russia. It’s also contended on skeptics’ sites that the Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer than the current period, making his tree-ring assertion even less likely.

    Paul Huttner wrote, “Other studies show that the RATE of warming observed in the past decades is faster than at any previous time in recorded history.”

    The charts I’ve seen on the WUWT site indicate a more rapid rate of warming during the previous warm phase of the PDO, earlier in the 20th century.

  61. Roger Knights says:

    Oops–I meant to turn off boldfacing after the first sentence. (Could the mod fix it?)

    [Done ~ Evan]

  62. s. wing says:

    Bob Tisdale

    The title in you blog article suggests Paul Huttner is “two-faced”. In fairness to him, is it not perhaps possible that he only used that attribution plot because it is easily accessible and well presented? The title just seems unnecessarily nasty to me.

    Do you happen to know if your same criticism also applies to the related plot that is Figure 9.5 of the IPCC report? Or would you have preferred Mr Huttner to have used that plot instead?

    In your opinion, does the IPCC paper provide the most authoritative plot and discussion on attributing global temperature change? Or, if not, what would you say does?

  63. David Alan says:

    By Bob Tisdale on October 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  64. David Alan says:

    Re: #59 By Bob Tisdale on October 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm:
    Ah. I didn’t get that. Makes this one of those ‘Things that make you go Hmmm’ moments.
    Still, got to give it up to the WUWT watchdogs. One of our own calls foul play and we come barking.
    Pro-AGW sites no longer enjoy the peace and exclusivity they once had to regards of the comments once made to their posts. I’ve even noticed that skeptics are breaching the compound of RC. It was bound to happen. Blog hits might be more important than censorship.
    When sciencemuseums’ prove it poll backfired ( I think the tally now is roughly 900 in 9k out), it just confirmed to me that the tide is turning.
    Truly, this is a time of action and I hope more and more of you reach out and talk to everyone you can regarding climate change.

  65. Roger Sowell says:

    Hottest year ever? Really? One must wonder, then, exactly how cold was it a few thousand years ago, when that prehistoric hunter in the Alps died in a mountain pass. His body was discovered only a few years ago as a glacier retreated.

    Was the glacier present when the hunter died? It must have been, since this is the hottest year ever! One wonders, though, why the hunter dug a hole down through the glacier, in order to die under it. One tough hunter, that dude.

    Or, could it have been warmer then than now, so that the Alpine pass was ice-free when the hunter met his untimely demise?

    One can learn a lot by observing glaciers retreat. Inconvenient truths, that.

  66. Bob Tisdale says:

    s. wing: You wrote, “The title in you blog article suggests Paul Huttner is ‘two-faced’.”

    Click on the link.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/agw-proponents-are-two-faced-when-it.html
    The full title reads, “AGW Proponents Are Two-Faced When It Comes To Solar Irradiance As A Climate Forcing.” The opening papagraph…
    It ceases to amaze me that, on one hand, AGW proponents will voice their current understanding of the limited impact of solar irradiance on climate, but, then, on the other, they resurrect a graphic prepared using obsolete solar irradiance data to emphasize their belief that Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases have dominated climate over the last 40 years.
    …explains the title. The post explains the source of the graph, it explains the source of the solar data used in the graph, it explains that it is outdated, and it explains why the outdated data is used. The model in the cited study used the outdated Solar data to help recreate the rise in global temperatures during the first half of the 20th Century. Without the outdated solar forcing, the correlation between “modeled” and “observed” global temperature anomalies in the Global Warming Art graph would have been worse.

    You asked, “Do you happen to know if your same criticism also applies to the related plot that is Figure 9.5 of the IPCC report? Or would you have preferred Mr Huttner to have used that plot instead?”

    The plots in Figure 9.5 of the IPCC’s AR4 do not illustrate the individual forcings as did the Global Warming Art graph used by Paul Huttner. It’s not the same graph, nor is it similar.

    You asked, “In your opinion, does the IPCC paper provide the most authoritative plot and discussion on attributing global temperature change? Or, if not, what would you say does?”

    I also discussed the IPCC’s use of outdated solar forcings in my post “IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings”, which opens with: Or The Sun Also Can’t Explain the Warming in the Early Part of the 20th Century.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
    The same post was appeared here at WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/

    Since the GCMs the IPCC employ to hindcast the 20th Century use the outdated TSI data (even though they acknowledge that it is outdated), it is unlikely that any graph in IPCC AR4 that you could find would provide a realistic relationship between solar forcings and global temperature.

  67. tallbloke says:

    Stick it to ‘em Bob.

  68. Roger Knights says:

    The subtitle of this thread has been shown to be incorrect and should be deleted. It reads: “Like Others Of Its Ilk, The Minnesota Public Radio Censors Comments On Its Climate Blog”

  69. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roger Knights: You wrote, “The subtitle of this thread has been shown to be incorrect and should be deleted. It reads: ‘Like Others Of Its Ilk, The Minnesota Public Radio Censors Comments On Its Climate Blog'”

    That is actually the original title of my post. As discussed above, the title at my website has been changed in response to the request of Paul Huttner. The title is now “Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog.”
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/like-others-of-its-ilk-minnesota-public.html

  70. Pressed Rat says:

    Steve Schaper, apparently you haven’t been to Duluth (City of Thatch Roofed Government Buildings) or Rochester (Socialized Medicine Central) or ….hhhmmmm….I guess that’s about it for population centers. Also, Canadians with guns???? Major oxymoron.

  71. Roger Knights says:

    Bob Tisdale (04:33:46) :

    Roger Knights: You wrote, “The subtitle of this thread has been shown to be incorrect and should be deleted. It reads: ‘Like Others Of Its Ilk, The Minnesota Public Radio Censors Comments On Its Climate Blog’”

    That is actually the original title of my post. As discussed above, the title at my website has been changed in response to the request of Paul Huttner. The title is now “Regarding Missing Comments At The Minnesota Public Radio Climate Change Blog.”
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/like-others-of-its-ilk-minnesota-public.html

    I’m pleased your site has changed, but my suggestion was directed at this site. How about it, mod or Anthony?

  72. Bob Tisdale says:

    Roger Knights: I do realise it’s the weekend, but the MPR certainly aren’t in any hurry to check their spam filter. I posted two replies to Paul Huttner on Friday evening, ~6:00PM & ~7:30PM. The first had one link, the second had a plethora of links. It’s now Sunday morning, almost noon, and there’s still no sign of either one of them. By the time they post my comments, the thread will be so old that it’ll roll off the front page of the blog–I’ll have to go to the archives to look for them.

    Maybe no one works there on weekends. We’ll see what happens on Monday. I’ve already left them one reminder about checking their spam filter.

    Regards

  73. gary gulrud says:

    “Let’s not fall into conspiracy mode about something far more simply explained.”

    I agree completely. Obviously, the genome is abased.

  74. Bob Tisdale says:

    And for those who take a peak at the end of threads, here’s an update:

    It’s Thursday and six days have gone by since MPR emptied its spam filter and released my original comment. Paul Huttner responded to it.

    I posted three replies. The first advised him that I had revised the title of my post, eliminating the word censor, and had updated the version of the post at my website. My second comment advised him that the first of my most recent comments was stuck in the spam filter, like the original one. And the third was a detailed response to Paul’s reply to my original comment. Only the second of my three comments made it past the spam filter.

    And the other two are still in there, floating in the limbo of the MPR spam filter.

Comments are closed.