230 comments later, PBS still can’t bring themselves to approve my comment and fix a transcription error

The amount of hate directed at me today due to my appearance on PBS yesterday has been, in climate parlance, “unprecedented”. Most of the objections were not with what I said, but rather that I was allowed to speak at all. Apparently my mere presence in the broadcast has caused such a firestorm of complaints to PBS that they had to put up an apology piece. It is truly bizarre behavior on display. Even more bizarre is the fact that after 230 comments, my comment requesting a couple of simple spelling corrections still has not been approved nor acted upon. This is what my browser shows me today, note the yellow highlight:

Admittedly, I misspelled typographical in my haste to notify them of problems in their own article, but I never expected them to flat out ignore it. Here’s my screencap from yesterday; shortly after the article went up when there were only two comments besides mine:

My request was for them to fix errors that likely resulted in transcription, either by a human transcriptionist unfamiliar with the science, or speech to text software that made the wrong word choice.

My requested corrections were:

heat sync ===> should be ===> heat sink

and

sighting issues ===> should be ===> siting issues

another that I didn’t mention that should be fixed is:

solar insulation ===> should be ===> solar insolation

But I guess they were too busy responding to threats to cancel donations, angry and sometimes hateful comments, and writing appeasement articles to sooth the fan base to worry about such trivialities.

For the record, here is what I sent to PBS Correspondent Spencer Michels today:

From: Anthony

Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:48 AM

To: smichels@xxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Thank you

Hello Spencer,

Overall I’m pleased with the results of your work yesterday, and while some people have emotions ranging from quibbles to outrage about it, I’m appreciative, as are many, that you fought to have me included.

Most of the complaints I’ve seen haven’t much to do with the content of what I said but mostly over the fact that I was allowed to speak at all.

When my new paper is published, I’ll include you on the release list. After going through our second round of review, I’m confident that our results will hold up, and that there is a bias in the surface temperature record, creating an increased temperature trend due to station siting issues.

Thank you again for your fair representation.

Best Regards,

Anthony Watts

I’ll have more to say on this episode later. Right now I’m just reeling from the hate sent my way for daring to express an opinion at the invitation of PBS.

Here’s an example from the “Forecast the Facts” paid political organization who bullies TV weathercasters into saying what they want:

“On September 17, 2012, PBS Newshour provided an unchecked platform for Anthony Watts, a virulent climate change denier funded by the Heartland Institute. This is the kind of reporting we expect from Fox News, not PBS. Please join us in calling on the PBS ombudsman to immediately investigate how this segment came to be aired and recommend corrective action to make sure a journalistic abomination like this never happens again.

The Petition – Below is the petition we’ll send to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler: “Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting never again occurs on PBS.”

“…featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts”

Gosh, I suppose they didn’t read this part of the interview:

SPENCER MICHELS: His conclusion though is that basically global warming exists and that the scientists, no matter what the problems were, were pretty much right on.

ANTHONY WATTS: I agree with him that global warming exists. However, the ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 versus other man-made influences is still an open question.

or this:

ANTHONY WATTS: I’m saying that the data might be biased by these influences to a percentage. Yes, we have some global warming, it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years. But what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide? And what percentage of that is from changes in the local and measurement environment?

What am I denying?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, media and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to 230 comments later, PBS still can’t bring themselves to approve my comment and fix a transcription error

  1. pat says:

    It really is easy to disturb the collective, isn’t it?

  2. M Courtney says:

    230 comments? Your volunteer organisation handles more than that on several different articles on most days.
    Perhaps you should offer them technical assistance as well as help with spelling?

  3. Rob Schneider says:

    on behalf of the world, “sorry”.

    (sad, isn’t it?)

  4. SkylerSam says:

    Anthony – please know that there is a huge amount of people that are very proud of what you have done, not only by presenting a logical and intelligent opinion on this show piece, but what you have stood for since the beginning of WUWT, and continue to do so. You Sir, are a true champion and leader, and sometime in the not too distant future, your website, and your continued efforts to rebalance the argument, will be appreciated for their true worth. Congratulations on your continued efforts – stay the course, and try as best you can to ignore the sad whimpering of the vocal minority.

  5. Tim Walker says:

    How dare they allow a dissenter’s voice to be heard. Sarc.

    If you can’t refute the opponents arguments, then try to drown them out by repeating the same line, while holding your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes. If that is too difficult, then try to make sure they can’t share their arguments with you or others. Sarc.

  6. jonny old boy says:

    your participation was great but not the story it seems. In fact the interview was poor from their point of view, they missed many obvious questions. However, the reaction to your interview is priceless. Its what we in the UK call “shooting your self in the foot” ( and you folks may say that too )… basically they have put on display a collective ignorance and distain for basic scientific behaviour that is breathtaking. In their world freedom to speak should be banned because you are not a field scientist yet their 97% of all dogs like Winalot dog food type statement is somehow heralded as a defence for their bigotry. Its pathetic beyond words. You could have given an interview about women lingerie Anthony for all they care…. they did not listen and have not the pure scientific curiosity to do so….

  7. omnologos says:

    Some say that, at this rate, Climate Change will become impossible to report for all but the most stupidly wide-eyed of journalists, sheepishly doing a copy-and-paste on anything Dear Kev and friends will pass.

    Some say, it has already happened.

  8. Jim G says:

    As a frequent listener to National Propaganda Radio (one needs to keep up with what the enemy is saying) I am somewhat shocked that you were given any venue, whatsoever. You most certainly should not expect fair or accurate treatment. I do find it surprisingly refreshing that they allowed you any acknowlegement at all. NPR would be one of my first candidates for complete elimination from our national budget along with most of the EPA, all of the Dept of Energy and much of HEW.

  9. Otter says:

    When all of this massive scam finally comes crashing down- and it WILL – there will be silence from the vast majority of such people. They’ll spend the next 30 years hoping no one Ever asks them where they were, when the Ivory Towers fell.

    And they will NEVER apologize.

  10. JDSmith says:

    Hi Anthony,

    I thought your interview on PBS was reasonable, but not great. It appeared to the viewer (myself) that you were too carefully choosing a ‘tactful’ response to the questions. This may be your style but it looked a little contrived, which is not so good for the science.

    That said, i placed two constructively worded responses on the PBS.org website – both yesterday and today and while other comments have been approved, mine have not.

    Comment 1:
    Basically, referred to the complete lack of knowledge exhibited by the electorate on CO2 and say flora. Most people do not know what trees are made from… Carbon fixation from CO2. There are a number of intereviews on the Internet about this topic. All are astounding in that the respondents exhibit a complete lack of minor environmental science. My point is, how can people make informed decisions when they do not understand the meager scientific basics. Relatedly, on the level of engagement – these same people do not understand how CO2 taxation would work. That is, who would collect the taxes and who would benefit? Second, who would ‘police’ the CO2 emission levels and to which governments would these individuals report? What are the implications for sovereign countries?

    Comment 2:
    No one, on the PBS.org – Comments Section is addressing the questions that you posed in the interview; namely, the suitability of the temperature data sets and Muller’s paper… not passsing peer review.

    It would appear to me that PBS is failing the test of openness and balanced information exchange. This will hurt their brand.

    Lastly, I am pleased that you took the time to do the interview.

    jds in Toronto

  11. choey2 says:

    There is no amount of science, logic or reality that will divest a True Believer of his True Beliefs and any attempt to do so will result in vitriolic, hateful responses. Welcome to the world and mind (a scary place) of the left wing.

  12. me says:

    Reminiscent of the hate response of the muslim world to the recent film trailer.

    I guess that’s religious fanatics for you.

  13. Nic L says:

    What surprises me is the outrage that Mr Watts should be allowed to speak.
    Not what he said but that his comments were actually actually solicited and broadcast.

    He dared to suggest that the temperature record might lack accuracy because of heat from buildings or constructions and equipment that had been erected around the thermometer sites.
    A note of caution that the quality of the data should be checked.

    And it generates hysterical responses.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Heh. They have no idea. I sent a polite comment to Getler today, which will come across to him somewhat better than the terse instruction contained in the ‘petition’.

    “Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts [ad hominem] for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting [of free speech] never again occurs on PBS.”

    What a bunch of losers.

    Sorry to hear about you becoming the subject of todays five minute hate Anthony.

  15. kenskingdom says:

    Sounds like the ABC or SBS in Oz- the peace loving luvvies show their virulent hatred for anyone who dares to question their received wisdom. Well done Anthony.
    Ken

  16. Stephen Singer says:

    They’re no dummies, nor are they stupid they knew what kind of blow back they would get. They were looking to get a bounce about the show even if negative.

  17. richardscourtney says:

    Anthony:

    You did a good job. You presented facts clearly and calmly. Hence, alarmists want to ban you and to defame you.

    I am very surprised that this is a new experience for you but – since you imply it is – I say
    Welcome to the club.

    Richard

  18. omnologos says:

    Nice non-Gandhi quote: And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. (N. Klein, 1918)

  19. Lilith says:

    It is precisely this kind of assault that made me look into the issue of CAGW in the first place. If they are so right, why do they need to be so “virulently” hostile? I discovered warmists are vicious towards any critique of the consensus, and sceptics politely point to facts and data (or lack of them). Thank you so much Anthony for giving us information. It is infinitely preferable to being called names for asking questions.

  20. Dr. James Norton says:

    Looks like the Climate Response Team was called in for that one.

    Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5.

  21. James Ard says:

    The invective from the Forcast the Facts blurb is as over the top crazyness as I’ve seen yet. You know you have them on the run when they come out with stuff like this. Keep up the good work!

  22. The very fact that you were given a platform is progress.
    For every squealing green there was probably a hundred normal people nodding in quiet agreement.
    Good on ya!

  23. pauline emmerson says:

    Pearls before swine! You are appreciated Anthony, this site has taught me so much and I enjoy it, (even the bits I do not truly understand).

  24. This is exactly what I mean about the dangers of IDEOLOGY, which has no place whatsoever in Science.

    It is anathema to the very idea of the scientific method, which is proof positive why Anthony Watt’s mere appearance on the News Hour on PBS has caused such a firestorm among the AGW carbon climate change scam industry.

    That ideology ignores all the laws of physics. Since 1988, when the ‘global warming’ ideology really got going in Colorado when I covered climate/weather for Knight-Ridder as a journalist and dealt with NCAR and their climate scientists on a regular basis; many of them were quite uncertain about even the existence of global warming.

    Of course, we all know that millions in federal funding since the 1990s led to the ideological war on science in general and on climate science in particular with the lie that humanity is the cause of global warming.

    In my expertise as a astrometeorologist in forecasting climate and weather I know all too well that it is the SUN that is the cause of global warming and all climate change.

    All of our climate change comes from outer space, for that is where our planet lives and it is where the Sun, the driver and life-giver to our planet, also lives.

    The facts of the laws of physics cannot be altered by opinion, outright lies, or ideology.

    As Aldous Huxley once said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

  25. theduke says:

    The Stalinists are outraged.
    I guess they really mean it when they say the debates over. Now they are saying to PBS, “The debates over OR ELSE!!”

    Anthony: the hysteria you see and hear is directly related to the calm effectiveness and professional excellence of your presentation. You were very good and they are frightened by it.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Comment submited to the ‘apology post’ at PBS

    It looks like the new Anthony Watts et al paper will pass peer review, so I suggest everyone calms down and awaits the outcome. There are some important findings in it, and if verified by the peer reviewers, there will be important issues to discuss regarding the extent of the warming indicated by the temperature record as it is currently adjusted.

    You don’t need to be a scientist to be able to conduct statistical studies and make logical deductions from the results. What is important is the correct treatment of input data.

    I thank PBS for their continued commitment to the fair and balanced reportage of issues of importance in the public interest.

  27. John from CA says:

    unbelievable nonsense and intimidation!!!

  28. The Left can live with dissent in “permitted” areas. Fox News, talk radio, the blogs. But they have worked REAL hard to keep it out of the “respectable” domain. That’s the key for them. That’s what’s required to protect the narrative, to quarantine opposing ideas. PBS violated the quarantine and there’s hell to pay.

  29. karlac616 says:

    Well as a donor/supporter of PBS, I am outraged that they are apologizing for letting you have your say in this debate. If it helps, I will be one voice in on their site saying BRAVO for having the spherical fortitude (balls) to have you on their (overly liberally biased) program. And always, thank YOU for the work you do…it is so very greatly appreciated.

  30. GeneDoc says:

    Not a denier, but a heretic. Well done Anthony. The true believers need to hear from more heretics so that they come to recognize our existence. The vehemence of their response is simply proportional to the level of threat to their belief system. When the linch pin argument of the AGW caused by CO2 crowd is “we can’t find (think of) anything else that would explain it”, any alternative explanation is an immediate threat. Thanks for suffering the slings and arrows.

  31. beesaman says:

    Ha! You must be doing something right to get the worked up. They must be having nightmares about green grants being removed, especially in this time of budget cuts…

  32. Wow oh Wow, this is what happens when [you] don’t preach to the choir. It’s almost like the Huffington Post let you write an article (same people). This is what you (we) are up against. The vitriol – wow!

  33. Rosco says:

    Religious fanaticism causes outrageous responses over trivial issues when offence is detected.

    We regularly see outrageous claims from the true believers in the pro global warming crowd that suggest religious like zeal. Insults and threats when all that is being proposed is that maybe there is an error in the “consensus science” and we ought to look at it.

    In Australia we saw a similar outpouring of hate over the “Innocence of Muslims” video – though what responsibility Australia has in any part of that other than accept political refugees from Muslim countries I do not know.

    These people then showed their hatred of anything that challenges their orthodoxy by marching down our streets calling for beheadings of blasphemers.

    Only slightly more extreme than the AGW cheer squad – some only wanted blasphemers tattoed while Singer titillated herself with the delicious prospect of blasphemers being gassed, not with CO2 mind you – that is too harmless – but with carbon monoxide which binds strongly to haemoglobin thus denying the brain, in fact your whole metabolism, oxygen – the prime reason why you should not smoke – perhaps she’s had a few too many non-fatal doses herself.

    All of this fanaticism without being to actually demonstrate even the fundamentals of the theory.

    I cannot believe CO2 can have a “powerful greenhouse gas backradiative effect” if it has a thermal conductivity about half of normal air without any phase change (thus latent heat) properties at ambient temperatures.

    How do they get it to stop radiating while they conduct the thermal conductivity experiment – now that is a miracle of science.

    If this belief is simply wrong – and it could be as I’m simply working on reason here with a few basic facts – please someone explain to me – I really want to know if I am wrong on this.

  34. Skiphil says:

    Re: outrage at PBS

    Lewandowsky, for all his failings, does have a piece which expresses the sentiments of all these aggrieved Alarmists:

    Lew says it is “utterly inconceivable” he could be wrong on climate science:

    http://permaculturenews.org/2010/03/12/climate-debate-opinion-vs-evidence/

    (h/t Hilary Ostov)

    Ofc Lew is talking about what he thinks the “science” says about climate…. And we know how reliable Lew is as a reporter of facts and evidence.

  35. Ron says:

    One hundred percent of climate scientists agree that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years as CO2 levels rise. (Ah, what’s the use? It is PBS, emphasis on the BS, after all.) I watched it live. The eye-rolling axioms planted into the narrative – the 97%, Muller ‘the former sceptic’ and the like – nearly cost me a television screen via a projectile. Thanks for standing up Anthony.

  36. JoeH says:

    Anthony, well done. That small dose of simple truths and genuine science has caused a lot of childish grown up people to push their pretending to a point where the holes must be starting to show. It must be really difficult for them to type comments with clenched fists while simultaneously screaming “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!…!

    It may seem a thankless and unending task, but you are doing a good job. Thank you and take care.

  37. Robert of Ottawa says:

    [snip - even though irony/satire, not appropriate here - mod]

  38. pkatt says:

    And when PBS calls for their fundraiser, let them know how you really feel :)

  39. Robert of Ottawa says:

    corrective action perhaps in a warm gulag ?

  40. Silence DoGood says:

    the danger here is not the hysterical musings of the warming swarm necessarily, but more to the damage their utter disregard of science to aid in the attempts at truth in any future progression on the climate science concern. In perhaps more layman terminology, this abolition of any information indicating doubt on hard-earned religious zealotry does a dis-service to mankind by the simple act of fueling our skeptic nation to impulse any new evidence presented for discourse and research regarding the planets climate said temperature increase.

  41. Peter Miller says:

    Hate and hysteria are two of the cornerstones of alarmist philosophy, while data manipulation and grant addiction are the other two.

    Calling the alarmists’ bluff in admitting to AGW – quite rightly commenting that no one knows its magnitude or its real cause (CO2 possibly, partly, or not at all) – but firmly denying CAGW, causes consternation among those who believe in bad science.

    The fact that you have the usual rent-a-mob organisations up against you simply demonstrates that you have right on your side.

    Well done, Anthony.

  42. Slabadang says:

    Well !
    You have to understand the desperation among the fanatic left who is the group using the vocabulary ala Cook Romm and Greenpeace activists. For them it was a game changer when they former only had their ideology mantras to try to get power and influence. Now with the IPCC a dream came [true] and they kidnapped “science” to fit with their ideas. Of course they try anything and goes as far they possibly can to shut people up who dont trust the science or prove the CAGW science to be wrong. Because to them that`s the same thing as to show their hole ideology wrong. You have to understand the stakes at play for them its do or die when they made the connection between their ideology and climate science! Their McArthyist behavior is in desperation but also very close and expected from people who dont appreciate or trust a free world with a free people and a their free market . They`ve put everything on the line with CAGW. They dont care about science at all¨they need it for is to get attention and to dress up and lend legitimacy to get power! without it their NOTHING …. again!

    Thats all folks!

  43. Ian H says:

    PBS played fair by Anthony as far as I can see given that it is clear this was originally intended to be a story about Muller celebrating his supposed defection. As there seem to be some people at PBS who still believe in eithical journalism, perhaps the nature of the reaction to this story may be causing them to have a bit of a rethink.

    From Anthony they get a reasonable, rational and quite sane interview. From the other side they get a mindless screaming howl of outrage that he was allowed to speak at all, bilious hate mail, and a demand to pull him from the air. Perhaps some of them might start to see the nature of the beast we are up against.

  44. John West says:

    Take heart Anthony, this really couldn’t be going any better. It’s like the 10:10 video. Normal people will happen upon the clip, see the calm rational interview and then see the comments. The normal people will quickly conclude the silence dissent nuts are nuts. Then if they’re at all interested in the issue they’ll start looking into it for themselves and most of the time another skeptic will be born. Between WUWT, JoNova, CA, HI, etc. etc. the information required to cast doubt (to put it lightly) on the whole CAGW meme is so much easier to find than it used to be. Really, this is a huge step in the right direction. I predict (project) that by the end of 2015 the CAGW nuts will be being publically laughed at like the 12/21/12 nuts are being laughed at now. Perhaps we should beat the rush and just start laughing at the poor misguided souls now.

  45. We Told You So says:

    What you’re denying is that you see criminal conspiracy, and that it’s being generated by government employees and other beneficiaries of fantasy warming apocalypse church,

    of the unmitigated falsification of paperwork

    to obtain government funding.

  46. kirkmyers says:

    The reaction of the AGW alarmists is not surprising. Anyone who dares question the The Church of Global Warming theology will be excoriated and verbally burned at the stake. AGW skeptics and climate realists are viewed as apostates by the priesthood of climate change. How dare we, blasphemers all of us, question the Holy Scripture of CO2-induced global warming.

    It’s obvious from the level of vitriol and hatred aimed at Anthony and others who question the prophesy of runaway global warming that we are not dealing with a rational group of people who are interested in dispassionate and deliberative scientific inquiry. There appear to be more than a few book burners among the keepers of the AGW faith.

  47. Anthony is a potential job creator – that is, at the NewsHour anyway, where it appears the avalanche of comments has overwhelmed their comment moderators. Though they’ve approved a few of my jousts with other commenters at Hari Sreenivasan’s apology blog ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/keeping-climate-stories-in-context.html ), they’ve yet to approve the very FIRST comment I wrote at that one, which asked some really blunt questions about Hari’s assertion that “… PBS NewsHour has long covered the scientific research and analysis surrounding climate change” http://i48.tinypic.com/5ufmvm.jpg

    Just wanted to point out that they’ve only covered half the issue, but apparently we will have to wait for the backlogged interns there to get around to that particular one and Anthony’s at the Michels transcript page, ….

    Meanwhile, Dr Judith Curry gets faster service than Anthony does when it comes to correcting her remarks: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html#comment-654352735

  48. Gunga Din says:

    “Hate'” is out there, no matter what the subject. Human nature is not perfect. (Thank you, Adam.) All we can do is speak what’s true as we see it and be willing to accept genuine correction. Those who are offened by it will lash out. We might be surprised by it but it is to be expected. The larger the audience, the more adverse reactions we can expect. But how much value should we place in the opinion of willful idiots, even when those idiots come from unexpected quarters?
    I once told a Hare Krishna about Jesus Christ. He sucker punched me. I didn’t expect that from someone who was preaching “peace”. His punch didn’t change the Truth of what I said.
    I know those topics aren’t quite on the same level but, just stay honest and honorable. From what I’ve seen here, you’te good at that.

  49. Judy W says:

    If they are going to investigate, I would like to know why PBS runs so much British Programming and propaganda. What is up with that?

    Thanks Anthony for your work.

  50. wayne says:

    Sadly, bet they are really frothing!

    I so love their true colors shining
    bright for all to see
    what they really preach…
    who they prove to be.

  51. David Ball says:

    Two things of note.

    My posts that had no content, i.e. the ones asking for evidence or citation were published. Anything that I posted regarding the flaws in the science, gone.

    A great number of the posters that are gnashing their teeth are people that have been unable to defend themselves scientifically on WUWT?. The grapes are as sour as they can be. Some of them are still spewing things that have been shown to them as incorrect. Like cornered animals they are. We knew it was coming. Hopefully Joe Public sees through their hand-waving.

  52. David Ball says:

    Some great posts on there, Tallbloke !!

  53. Power Grab says:

    Hmmm…maybe someone should make the point to the ombudsman that they probably got a bump in viewership with this program? I, for one, actually sat and watched the entire program–which I never have done before. It was galling to have to listen to the desperate advocates, but it was pure pleasure to hear Anthony’s reasoned responses.

    After watching a show like that, I like to ask myself, “Self, which of those people would you want for a next door neighbor?”

    Advertisers have a saying: “Sizzle sells.” If they can see that they can make the issue sizzle, then perhaps there will be more opportunities for actual debates in public venues. Since so many of the American population no longer see CAGW as deserving of their undying support and limitless sacrifice, maybe they can stir the waters and make an extra buck out of the turmoil? After all, there are evidently still plenty of rabid believers out there who are not the least bit shy about voicing their objections to hearing from a credible skeptic. That will get them a bump in their web viewship, too.

    Heh. Heh.

    After all, their bottom line should improve if they actually host more confrontations between any of the well known advocates and reasonable, knowledgeable skeptics like Anthony.

  54. rpielke says:

    Hi Anthony – The PBS interview was objective and fairly presented. You did a very effective job of overviewing your perspective.
    I do dispute that they write that you are not a scientist. One does not need a Ph.d. to do scientific research and publish in respected peer reviewed journals. You are very much a scientist and in your research are following the scientific method. Except when they raise constructive issues with respect to your interview, I recommend you just ignore them. Best Regards
    Roger A. Pielke Sr.

    REPLY: Thank you Roger

  55. Tom in Worcester says:

    Does it seem strange to anyone else that now skeptics are “conspiracy theorists”?

  56. Mick says:

    Trouble is, the reaction to the interview will scare some of the fence-sitting scientists back into their cubbyholes. Hang in there Anthony. Think of Sir Ranulph Fiennes as he plans to walk across Antarctica during its winter at temperatures of minus 90 degrees C, and in the dark. Now that’s ‘being out in the cold’!

  57. Dodgy Geezer says:

    This has, of course, happened before. Probably many times. And it will happen again.

    The last great fighter against this kind of idiocy was Julian Simon. He stood alone by following the data, being right when all the others were wrong, and was vilified and persecuted for this.

    When he was proven right, he received no applause or recognition. He commented that, for some reason he could never comprehend:

    “… people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they’d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker…”

    Deja vu…?

  58. By the way, let’s remember that this is what we all are trying to do in order to stop the AGW carbom scam industry from taking over the world. It really is a battle that requires teamwork and creativity to return climate science – and the world – to its common senses again.

  59. Ian H says:

    Silence DoGood says:
    In perhaps more layman terminology, this abolition of any information indicating doubt on hard-earned religious zealotry does a dis-service to mankind by the simple act of fueling our skeptic nation to impulse any new evidence presented for discourse and research regarding the planets climate said temperature increase.

    The terminology of your discourse has fueled our skeptic nature, informing and impulsing valuation of participation and redounding on the conclusion that you are a weenie.”

  60. P. Solar says:

    >> What am I denying?

    You are denying climate ! You clearly said that climate does not exist and never has. You also said the Holocaust never happened and that the moon landing was a hoax. You are clearly a total nutter . The constitution must be changed now to remove any part that allows people like you to be heard. Freedom of speech was a big mistake. We must save the planet. We need to unite an army of guerillas monkeys to …..

    Apart from that, congratulations on a very well conducted interview and kudos to Spencer Michels for pushing for proper journalistic standards and making it happen.

    It was interesting to see you live and get some impression of who you are rather than the very flat impression that can be gained from blog articles.

    This and the number of non AGW papers getting published recently shows some sanity is slowly returning. You are in no small way contributing to that change.

    congratulations and thank you!

  61. RBerteig says:

    Looks like PBS needs to get a dictionary out and look up “scientist”. Anthony has peer reviewed papers published, and has conducted original research. How is he not a “scientist”? (Remember, Einstein was a patent clerk…)

    And yet, they have “corrected” the article to remove the implication that he was a scientist, and in their notice of correction, have explicitly stated that he is not one.

  62. X Anomaly says:

    Anthony, if they are going for more interviews, Id be pushing for Lindzen, Spencer, etc….to get in on the act => to provide balance (if needed). It’s likely PBS will want to appease the uproar (ie. follow the consensus majority view). Atleast if this is done, then there is no excuse for an all-alarmist interview.

    Cheers.

  63. Militant Catholic says:

    Sometime late tonight, expect brown shirted government security forces to show up at your door and haul out – voluntarily, of course – for ‘questioning’. You don’t happen to have a probation officer, do you?

  64. Greg Steele says:

    Anthony,
    Two things.

    1. You were quite gentle in your dissent during the interview. That viewers would have such an extreme reaction shows the deep level of investment they have in the existence of catastrophic global warming.

    2. In the PBS apology post there is an editor’s note : “An earlier version of this post implied that Anthony Watts is a scientist. As we reported on the broadcast last night, he is not.” This is an interesting statement because it is intended to dismiss your argument by attacking your credentials. I would argue that having 25 years of experience as a Meteorologist does, indeed, make you a scientist. I don’t think it matters, as your work speaks for itself, but, to clear up any confusion, do you have a degree in any scientific field?

  65. hro001 says:

    Anthony, I sincerely hope that Spencer Michels really does “get it” and is able to address this travesty.

    But in the meantime …

    I’m sure that any minute now we shall see the friendly folks at the U.K. Guardian being kind enough to host an “Open Letter”** from those illustrious exemplars of civilized discourse (Bradley, Karoly, Mann, Overpeck, Santer, Schmidt and Trenberth) who – very close on the heels of Gleickgate – put out their oh-so-heartfelt call for their opponents to engage in “an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change” while strongly condemning those who are embarked upon this campaign to “disappear” your voice from the airwaves.

    [** See: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf ]

    Although I’m rather inclined towards the alternate possibility, and all we shall hear is an encore performance of one of their favourite tunes: Sounds of Silence.

  66. JJB MKI says:

    As with articles on your blog, the more vitriol you elicit from anthropogenic doom fetishists, the more impact you know you have had. I hope you publish some of the hate mail you have received to show how in the minds of many, AGW is the expression of suppressed misanthropy stemming from a fear of uncertainty and impotence that manifests itself in a desparate need for self assertion in the form of aggression, bullying and focused group hatred of a bogeyman (sceptics).

    Thank you for all the time and effort you put into promoting rationality and healthy scepticism Anthony.

  67. Goldie says:

    Only 230 comments, Anthony you must be slipping!

  68. cui bono says:

    “An unbeliever!!! Persecute! Kill the heretic!!!!” – the crowd baying against the annoyed hermit. Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

    Plus ca change?

  69. David Ball says:

    It is clear why they don’t want you to get a word in edgewise,…..

  70. WillR says:

    Two very wise people recently commented on what makes a scientist:

    ****************************
    Person One:

    A scientist is a person who is searching for an understanding of why something is, or how it functions – no, not things like how your toaster functions since it is already known by others. Education level is not necessarily a criteria but these days if you want to do research, and that is what we tend to think most scientists do, a Phd is almost essential these days. A Phd does not make you a scientist, I could have a Phd in literature but that wouldn’t make me a scientist.

    Scientists can fall into 2 major groups, experimental and theoretical. Using particle physics as an example, the theoretical physicist would develop a theory on the existence of a particle or perhaps the characteristic of particle and then the experimental physicist would conduct experiments to confirm or deny the theory. This does not mean that a scientist has to be one or the other specifically but like many things some people do some things better than they do other things. There are many scientists who do both the theory and the experimental.

    It isn’t all that cut and dried though. You can have an applied scientist whose work will overlap the experimental scientist’s work usually if you want to do as the name says, apply what has been uncovered to more real-world applications. Engineering is applied science and an engineer can encompass a wide variety of activities.

    If you go to the application of scientific “things” that are reasonably well-known and understood then you are now going into the domain of engineers and technologists. Back to particle physics, a scientist may say that we need to increase the proton current through our new detector by 10% but I know this will cause extra heat. This problem could then be passed to an engineer whose field includes heat transfer and he would determine if the heat generated at various points in the apparatus is safe. He would be using established methods for calculating and mapping the temperature distribution.

    We must be careful not to pigeon-hole too strictly, engineers that work in research areas may have to use a lot of innovation and collaboration with the scientists for problems because the well-established methods may not be available for some activities that are pushing boundaries. I wouldn’t say engineers that have worked at a research facility for several years have the same mind-set as an engineer who has been working in a more routine engineering environment. This can be extrapolated to technologists and technicians as well.

    Again, I caution about trying to pigeon-hole any of the above too rigorously.

    — continued —

    Since scientist is not a legally defined profession such as Professional Engineer anybody pursuing the above can call themselves a scientist. I don’t think I’d run down to NRC and apply for a job as a scientist after a couple of days of unbiased observation of the mating habits of earthworms. Of course, what we think of as the definition of a profession is highly based on what knowledge and qualifications that are required to be employed in that profession and accepted by others in the profession.

    ********************
    Second Person:

    Yes. In academic research, the Principal Investigator (the boss of the lab, the professor, etc.) is usually the only one with the official title of ‘Scientist’ or ‘Senior Scientist’. His or her main job is to keep the lab funded (which is only getting harder and harder to do). Aside from technicians and graduate students, the main people that review the literature, come up with hypotheses and do experiments are the Research Associates and post-doctoral (or Research) Fellows. The official job title for these people is, unfortunately, ‘Trainee’. Of course in public no one says that he or she is a ‘Trainee’, the individual will generally say, ‘Scientist’.
    *************************************

    As Roger Pielke says — you fit the definition… (Note that Peer Reviewed Literature does not appear here… and it should not)

    Hope that helps some who wonder what “The Great Minds” think. My words to describe those fellows — but I think it fits.

  71. PaulH says:

    Why do I get the feeling that our friends at “Forecast the Facts” had that press release and petition locked and loaded well before anyone actually saw the broadcast?
    /snark

  72. Chuck says:

    The comments over on PBS were a real eye opener. No wonder CAGW is such a nasty business. The real standout over there was the consistent “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. ‘Anthony doesn’t have a PhD after his name so therefore he can’t possibly understand any of the issues. Only our favorite scientists can understand.’ What a bunch of nonsense.

    When I read comments like those on PBS it convinces me even more that we’re dealing with a religion.

  73. Lew Skannen says:

    Well done Anthony.
    The quality of the responses indicates to me that these people are more desperate to convince themselves than anybody else that their religion is still valid.

  74. dfbaskwill says:

    “What am I denying?” You are denying them all the riches and power they desire. But mostly the riches. Bastards.

  75. KenB says:

    Just a natural response from the CAGW ants nest, as they swarm to attack at the slightest tread on “their territory” Anthony! Just shows exactly what we have to contend with, a mindless attacking mob lead by some clever manipulators of the truth, who should know better.

  76. Keith says:

    It is sad to see that PBS, particularly the News Hour continues its long decline in journalistic standards. They have been unable to provide balance on this issue for many years. Worse yet, the comments on the PBS site are a sad commentary on how irrational people can be when presented with a viewpoint that is counter to their strongly held beliefs and how unwilling some are to rational dialog on this topic. I sent these links to a CAGW friend of mine on the issue of personal beliefs after hearing the discussion by chance on NPR this spring. Despite the origin of the interview he never listened to them.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts

    http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2012/05/npr-interview-on-partisanship-versus-facts.html

  77. Bob Johnston says:

    The comments on Hari’s blog post were hilarious. It was so one-sided I felt like I needed to respond. We’ll see if they actually approve my comment. Here’s what I wrote:

    I read the comments here with some amusement as I bet 97% of the people saying Anthony Watts shouldn’t be interviewed because he’s a skeptic don’t have the slightest clue what the main skeptical position is (there are actually many). I think it’s important to understand a person’s argument before you argue against him. Very few skeptics actually believe there hasn’t been warming, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that the vast majority of skeptics believe that the earth has warmed and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that we believe CO2 has been a contributor to that. But what we do object to is people saying that CO2 is unequivocally causing the warming and that it’s been established that this warming will have catastrophic consequences. Offhand I’d also say that a good number of us believe that the earth has been warming naturally since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1700’s (not many SUV’s around back then) and that the vast majority of the warming is simply due to a natural cycle.

    But instead of debating this position the alarmists will have people believe that the skeptical folks insist that warming hasn’t actually occurred because that’s the only position they can actually effectively argue against. They’ll say Anthony Watt’s “denies” global warming because he doesn’t believe temperatures are being measured accurately which is a red herring; it’s possible to believe there’s been warming AND that NOAA has botched the temperature records. The Surfacestations project was created for a couple different reasons – first was to find out just how poor the temperature record is (and it’s pretty terrible) and the second was to force NOAA to do a better job of it (which is slowly coming about). When 90% of the temperature sensing stations have major siting issues then that’s something that needs to be straightened out so we can make informed decisions instead of guessing.

    But what I think is the most interesting is that the vast majority of skeptics were actually believers in manmade global warming, just like all the other commenters here currently lambasting PBS for giving Anthony time in the piece. Someday I hope you’ll be able to set aside your belief and look at the information in a truly pragmatic fashion and see for yourself that there really is another side to the story.

  78. JPeden says:

    In light of recent international events, the obvious course PBS should take is to apologize for allowing Anthony to offend the CO2 Warmist Believers’ scientific religious sensibilities!

  79. clipe says:

    Speaking of PBS

    Global temperatures naturally fluctuate slightly from year to year. However, in the past 10,000 years, there have been three relatively long global cold spells. The Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most recent and best documented, especially in Europe.

    http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm

  80. mfo says:

    The only name that I can see on the Forecast the Facts website is Blair Fitzgibbon, their media contact. Did he have anything to do with their proposal to ask the PBS ombudsman to stifle free speech? In effect the request is for a private media corporation to censor their news reporting. Just like in China.

    Were Blair Fitzgibbon to be involved with such a request for censorship (he may have had nothing to do with it but it is his name on the site) it would indeed be ironic as the media organisation he works for, FitzGibbon Media appears to have as a client an organisation named Free Speech For People. A recent release, on behalf of Free Speech For People, where the contact was Blair Fitzgibbon, Stated:

    “The State of New Mexico is helping to lead the way for the nation in this movement to ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America. We look forward to working with state legislatures across the country which will follow New Mexico’s example and defend our democracy.”

    http://fitzgibbonmedia.com/news/279/nm-legislature-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united

    Perhaps Blair should have a quiet word with Forecast the Facts and remind them that the most important component of democracy is freedom, particularly of speech, however much they may disagree with the views of others.

  81. alan says:

    Somehow the PBS crowd can just sense that you are probably not an Obama supporter, Anthony.
    And they can’t forgive that!

  82. “On September 17, 2012, PBS Newshour provided an unchecked platform for Anthony Watts, a virulent climate change denier funded by the ….»

    = = == = = = = = =

    This looks like a call for censorship, – directional censorship that is -.

    It should be easy for all (us and them) to see who the DENIERS really are.
    The Hockey players are the ones denying «Climate -Change» (historical climate change that is) all we are questioning is, – (or our question is): – Where is the proof that us two-legged beasts are responsible for the claimed «un-natural behaviour» of the climate. –
    The Younger Dryas, after all lasted for 1300 years so what about the assumption of a climate that takes 10s of thousands of years to change – hence a (T) rise of 0.6 deg. C – (or 1 deg. F even) during the last 150 years is «Unpresidented»

  83. F. Ross says:

    For the first time in a number of years I watched the Newshour on PBS [your interview segment]

    Well done. Keep on keeping on!

  84. clipe says:

    When North America was cooler and the glaciers advanced, the ancient lake site at Snowmass was cooler, too. There was grass there, but fewer trees. When the continent warmed and glaciers retreated, Snowmass also warmed. Forests around the lake grew lush, drawing families of mastodon.

    Furry and chunkier than its mammoth cousins, the mastodon was built to fight. Averaging five tons, it was about the size of today’s African elephant, but more robustly built.

    The giant Bison latifrons also flourished in the warmth. At two tons, this one was twice as big as today’s bison, with up to eight-foot headgear.

    One top predator of these warm-weather animals was Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat. About six feet long and 600 pounds, Smilodon used its bulk to subdue prey, not its teeth. Only when the prey was down would it sink its enormous fangs into a victim’s windpipe and jugular.

    When the world cooled and the glaciers advanced, another set of creatures came on the scene. Columbian mammoths were the largest of the Ice Age icons, and probably lived in matriarchal families. At 13 feet tall, with 12-foot tusks, they were larger than today’s elephants. But these giant plant eaters faced plenty of plus-sized predators.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/ice-age-death-trap.html

  85. Andy_in_Alberta says:

    I would go over and read the comments at PBS, but like a lot of websites/networks that have adopted ‘the Cause’, it would just make me angry, so i won’t. :) Congrats on making it on PBS in the 1st place Anhtony, one thing I would have liked to have seen was you speaking more about climate temperature cycles having a natural (majority) component. (perhaps you were intentionally tempering your stance?….I imagine PBS studio heads would have spontaneously combusted if you would have dropped the ‘Mother Naitch’ bombshell on top of everything else) Since we can’t present data from the ‘Null’ case ie) the situation without any human population, nothing about AGW is provable and is merely untestable, unverifiable conjecture.

  86. I guess the hate mails you got was because of the green lobby organization “Forecast The Facts” which distributed this nice little sign up form for the PBS in order to the impose corrective journalism on public radio. PBS can’t according to them be a place for a debate on climate science. This is what I call green zombie activism.

  87. We Told You So says:

    Governance through rent-a-mob.
    That’s exactly what is being decided: are people simply going to allow an entire civilization’s legacy be ripped up and ripped off like that?

    Maybe.

    I saw some WWI and WW2 movies that didn’t say much for the tribal soccer game of governance practiced by Euros and the internationalist set.

  88. Paul Coppin says:

    Having read through many of the ignorantly bizarre comments on Hari’s commentary, I would say you probably should suggest to PBS that if they leave the comments up, they will be looking at a multiple libel suit. PBS is not a blog. They’ve allowed you to be libelled thoroughly in their online presence. Ditto going after some of the commenters. Its one thing to allow people to rant, its something else to let them defame with impunity.

  89. James from Arding says:

    tallbloke says:

    September 18, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    Comment submited to the ‘apology post’ at PBS
    It looks like the new Anthony Watts et al paper will pass peer review, so I suggest everyone calms down and awaits the outcome. There are some important findings in it, and if verified by the peer reviewers, there will be important issues to discuss regarding the extent of the warming indicated by the temperature record as it is currently adjusted.
    You don’t need to be a scientist to be able to conduct statistical studies and make logical deductions from the results. What is important is the correct treatment of input data.
    ================================================================
    So when the paper is published can we then call Anthony a scientist? How does one know who is a scientist or not?

    It really makes me sad when my friends just refuse to read some of the logical well argued stuff I give them – like Bob Tisdales new book. Links to purchase it here:- http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
    They are happy to listen to the tripe published on the Australian ABC and SBS and yet refuse to read a little deeper into the sensible and clear information available here and other blogs.

    Keep up the good work Anthony and mods… Illegitimis nil carborundum!

  90. Louis says:

    “What am I denying?”

    Asking bigots to back up prejudice with actual facts requires them to actually think. It’s so much more fun to engage in thoughtless name calling.

  91. Silence DoGood says:

    @Ian
    you have no idea what i was even talking about do you sir? If so your words do you no service.

  92. Jimmy Haigh says:

    They want to deny the freedom of speech.

  93. D Boehm says:

    James from Arding says:

    “How does one know who is a scientist or not?”

    Here is my dictionary’s definition of “scientist”:

    scientist |ˈsīəntist|
    noun
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    You can decide for yourself who qualifies.

  94. johanna says:

    Well done, Anthony. The Believers must be feeling pretty vulnerable if your few minutes of mild mannered and unsensational comment (after years of AGW scare material) caused such an uproar. It seems that nothing short of 100% censorship of views they don’t like will satisfy them.

    As for ‘Forecast the Facts’ – why are so many Believers either illiterate or Orwellian in their use of language? Facts can’t be forecast – either they are facts or they aren’t. Give the faith in model predictions, perhaps some wish that facts could be forecast – but nope, forecasts are not facts.

  95. Dave Dodd says:

    I read somewhere that if you throw a rock into a pack of hyenas, the ones that yelp are the ones that were hit. Your rock must have bounced around a lot! You have the entire cackle of hyenas howling! Congratulations Anthony for being on message and on point for the rest of us! We need many more like yourself! I gave up on PBR many years ago…

  96. wayne says:

    To be a scientist you need no stinkn’ badge.
    To be a scientist you need no stinkn’ letters.

    It’s a quality and state of mind. An inquisitive mind, good intents, following the scientific method, data with integrity with an open mind, methods and results and your are one Anthony. Don’t let their words mean anything for they are in essence the badge-makers, the letter-issuers, so why do you think they so throw up over any other person being called a scientist if not pre indoctrinated, institutionalized and ordained into their exclusive club (and I am one of those but no longer so proud of it).

  97. Dave Dodd says:

    SHould be PBS, but there’s really no difference!

  98. azleader says:

    Obviously, Watts and PBS got swept up in one of those newer, more intense, hurricanes triggered by global warming.

  99. Jeremy says:

    Upon reading this story I immediately sent off an email (from the pbs website) to Ombudsman Getler praising PBS for including you, Anthony. Here’s the body of what I wrote:

    Mr. Getler,

    I would like to applaud the journalistic integrity shown by PBS by including Anthony Watts in the recent story covered by Newshour. The subject of climate change, and the question of exactly how much of recent warming can be attributed to mankind’s activities is a timely and important one.

    Due to the increasingly politicized nature of what is essentially a scientific debate, the general public deserves to hear arguments from both sides, and by including both Watts and Richard Muller PBS did so. Currently in the media, balance in reporting the climate issue is lacking, and PBS deserves praise for rising to a higher journalistic standard.

  100. Theo Goodwin says:

    The response to PBS about Anthony is a sign of our times. There is a lynch mob for each Leftie opinion outlet and it flexes its muscles, producing huge numbers of comments, every time there is some doubt about the opinion outlet in question. You can see this in the Chronicle of Higher Education. You can see it in The Guardian where the lynch mob is present and ready for duty at all times.

    Thirty years ago, the attempt to lynch a commentor posting to the Journal of Higher Education would have been met with the greatest disdain from a host of readers. No more. The howlers carry the day. Opinion outlets are permitted only propaganda.

  101. zefal says:

    This is normal mode of operation for these goons. The screeching, screaming wheel gets the concessions. They know this and the jim lehrer snooze hour is more than happy to accommodate. What’s new? Not this!

  102. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    The response by the terrified and polarised to the PBS piece is scarier than a glass thermometer on asphalt.

    In case WUWT’ers are not yet aware, this type of political polarisation in the US in the media and elsewhere has reached the point that Canada has decided to conduct ‘an intervention’ and has formed a political running for the White House. They have officially declared their ‘Canadacy’ for President of the USA.

    Sample:
    Under the slogan ‘Yes We Canada’, the party of the Great White North promises to: Change the phrase “job creators” to “job creationists”; continue building pipelines, only ones with maple syrup; and close Guantanamo Bay and move the inmates to the Arctic, where they can be legally “snowboarded.”

    Read about how Canadians are going to change things like this PBS outrage when you vote, this November, for the Canada Party.

    http://thetyee.ca/Books/2012/09/10/Canada-Party/

    Canada and the USA have a lot in common, he notes, such as both ‘experiencing a wave of illiterate foreigners crossing from south of the border to take our jobs.’

    to /sarc or not to /sarc…

  103. J. Felton (the Cowboy) says:

    I was going to send a message to those disgusting cretins at Forecast the Lies but realized they wouldn’t even read my email, just assume I’m funded by Industry.
    Glad you and your work is generating publicity Anthony, you’ve worked hard and have a lot to show for it!

  104. Those who threaten to withhold financial support for PBS because they don’t like some of the content need to be reminded that the broadcaster is not supposed to be a platform to project their personal ideology; their Ministry of Truth. Calling for the censorship of those who say things which one simply doesn’t like, with threats to “punish” if the other is not censored, is not support of free speech.

  105. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    This response to prevent free speech occurred in Australia for about forty years in the area of education. I asked one of those involved “What is your plan?’
    She replied “I will keep on publishing the facts until someone listens”
    Thank you for publishing the facts.Someone will listen.

  106. bikermailman says:

    Anthony, this has probably been said in the comments already, but realize that being the most read and well known person lifting the rock (among many other great people), you. are. a. threat. to. the. Agenda. Threats have to be dealt with, in whatever manner. The same people who teach Alinski in the political arena, have taught those in the CAGW arena. If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target. Many, many people out here in flyover country and around the world are behind you Anthony, never forget that.

  107. Tsk Tsk says:

    Hmm one has to wonder how many of these comments would have been called “death threats” if they had been made by skeptics. Nah, I changed my mind. I don’t have to wonder at all.

  108. biff33 says:

    Anthony, you are a hero.

  109. old construction worker says:

    Notice to the one who posted this: “The Petition – Below is the petition we’ll send to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler:…..”

    Two can play that game. Only My Petition will be to the U.S. Congress to de-fund
    PBS not allowing both side of any issue be expressed with equal time.

  110. John Blake says:

    Come, come… these PBS commenters are spoiled brats, unprincipled zealots constitutionally incapable of objective, rational anything. Really, AW, what did you expect?

  111. Jeff D says:

    The comments under the apology are like a swarm of killer bee’s flashed into a frenzy. Looks like the damage control team are out in full force. How dare a skeptic be allowed into “their” propaganda outlet.

    Everything from denial of UHI to the stupid reference of 97% of all scientists lie.

    And what is the real definition of a “Scientist”. Is there now some secret club you have to join? Did Benji not pay his dues this year? Just this week wasn’t it amateur scientist that discovered the explosion on Jupiter. The little jab at Anthony at the end about him not being a “real” scientist was pathetic.

  112. Evan in GA says:

    LIberals (US definition) are soooooo tolerant, aren’t they? Geez. Certain politicians in Germany in the 1930s would be proud of the language these folks use.

    While “fairness” is their driving force, allegedly, if one doesn’t click their heels to the liberal / eco-fascist / socialist party line, they become trash, with multiple ad hominems heaped upon them in very short order.

    How pathetic these warmists are.

    Science is not the issue. Political control and manipulation is. Climate is secondary….at best.

  113. Bill Jamison says:

    Q) “What am I denying?”
    A) That the sky is falling

    Please take a sip of this Kool Aid and try again.

  114. Allan MacRae says:

    Hey Anthony, Do you have a birthday soon? If so, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

    Don’t worry about the hate mail – it’s often rather amusing – you just need a positive attitude.

    My favorite such experience was in ~2002, after I had written an article for the National Post panning global warming hysteria.

    I soon received a threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of Prague! Quelle surprise!

    I replied: “Dear Sir. You are entirely correct. I am the ONE, personally responsible for the flooding of Prague. Now ‘buzz off’ or I’ll do it again!”

    :-)

  115. Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:

    Nic L says:
    September 18, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    What surprises me is the outrage that Mr Watts should be allowed to speak.

    That should not surprise you. Since their position is based on perpetuating false dogma, truth and reason becomes the enemy they must fight.

    You have my support, Anthony.

  116. nigel deacon says:

    it’s an old quote, but nonetheless true:

    You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. – Winston Churchill

    you’ve done an excellent job with wuwt. well done anthony.

  117. Sarah says:

    Whatever happened to free speech and hearing all sides of an argument?

  118. Jim Stewart says:

    Anthony
    Many thanks from a ‘down under’ fan. First task in my morning is a look at WUWT, you never disappoint. I will make what donation I can to support you, well done.
    Hang in there, mate.

  119. Shevva says:

    [snip . . . we don't do that here . . mod]

  120. Jannie says:

    Anthony, you should not be surprised if you stick your hand into a snakehole, and you get bit. Thats what snakes do, its nothing personal, but it aint fun.

    You are doing a great job mate, dont let them get you down.

  121. Leg says:

    I read the apology piede and the comments, then posted a comment. As Anthony noted, a good percentage of the comments are ad hominem attacks against Anthony. What was more interesting were the number of “likes”: anti-Watts postings got 10 -20 likes; pro-Watts postings were 40-50 likes. Heh. PS: I post as aGrimm in Disqus. Go give me some likes!

  122. Steve C says:

    More proof (if proof were needed) that there are some pretty nasty critters under the AGW stone. Fortunately they only seem to be about 1ppm of the US public, which is reassuring no matter how poisonous they are.

    More power to your elbow, Anthony. Non illegitimi carborundum!

  123. papiertigre says:

    PBS coordinated with Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (or whatever alias they conspire under at the moment), and other lobby groups, informing them first, then they approached Anthony for the interview.

    The content hardly matters. They’re out to “fix” the problem that Ralph Nader is highlighting, to buck up squishy Dem candidates.

    So they manufacture a mob display astroturf on the eco-lobby’s favorite issue, not to fool the public, but rather to fool would be Democrat politicians.

  124. steveta_uk says:

    “What am I denying?”

    They are accusing you of being a virulent climate change denier.
    They are accusing you of being funded by the Heartland Institute.
    They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on accuracy.
    They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on integrity.
    They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on transparency.
    They are acusing you of being part of a journalistic abomination.

    I’d guess you deny most of that (perhaps one project for HI could clasify you as “funded”, not sure about that one).

  125. Jack Savage says:

    Well done and congratulations. It all helps.

  126. mycroft says:

    Well done Anthony,You clearly struck a nerve.

  127. Chris Korvin says:

    Does Ranulph Fiennes realise it is now minus 119 degrees in the Antarctic ?

  128. MonktonofOz says:

    Don’t whinge on this blog. Instead write to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler at http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman /feedback.html and tell him what a great job Anthony has done and how the PBS is required to offer a balanced view.

  129. Steve Keohane says:

    Thanks for putting yourself out there Anthony, I am sorry for the vitriol that you have to put up with.
    MonktonofOz says:September 19, 2012 at 3:43 am Thanks for the link, the whole link did not get activated and there is an extra space after “ombudsman” that needs to be removed. You are right, PBS needs positive feedback WRT Anthony.

  130. Iggy Slanter says:

    To quote the USAF saying:
    “If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.”
    I want to thank you for your continued heroic efforts.

  131. Phil Ford says:

    That message from ‘Forecast The Facts’ calling for Team Warmist to boycott PBS is chilling in it’s Orwellian overtones. I’m genuinely shocked anyone – especially in the US (and I speak as a Brit) – could be openly calling for the closing down of legitimate debate in such an unashamedly brazen way. What happened to ‘freedom of expression’? I thought yours was the ‘Land of the Free’?

    This is how it goes with the CAGW zealots. This is why all climate skeptics, everywhere, need to resist these morons – because they are potentially dangerous morons who want to take away our freedoms in the name of ‘sustainability’ or ‘renewables’ or whatever this week’s fashionable term for CAGW might be,

    Stay strong, Anthony – your interview was a resounding success. It clearly has the alarmists rattled – your confident, calm, reasoned rationale has obviously sent a shockwave through the already nervous ranks of warmists – who, as we all know, are never willing at all to face their critics in a public forum. Keep on keeping on.

  132. P Wilson says:

    All I can say is that the fiercest debates rage where there is little evidence to support a proposition. Persecution is used in theology and not in arithmetic on this basis.

    I’d definitely place the vitriol in the dark ages, and not in the human reason stage of development.

  133. John Bell says:

    Those who complained about Anthony to PBS, they all still drive cars and use electricity and eat food and exhale CO2 and have kids and pets and heat their homes and use A/C, etc. They are all CO2 producers just like the people they call “deniers”. They say one thing but do something else. They are the ones who I find outrageous.

  134. Jim says:

    Hmm, they can’t even spell meteorologist correctly in their pop-up caption…..
    Anthony Watts
    Meterologist…..

  135. Don Bennett says:

    Hang in there Anthony. One measure of your effectiveness is the intensity of the opposition’s reaction. The greater the reaction, the better the job you have done.

    Take care and stay up there on the ramparts for all of us.

  136. AlexS says:

    It is the Left modus operandi. Thuggery.
    No one should be surprised by this.

  137. Legatus says:

    A question, are the comments saying that they should never have allowed you to speak actually representative of the comments they have actually recieved, or only representative of the comments they allow people to view? It is quite easy to skew the apperent reaction of people by only actually posting negative comments about including Watts. This is suggested by their not posting your corrections post, which shows that they are not posting some, possibly many, comments. They may not wish to post comments that say “we screwed up”, or to correct the errors because they may make you look bad (they want that), or post any comment pro Watts because “the narrative” is warmers good denialists bad/stupid/wrong/not-real-scientists.

    The important point in getting away with blatent propaganda is not what you say, but what you carefully don’t say.

  138. catweazle666 says:

    Anthony, I note that in the apology piece the posts approving of your stance consistently garner three to five times as many ‘likes’ as the posts complaining about it.

    Strikes me the Watermelons are getting desperate, hence their increasingly disproportionately hysterical response to any criticism – especially well informed criticism – of their increasingly untenable position.

    The game is up, and they know it.

    Keep up the good work, Anthony, we’re winning – in no small part as a result of your efforts.

  139. Terry says:

    What are you denying? You’re denying them the successful implementation of their political agenda. Well done. Keep on keeping on.

  140. Mike H says:

    You were great. Their sensitivity to you just shows you how weak their arguments are.
    The only part I disagree with you is when you talked about GW as a “problem”. Putting CO2 in the air is not a problem. You know the arguments.
    Again, great job and thanks for the work you do.
    Cheers

  141. wayne says:

    Legatus says: “The important point in getting away with blatent propaganda is not what you say, but what you carefully don’t say.”

    That needs to be said twice (and in bold).

  142. Bruce C says:

    Well done and congratulations. You can see them circling the wagons as we speak.

    ….and Anthony:

    The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

    &

    Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

    Sir Winston Churchill

  143. john robertson says:

    You are a gentleman and a scholar, the statement that you are NOT a scientist, as defined, High priest of Climatology? makes the apologists look ignorant.
    Enjoy the hate, you obviously have provided truth to self doubt. This level of violence is insecurity writ large as no one with faith in their views gets unhinged so quickly.
    My impression is truth trumps hysteria and you are winning the debate. Thank you for your tireless work donation follows.

  144. xham says:

    Anthony,

    I glad you got a taste of what it feels like to be called a ‘conspiracy theorist’ for simply asking questions. It seems like you have dismissed and labelled people here on you’re blog for calling into question other so called ‘truth’s’. I am still hopeful that you’re intelligence will reveal the bigger picture eventually and the incredible fall out from the PBS show should help enlighten your path towards that. Maybe.

  145. Anthony, it made me sick when I read about this. I had to put it in perspective:

    http://www.r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunes/censoring_a_voice_of_reason.html

  146. Mickey Reno says:

    I thought you were eminently sensible and measured in your interview, Anthony. Congratulations.

    As my interest in the field of climate science is rapidly gravitating towards cultic studies and the group psychology of a sizeable population adhering to absolutist and totalitarian meme structures and with substantial influence over governments, I hope you’ll consider displaying a sample of the hate mail you’ve received, redacting the names or not, as you feel appropriate .

    I’m struck by the totalitarian nature of the Joe Romm sycophants on that thread. My comment to the apology thread (which looks like it’s not going to make it through moderation) was this sardonic taunt, which includes a link to the No Pressure 10:10 video where those not adequately vigilant in cutting their carbon emissions are blown up in gory splats:
    —-
    To those of you appalled that PBS would allow even one voice of dissent on climate change, if complaining doesn’t do it for you, and if withholding your money during the next pledge drive doesn’t quite do it for you, you can always push the No Pressure button:

    Go ahead, push the button. You know you want to.
    —-

  147. Kitefreak says:

    Don’t let the PBStards grind you down.

    All ‘mainstream media’ are the same. Gerald Celente calls them “presstitutes”. They’re all singin’ off the same hymn sheet, and you ain’t on it, to paraphrase George Carlin.

  148. Jeff Condon says:

    I can’t believe the lengths they are going to. You were the most correct person they interviewed.

    Crazy world!!

  149. Merovign says:

    It was never about freedom of speech. It was always about power and control.

  150. Blade says:

    Anthony,

    I did some quick research for you relating to a nasty AGW jihadist who calls himself SecularAnimist, who has been busy slandering you over at the PBS website. Like all warmies, he demonstrates a knack for cognitive dissonance through blatant hypocrisy by having the gall to use the word slander while he does exactly that!


    SecularAnimist

    “Anthony Watts is a deliberate liar, who paid by fossil fuel corporations to deceive the public about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to slander climate scientists. With this broadcast, you are legitimizing his deliberate lies, and abetting his slander. Perhaps this should not be surprising, considering the millions of dollars that the coal tycoon David Koch has donated to PBS, but it is nonetheless disappointing.”

    1 day ago 11 Likes

    NOTE: This is found on the PBS website as the 26th comment in this thread on the first page when sorted by oldest to newset. That direct link to the comment does not work since it is a discus site, with its retarded ‘newest first’ sort order and it shows only a short pagefull at a time.

    Anyway, this toilet bug called “SecularAnimist” apparently has not ever had the courage to post here at WUWT ( perhaps he fears you will have his IP address ), but his name has come up in discussions on at least 5 different threads ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ).

    As I have been so fond of pointing out lately: The conspiracy theorists almost always on the warmie side. Those that are most likely to believe in Roswell UFO’s, grassy knoll shooters, faked moon landings, 9/11 WTC inside job by Cheney and the Jews, will also believe in Global Warming from the magic molecule. They are Roseanne Barr and occupy Wall Street IQ level. They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control. They are the AGW target audience.

    … and the proofs abound. Let’s see if we cannot find more stuff from this bitter malcontent “SecularAnimist”. Hmmmm, at YouTube he seems to have his own page ( asterisks added by me ) …

    SecularAnimist commented 8 months ago :: Dude, capitalism is a steaming pile of sh*t on it’s last legs. Seriously , get over it because if you are under 50 – you’ll see it fall

    SecularAnimist commented 8 months ago :: Of course 9/11 was an inside job

    SecularAnimist commented 9 months ago :: Occupy Everything!

    SecularAnimist commented 9 months ago :: Occupy Bitchez!

    SecularAnimist commented 9 months ago :: Industrial capitalism is collapsing. In other words, the bling bling era is coming to end. So join the f*cking REVOLUTION. Plus there are hot chicks:)

    SecularAnimist commented 1 year ago :: Pure unadulterated anti-intellectual garbage. Everybody go pee your pants at the new world order. If anything the world needs a new world order – because the old one is crap – designed by people 300 years ago that did not understand human nature or science.

    Is it any surprise that this cretin called “SecularAnimist” regularly comments at RealClimate? A website that moderates out almost all skeptic commentary regularly accepts and publishes the mindless rambling of this ugly child.

    This is the type of person attracted to AGW. They know full well it is the expressway to Socialism which they adore and are working towards 24/7/365. These are the kinds of cretins you want to keep away from your daughters and everything else you care about. Needless to say, these are the types of people to keep out of elected office, they are President DingleBarry’s core constitutency. Never, ever vote for a Leftist, Socialist, Neo-Marxist, Neo-Communist, Green Watermellon or any combination thereof!

    P.S. I posted this to both current PBS threads.

  151. Jeff Alberts says:

    “Admittedly, I misspelled typographical in my haste to notify them of problems in their own article”

    You also said “There’s” when you clearly should have said, “There are”.

    REPLY: Admittedly, I have greater concerns to worry about – Anthony

  152. Jeff Alberts says:

    “REPLY: Admittedly, I have greater concerns to worry about – Anthony”

    Yet you worried about misspelling “typographical”. I keep bringing this point up whenever I see it, in an attempt to make your writing better, yet you don’t seem to care.

  153. Spector says:

    It would seem that the “Global Warming” alarm bell is being sounded on the promoted popular assumption that carbon dioxide is having an exponentially increasing effect on the climate, driving us ever closer to a Venusian doom. The refusal to accept that the scientific fact that this effect is actually logarithmic and self-masking (governed by a law of diminishing greenhouse effect) is another form of ‘denial.’

  154. Laurie Bowen says:

    It was a “set up”! That’s my opinion and I am sticking to it! Good news is: if you didn’t have (a) point(s), “they” would not have bothered. . . . .(with the set up!)

  155. Went back to the NewsHour page, took a while of hitting the “load More Comments” button at the bottom of the transcript, ’til I got ‘em all on one page.

    As it stands now, there’s 406 comments according to the page’s tally, with no signs of the transcription errors being fixed or either of Anthony’s comments being accepted.

    Rummage through most any other NewsHour online transcript page and the comments number a dozen or two when they aren’t just a small handful.

    Global warming causes heated NewsHour viewer commentary.

Comments are closed.