This just appeared on the PBS Blog, apparently the mere presence of my interview was enough to push NOAA into responding. It seems they are in full damage control mode.
CLIMATE — September 18, 2012 at 6:08 PM EDT
Climate Change From Different Perspectives
By: Spencer Michels
Anything dealing with climate change is bound to provoke an argument. And our story on Berkeley physicist Richard Muller’s recent conversion to a believer in man-made global warming, which he made in an op-ed in the New York Times, certainly stirred the pot. In addition to preparing a video story on the PBS NewsHour, I had written a blog that included extended remarks from Anthony Watts, a well-known blogger and prominent voice in the skeptic community. Watts — a former California TV weatherman who runs a company that provides weather data to TV stations — says he doesn’t completely discount global warming, but he says that much of the data recording temperatures are flawed because the stations are in areas like urban settings which retain heat and therefore read too high.
The idea of the online post — in part — was to let the audience hear more about the views of a prominent voice from the community of skeptics. In the past, we have on occasion provided a more expansive view from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say climate change is real, an ever-growing problem and one that is getting significantly worse because of our own contribution to greenhouse gases. (In fact, my colleague Hari Sreenivasan posted links to some of that prior reporting earlier today.) We thought the online post with Watts would provide a chance for viewers to hear more about the skeptical perspective than we have done recently.
That said — and as many of you wrote us to complain — we should have not ONLY posted additional comments from Watts’ perspective. So we have more interviews and responses from the scientific community about climate change. Let’s start on the question of whether temperature data is flawed. That was raised by Watts, and his views on that are being heavily criticized on the web today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:
The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that U.S. temperatures have risen and continue to rise with recent widespread record-setting temperatures in the USA. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.
Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting. A subsequent research study led by university and private sector scientists reached the same conclusion (Fall et al. 2011). Additionally, the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the US Historical Climatology Network dataset in July 2010 and concluded that “the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset.”
Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.
NOAA also provides this link for those who want more information. [Note from Anthony, see what we found using a new method (not employed by NOAA but endorsed by WMO) in Watts et al 2012, here. Strange that they don’t mention the General Accounting office report on USHCN (what the erroneously refer to as the inspector general’s report) was due to my inquiry, not theirs.]
There are plenty of other links where you can find data and information about this question of temperature measurements. One of note that we are including here is the website, skepticalscience.com, which examines and pushes back on the critique from the skeptics’ community.
One point that we tried to make in the broadcast piece was that Richard Muller, in fact, had his own doubts in the past on temperature readings with some issues that were similar to Watts’ criticisms. But he and his daughter, mathematician Elizabeth Muller, told us they looked closely at climate data and now clearly believe that human-induced climate change is happening. Here’s more of what they told us:
You can read the full story here.
I’m surprised that in the body the story, they’d link to SkepticalScience given what has transpired there recently with the conspiracy mongering, secret forums, hate speech and all that.
I’m still waiting for PBS to make the correction I asked for.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Under Jane Lubchenko, NOAA has become as anti-scientific & political activist a propaganda organ as the EPA. Her shameless minions are systematically “adjusting” recent temperatures up & older data down, so that NCDC is now at least as corrupted as GISS & HadCRU’s cooked books.
Anthony, just remember… any publicity is good publicity!
My thanks for all you have to put up with! Shameful that some are so hard-headed and hard-hearted that they can not and will not accept any other view as having any merit whatsoever except their own!
You have touched a very sore nerve Anthony. Well done.
Strange that they keep harping on Muller being a “converted skeptic” but say nothing about Anthony being a converted warmist. Oh no. That wouldn’t fit their narrative.
It is another episode of ‘The Twilight Zone’.
“Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)…”
It seems rather unusually long-term planning from NOAA, to be planning for the 22nd century here in the second decade of the 21st. I guess it’s never too early to get those grant applications ready.
/sarc
So typical. If they hadn’t done it I’d be surprised.
I thought America was the last bastion of freedom of speech? Apparently you can only make an uncontested comment if it has already been vetted by Big Brother and approved, otherwise he will insist on spending tax payers money putting his point of view.
If you read Muller’s Grist interview I don’t think you can support the statement that he was ever a sceptic. Here is the money quote:
“Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.”
Before they had a reasonable amount of data he was sure enough of CO2 causing global warming that he pushed nuclear hard and split with the Sierra Club over it. How is that Sceptical of Global Warming??
Get over it. This bozo has been playing people for years. Maybe he REALLY BELIEVES, but, it still puts money in his pocket through his company!!!
The Grist interview here:
http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/
This should be a bit of a nice example of the entrenched institutional response (Karl) to any suggestion of challenge to the ’cause’. Points for Mr Michels to note:
1) NOAA sleight of hand when talking about about changes in Trends vs. those of the Absolute Values (USCRN) – Anthony’s post using the new values only reveal July was NOT a recording-breaking month
2) NOAA quietly disappearing the most egregious stations on one hand whilst crowing that it doesn’t make any difference…
3) Menne et al 2010 paper was published by NOAA using Anthony’s Surfacestation.org data without his permission (what kind of ethics do these people have?)
And so….here they come, firing back – and Anthony did nothing but express reasonable doubts. Question for Mr. Michels – who do you think are the wild-eyed fanatics now? ;-D
I find it amazing that among all the hate and wild assertions against Anthony Watts is allowed to continue in light of the fact that Anthony could have been even more assertive about the TOTAL LACK of evidence for ANY man-made climate change.
Anthony did not discount ‘global warming’ because he knows that it has been happening, but global warming is NOT saying that it is man-made and for good reason.
Rather, it is the SUN that is the cause as the Earth has gone through many regimes of global warming over many centuries.
Rather, what Anthony chose to say was well-balanced as he provided a throughly thoughtful engagement of the facts of the causes of global warming. But even here, Anthony’s moderate statements have been subject to vile comments and attacks from the AGW mafia.
And, it is no wonder.
This is because NO ONE – not a single proponent of man-made global warming – has accurately forecast seasonal climate – monthly forecasts – though claiming what the climate will be like 50 years from now but they cannot forecast the climate/weather 50 DAYS from now. Does anyone find that curious? I sure do.
How are AGW proponents, including the AGW careerists staffing NOAA claim something that violates the very laws of physics?
This is quite typical of ideologues. They claim superior knowledge but they cannot forecast. This applies to NOAA/NWS as well whom I regularly out-forecast by means of astronomical forecasting of seasonal and long-range climate forecasting in the real world. Try to find an accurate prior seasonal forecast from NOAA and you will not be able to.
NOAA has long been staffed and run by the AGW mafia. But now that they are aging, at the end of their ideological careers, and in light of ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, along with the backtracking of the Obama Administration and some other countries away from the United Nation’s IPCC – they are all very desperate.
We can see their desperation in these attacks on Anthony Watts and all others who dare to question the fallacy and lies of man-made global warming.
The AGW mafia is losing the war on humanity and they know it, but no amount of personal attacks or attempts to make people like Anthony Watts appear as a fool will change the laws of physics.
There is no such thing as man-made global warming. There never has been and never will be either. It violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics – the very laws of physics.
Period. End of story.
Who are they trying to convince about weather station locations? Everyone else, or themselves? Well done Anthony, for provoking the question!
Thank you, Anthony for your fortitude in the face of adversity. I submitted the following to NPR, but it hasn’t been posted yet:
“Thank you for presenting as reasonable a news summary as is likely possible, given the contentious and divisive nature of this climate issue. Mr. Watts is a voice of calm among the others in this debate. I clearly remember the catastrophic manmade global cooling scare of the late 1970s, pushed by some of the same scientists who are pushing catastrophic manmade global warming this time around. I also remember the polywater scare that mercifully did not gain traction with the major news outlets. Be thankful that the Bathybius issue was discredited more than a century ago. Mr. Watts the meteorologist is to be commended for seeing through the fog earlier than most of us.”
Regarding adverse comments, I always turn to this quote from Benjamin Franklin at
http://www.2think.org/priestly.shtml
[…]
“Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest heretic Dr. Priestly. I do not call him honest by way of distinction; for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them. Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend’s heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, ’tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic. I am ever, my dear friend, yours sincerely, “
I just made the following comment to the PBS “back-tracking” post about an hour ago.
Congratulations for the even-handedness of your report.
The hardest thing to deal with in the climate-change debate is the rhetoric/polarization concerning the veracity of the claims made concerning anthropogenic influences.
I heartily recommend that everyone read and digest information from all aspects of this contentious issue. I have and have been able to draw conclusions that satisfy my scientific curiosity. As a retired chemist, I can appreciate the complexity and the depth of this subject.
I may even renew my PBS subscription because of this program.
I just made an additional post to express my dismay at the medieval opinions of so many commenters.
Both are still in moderation…
NOAA says
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:
‘The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets’.
******************************************************************************************
If they claim a long standing temperature record why and how does it keep on getting adjusted?
What reason can there be for adjusting temperatures from sixty/seventy years or more, ago? I think it’s just because they think they can get away with altering data that old, whereas if they altered current data to get the same trends people would notice.
Steve T
Their frantic back peddling just shows they had no idea of the power of your and others criticisms. The power comes from irrefutable truth. NOAA’s response is just an example of the genre. Well done. The degree of backlash probably indicates the degree of ‘inflicted truth’
Muller was never a skeptic. He only took offense to Mann’s blatant deception. (Unfortunately for Muller, a long record of his previous pro AGW pronouncements is indellibly available, in so many places that even SkepticalScience moderators will never be able to delete them all). Then proved that the measured temps were measured. They were, but as you have more than adequately shown, not correctly for historical comparison purposes. Then used a simple correlation to conclude all was man made for over the past two centuries, when even the AR4 did not go there. Stupid is as stupid does, including now provably NPR.
These people are like cockroaches–they hate the light (of truth)–Scurrying around like never before.
Congratulations, Anthony!
Several of the more vitriolic comments mentioned SkS. Another top-secret campaign from the Antipodean Climate Rapid Response Team?
Having seen the video as excerpted above, it shows how excellently the Warmists have turned the argument to whether there is warming at all. Muller doesn’t say there that it is anthropogenic warming. It seems most skeptics are falling for the goalpost changing. You are being converted, for the public’s misunderstanding., as deniers of any warming, not doubters of the degree of man-made influences. It is seems the reporter believes the issue is whether there is warming or not. Therefore, fail for you. They redefined the issues, and you are losing. Luckily Muller looks a little crazed.
Big Fail. The issues should be 1. who is funding them and, 2. Man-made effects and positive feedbacks. Since any open examination of no. 1 faces immediate rebukes from the plutocrat-loving right-wing scream machine, no. 2 should be focused upon. It really is the core issue, after all.
the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset
On the bright side, there’s this from the Inspector General. It reads like he or she was barred from a real investigation and is communicating that by saying, “the perpetrators say they are innocent.”
The best thing about that video was the egghead from Stanford declaring that skeptics had won as far as Washington is concerned. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to reform “science” and suddenly assure that all possibilities are discovered,politics be damned. You CAN elect Congressmen who will vote to cut budgets and repeal laws. Spend your money. Knock on doors. Man the phones . Believe me, it works.
Has traffic to WUWT gone up or down since PBS aired the interview?
“(what the erroneously refer to as the inspector general’s report)”
Maybe there is another report, and it is no mistake.
Sceptics have just been given an extremely good opportunity to pounce and refute. NOW IS THE TIME THAT NO WARMIST CLAIM GOES UNCHALLENGED IF ITS BOGUS, NO GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA ALLOWED TO THE STAND. Sorry to be shouting but you have just been given an unprecedented (sorry..) opportunity to drive the dialog! Take it! Refute the bogus percentages, challenge the obtuse data and conclusions! THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY YOU ALL HAVEN WAITING FOR!
Well done mr. Watts.
There is still a lot of people who are able to think independent thoughts. And history shows that every time the activists are forced to come out in the sunlight, they loose. You have triggered some reactions – let’s see what happens next.