Dr. Judith Curry on the PBS debacle

From her blog -

Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller set this story down a certain path that turned out to be unfortunate.

IMO, Watts handled himself very well in the on-air interview and also in the extended written interview.  Nothing that he said was unreasonable.  It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ and Watts as the ‘lukewarmer.’

The outrage over Watts seems to be not so much what he said, as over his being given any airtime at all.  On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson?  I would say not.  However, on a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center.  His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa).  As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.

==============================================================

Thank you, Dr. Curry. Read the entire essay on her blog.

 

 

About these ads

154 thoughts on “Dr. Judith Curry on the PBS debacle

  1. I think the work done on bad siting of weather stations is good science. You don’t need a PHD in global warming to qualify for a PBS segment.

    • It’s defining moment at the equinox, my thoughts are with all my fellow sceptic bloggers, especially Jo Nova at this time.

  2. On a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center. His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa). As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.

    Absolutely!

  3. A completely off-topic comment merely to alert fellow skeptics to the presently disabled condition of JoanneNova.com.au. The site presently says “This Account Has Been Suspended.”
    It may be just a temporary glitch, perhaps not, but it was not a scheduled outage to the knowledge of regular readers.
    Let’s hope warmist activity has nothing to do with this incident. The site was the target of a hack a month ago, certainly a sign that she is making progress.
    Presumably fans can watch for an explanatory tweet at http://twitter.com/JoanneNova

  4. Judith:
    It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ and Watts as the ‘lukewarmer.’
    ====================================================================
    If you are not with them 100%, they are against you 100%

  5. Anthony: I saw your interview some days ago. All I can say is “Gosh he is so balanced” The warmists seeing you there would have made their blood warmer, as as far as they are concerned NO ONE disagreeing with then should be reported one by the MSN

    As far as I am concerned in your field and particularly in the area of land based temperature readings and the politics of global warming you are an expert. All supporters of WUWT will agree with me here. The warmists think: “Better watermelon than expert” BTW I wonder what happened to Al Gore?

  6. I see there are the usual hateful comments over there claiming that this site is only successful because Anthony “tells his audience what it wants to hear”.

    Why oh why is it that these same people get away with such claims yet run a mile when offered the chance to debate publicly? Do they think sceptics have some kind of magic powers to sway audiences? It’s not as if rhetoric is an unknown tactic to the alarmists. They even run screaming from me on my own campus when I offer to have it out in a public debate and I’m just a lowly humanities/computing PhD student…..

  7. OT, but still…

    Happy (Practically) Sea Ice-Free Arctic Day!

    Let the carbon-neutral biodegradable confetti fly!

  8. As I type this, 8 minutes ago Jo tweeted an explanation, and it turns out it was another hack.

    Wishing her blog a speedy recovery.

  9. With due respect to Judith Curry, just as you don’t have to be a gourmet to recognize tainted food, you don’t have to have a PhD to recognize tainted science. Obstruction of replicability is rife in “climate science,” along with a wide assortment of unscientific behaviours clearly evident to the layman. It stinks like a week old mackerel.

  10. But Judy, there is no debate. Things were settled long ago. Al said so. And since then no one from the warmist side has had the courage and conviction to open it back up for debate, certainly not Muller, not Mann, nor any of the folks in Colorado, or East Anglia or wherever else they choose to hide.

  11. “is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”

    I completely disagree with Curry – IMO Anthony is the perfect spokesperson. And, for what it is worth, I think he was incredibly restrained in that interview. Even showing such restraint he can attract the vitriol of the fanatics, simply for stating a perfectly reasonable view in a courteous manner. It is about time that scientists got off the fence and exposed this fraud for what it truly is.

  12. “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”

    I totally, 100% disagree. I believe that people as educated on the subject as Anthony Watts are actually more qualified than ‘climate scientists’, whoever they are. What does it take to be a climate scientist? Well, you have to live in the make-believe world of academia or government, where science is secondary to ones ability to garner grant money. That is the real job of the modern day, climate scientist. On campus, they don’t say “science or perish”, they say “publish or perish”. It doesn’t have to be good science. It just has to be published science that adds to the prestige or notoriety of the scientist and university.

    Consequently, the university scientist lives in a strange environment where they study reality through the lens of grant acquisition. Somehow, these otherwise intelligent people, do not believe this process changes [their] work or effects their conclusions, but it obviously does. There is a strong incentive to describe the world in such a way that will produce more support for the university, while not biting the hand that feeds them. This often results in strange language that does not contradict what the scientist truly believes or what the ‘grant-givers’ need to hear, even if they are two different things. So reports are filled with meaningless jargon that implies a lot, but says almost nothing at all.

    Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in [their] area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science. They may become ‘experts’ in one narrow aspect, but remain fairly ignorant of the rest of climate study.

    People like Anthony Watts, who developed their opinion without a stake in the outcome, and have studied a more complete spectrum of the available science, are the MOST qualified to address the public on climate change. I would bet that most regular readers of WUWT could win a public debate on removing the ‘crisis’ from man-made climate change over most ‘climate scientists’, provided the moderator came down hard on ad homenim attacks and appeals to authority.

    The real science is squarely against the crisis argument, and that is the only argument that has ever mattered in the climate change debate.

  13. As there is precious little science in “climate science”, I believe that the opinion of every educated, thinking adult is relevant to this subject. Indeed, the dishonesty that exists within this subject stems, to a great extent, from the creation of “climate science” a separate branch of science. This enabled the believers to isolate themselves from the rest of the scientific community, peer review themselves and hand out degrees, professorships and fellowships to each other as they please. Most of the real scientists initially involved with the IPCC have either been forced out or resigned in disgust with the process. Every aspect of the work done by the closed shop climate community should be overseen by top scientists, engineers, programmers, etc from every discipline, not just generalist climate scientists.

    P.S. If the Earth has a climate, would someone kindly define it for me. Thanks.

  14. I’ve been engaged in a rather straightjacketed discussion over on the funny farm that is SkS.

    The gist is that the NOAA measurements are fine, no problemo in situation at all; the biases are removed by some very clever boffins. Basically, I was rounded on for even doubting it. But the paranoia is really palpable….

    I posted: “Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis – Galileo went down that path under duress.”

    Later I found…

    “Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis. (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.”

    I’m still trying to get my head round that! It seem’s I’m persona non grata there now, what a very sad and insecure bunch they are.

  15. “…On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not….”

    Why not?

    It cannot be repeated too often that there is NO SUCH THING as a ‘qualified scientist’.
    There are qualified medical doctors. There are qualified plumbers. There are qualified teachers. But science is a ‘way of thinking’. If I approach a problem ‘scientifically’, I am being a ‘scientist’. And so is anyone who follows this process.

    Of course, some people are better at this process than others. Some have studied a problem longer, and know more detail about it. I would say that Watts has a good track record in this regard. He is not a ‘spokesperson’, of course – spokespeople are appointed to represent a particular clientèle, and there is no such thing as a single authoritative body ‘running’ climate science who could appoint such a person. No matter how much the warmists may wish there was.

    The warmists, as a last ploy, are trying to argue that only their opinions are entitled to be heard, and dissenting voices must be silenced, because they are not ‘qualified’ to think about this problem. Wherever this attitude is found it must be attacked and silenced at source – it is an open attempt to enforce a dictatorship of thought.

  16. It’s difficult to know how anyone could have been more reasonable and considered in their statements than Anthony Watts was in that interview. I thought it was a text book example of how to calmly present a rational argument to an unbelieving audience, and as such AW was an ideal spokesperson for the show.

  17. Before everyone starts thanking Dr Curry for her kind comments toward Anthony, I would urge everyone to think carefully about what she said.

    On the one hand, she endorsed him as being front and centre in the public debate, but on the other hand she excluded him, and deliberately so, as a “scientist”. This is an egregious comment in my opinion, not because is excludes Anthony’s observations regarding science, but because it by default excludes the opinions of anyone not defined by Dr Curry as being a scientist.

    This is utter cr@p for the simple reason that the bulk of the issues surrounding the CAGW debate are well within the grasp of common people. The CAGW meme isn’t failing because the person in the street rejects out of hand some esoteric aspect of quantum physics that only a tiny select priesthood understands. The person in the street rejects the CAGW meme because they find out that Briffa’s 1000 year reconstruction is based 50% on a single tree that doesn’t even match local temperature measurements. Because they find out that Michael Mann used Tiljander data even though he knew it was upside down. Because they find out that Jones used a “trick” to hide the fact that the prescious tree ring data that is supposedly accurate for 1000 years actually goes the opposite direction of the temperature record for nearly half the instrumental record. Because it takes virtually no education at all to compare different versions of the GISS temperature record and see that the oldest records have been adjusted downward for no apparent reason. Because it doesn’t take a degree to look at the graphs of Total Cyclone Energy and conclude that extreme weather events are declining, not increasing. It takes very little education to look at sea ice extent and see that it is declining in the arctic and increasing in the antarctic.

    In fact Dr Curry, the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of climate science is well within the grasp of most people. “Scientists” like yourself lose all credibility with me when you define the opinions of the rest of us to the trash heap out of hand.

    The fact of the matter Dr Curry is that there are very FEW aspects of “science” as it applies to the climate debate that CAN’T be understood by someone with just the basics in calculus, physics and statistics. That you attempt to reserve valid discussion of these things to yourself and your science priesthood is pretentious, arrogant and self serving in the extreme.

    What the alarmists fear most from the discussion of climate science is not that Anthony Watts may have some valid points. What they fear is that the common person will cease drinking whichever flavour of cool-aid they happen to be most comfortable with handed out by what ever priest has been blessed with that task in whatever forum they happen to be most comfortable with, and instead spend a few hours getting themselves up to speed on the facts which are easily found in forums such as WUWT and verified in any number of ways with very little effort.

    By attempting to define climate science as something out of the grasp of the common person Dr Curry while at the same time spinning a slightly different view (lukewarmist) you are revealing what you believe. That you are simply a sect within the priesthood, and the rest of us the great unwashed.

  18. I agree that Anthony was a good choice for the segment & not just because he conveniently lives in N. CA & has Heartland’s Good Temperature Housekeeping Seal of Approval. His survey of instrument siting is an important contribution to genuine climate science, still in its infancy.

    However I feel that another skeptic should have been interviewed on camera in order to balance out the other consensus interviewee besides Muller. IMO Curry would have been a good choice, thanks to her prior collaboration with Muller & her own honest conversion to skepticism (excuse me if the good doctor doesn’t believe she’s a convert). She could have pointed out the problems with BEST, or Muller’s interpretation of the data, & maybe even have noted that he was never much of a skeptic in the first place.

    But I guess even showing a real, live skeptic in the form of Anthony was a breakthrough for PBS. They may in fact have preferred him because he’s not an academic, to reinforce the false perception that skeptics are hicks from the sticks & kooks clinging to God & guns, in his case a shotgun, slaughtering defenseless skeet, probably while on their fall migration toward rapidly evaporating tropical rain forests.

  19. Anthony,

    It would seem that this PBS kabuki has given you an opportunity. I hope you take advantage of it.

    The Ombudsman wrings his hands over their lapse in “editorial integrity” – which they define as having aired an interview with you. There is a huge failure in editorial integrity present here, but has nothing to do with you. PBS needs to be called on it, and the massive attention that this event is currently receiving gives you a window of opportunity to do that.

    The problem of editorial integrity here is that PBS lied about Richard Muller. They said on the program, and Ombudsman Michael Getler repeated in his “Mea Culpa” essay, the following:

    “Physicist Richard Muller had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, but he made big news last month when he broke with his allies and published an op-ed in the New York Times saying not only was he no longer a skeptic but that “I’m now going a step further.

    That statement is a lie.

    Richard Muller has never denied that climate change was happening, let alone for a long time. We have quotes from him promoting global warming in the late 1900’s and the first decade of this century. We have quotes of him supporting Algore’s methods. We know that he and his daughter have a consulting business promoting “solutions” to global warming problems. We all know this stuff, but we have become jaded to Muller’s mischaracterization of himself as a “sceptic” because it is difficult to do anything about it. Muller fabricates by equivocating on the term “sceptic”, which makes it hard to render his lies actionable.

    PBS has done something different. In repeating Muller’s lies, they embellish. They make statements of fact that are not true. They say that Muller “… had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, …”. Muller’s faux sceptic period was a little over a year. That is not long by any measure relevant to this topic. He has never denied that climate change was happening. PBS made those things up. They took his equivocations, and turned them into plainly stated lies.

    These are the sort of issues that an Ombudsman should be addressing as violations of integrity, not whether they should have interviewed an author of peer reviewed scientific publications and prominent voice on the topic.

    Call them on it.

  20. Climate science has lost all credibility. It’s scientists act like high priests of cult churches and it’s supporters act like blind-faith followers. Reason is beyond thier capabilities: fear and self-righteousness rule their minds.

  21. Jim Clarke says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am

    “Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in there(sic) area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science.”

    The difference between “climate science” and climatology right there.

    Insightful post. Thx.

  22. I have climate science fatigue. I’ve just been reading comments over on the PBS and they are all impassioned and weird. There is hardly any middle ground, not one of the contributors could be swayed by science, debate or oratory, why do they bother to post? Should I care? I did care but I don’t think I do anymore. I expect not caring is either a crime against my children or against the taxpayer, depending on which camp you happen to be in, and that makes me a horrible person one way or the other. Luckily that doesn’t worry me either. Perhaps I will get over it, I may just be having a bad climate science day.

  23. Judith:
    It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ …’
    ============================================================

    I think they are just setting you up as an eventual turncoat against said deniers.

  24. If they would only put as much energy into gathering objective evidence about what the actual climate is doing as they put into trying to silence debate, then we could call them climate scientists.

    But instead, most of their energy is going into acting like 12th century inquisitors.

  25. Anthony,

    Much like the goings on in the Middle-East, you insulted their prophet by speaking heresy and you did not come across as Rasputin or Charlie Manson (which BTW, some of their own, Hanson, Gore, etc.do fit that image.) Your calm demeanor and point-on narrative connects with us “commoners” which invades the believer’s already marked territory. Thus, they launched a terrorist attack in an attempt to intimidate not only you, but anyone of their flock who might dare stray off the reservation.

    I wonder if anyone else noticed the similarities of the emails PBS posted, as though all were written from some back-channel template circulated among the “true” believers? The obligatory “97% of scientists” and “thoroughly debunked” (or discredited) shows up in almost every email, leading one to believe they were written by a single person or a very small group of guerrilla fighters. I believe the “15,000 people” figure is a red herring.

    In my book, Anthony, you are the perfect “voice” of skepticism. The term “scientist” is earned. I have yet to see it posted on anyone’s sheepskin. It is something earned through hard work, perseverance and dedication to one’s avocation. You have slogged in the trenches and earned that distinction, much to the consternation of those megalomaniacs who seem to believe their PhD automatically entitles them to be so-called (pun intended.)

    Keep up the good work. You have tons of support from us skeptical commoners! The war is being won, one battle at a time.

  26. People who use the label “Climate Change Denier” are more inclined to initiate a shouting contest than to engage in a scientific debate. For them, there is no debate. Anthony & Dr. Curry, (and the readers of their sites) on the other hand are “Climate Change Debaters”, which explains the backlash against Dr. Curry. It’s ‘Guilt by association’. Because she is willing to debate the science with “Deniers”, she’s one of us. And while we don’t always agree with Dr. Curry, we appreciate her impeccable integrity. She’s a breath of fresh air emanating from the sewer of climate science.

  27. Dr Currie’s and the PBS ombudsman’s point appears to be , Mr Watts is not a member of the priesthood of CAWG and thus is not qualified to speak to the theology? How is this relevant to science?

  28. Dr. Judith Curry: “Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller set this story down a certain path that turned out to be unfortunate.”

    This represents the danger of basing a decision or a conclusion “on a case sample of one”; had 5% or more representative number of the ‘skeptic’ community ‘turned’ then it might have some basis and validity as a ‘basis’ for a program (me thinks) …

    He (Muller) was what – an outlier of 4 or 5 sigma relative to the base (the statistical population of ‘skeptics’)? … someone should have run the statistical significance of one lone questionable wolf ‘turning’ before placing as much prominence upon his pronouncements …

    .

  29. Anthony does not ‘speak for me’ nor did I appoint him as my representative nor as my delegate. It happens I agree with everything he said in the interview. The fact that PBS chooses to refer to a ‘spokesperson’ for [some group they create in their minds] does not change reality.

    There are not ‘two sides’ to truth, even if one speaks from a different paradigm. The sum of knowledge is the only basis from which we can speak. Partial knowledge creates partiality in view.

    I and many other share Anthony’s view on the issue of the temperature record and quite a lot of other things. There are no doubt things we do not agree on which matters not at all when discussion turns to the temperature record on which he is an acknowledged expert.

    This whole ‘scientist’ qualification/naming hogwash is nothing other than priestcraft. For CAGW supporters it means there are those who are annointed with the Holy Spirit of Climate and those who have not gone through the prescribed rituals and initiations. That is how those who have attacked Anthony on PBS see it – he is not one of the ‘very elect’.

    Interesting from the perspective that there appear to be hundreds, nay thousands, who will blindly accept anything from a climate priest but not from a truth-speaking man. That is the very definition of fanaticism.

  30. Dr. Curry, this is why arts and sciences are separate from engineering. As we have witnessed with nutrition and climate, science can easily transmogrify into art.

    My father (mathematician, electrical engineer) could easily have been interviewed about the biology, chemistry, physics, and geology he picked up in high school and college. He knew much more chemistry than me, and I have the chemistry degree.

    Anthony is more than qualified to discuss climate science.

  31. Add my two cents worth to the Ivory Tower “clique” comment. If it weren’t for lowly mothers speaking out against the scientific “consensus” on autism, they would still be accusing mothers of being “cold” towards their children. Judith owes you an apology and needs to come down out of the Ivory Tower. She’s not all that (no scientist is and they would do well to remember that), and as soon as she realizes it, we can finally make headway on this issue.

    I’m a special educator. And I’m not all that. If my “pet theory” doesn’t work to improve learning rate, I try something else. And if that doesn’t work I try something else. What I have discovered is that off the shelf, bells and whistles, expensive curriculum touted by the publishers as being the best of the best, isn’t always the case. In fact, it seldom is the case, even though their own “PhD’ed” research on curriculum they are paid to promote appears to prove their case. Now where have we heard that before?

    Judith, you should be thanking folks like Anthony who bring fresh eyes to research. Dismissing his ability to do so speaks ill of you.

  32. World English Dictionary
    scientist (ˈsaɪəntɪst)
    — n
    a person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods

    So, just how is Anthony NOT a scientist?

  33. It’s very noticeable that in the comments on the Curry blog thread, almost those trying to discredit Anthony and this blog do so under a pseudonym, and resort entirely to ad hominem attacks, with no attempt to provide any evidence for their assertions. Supporters of WUWT do try to do cite references, and do so politely.

    Par for the course; but as we all know, only desperate people lacking the support of evidence for their cause behave in this manner.

  34. “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”.

    I agree with Dr. Curry in this. IMO Anthony is “merely” an excellent choice (and did a wonderful job); the perfect choice would have been Vahrenholt and/or Luning, who switched views in the opposite direction of Muller’s alleged flip. I’d love to see one or both of them debate Muller on PBS!

  35. Further Dr Curry, the ultimate debate is not about the science.

    Seriously.

    This arrogant self serving petulant attempt by those such as yourselves to exclude the rest of us from the debate by defining us as “non scientists” fails to include the MOST important part of the debate which has NOTHING to do with science.

    It has to do with economics.

    The question we must answer, when all is said and done, is which is better for humanity, mitigation or adaptation?

    OK miss high and mighty “scientist”, go ahead and dispute me on that. Think you can hold your own in a debate with me on the intersection of science and economics?

    I dare you and your arrogant cohorts to even try. The only way that the whole lot of you can score a single point in the debate is to do what you arrogantly try to accomplish, which is to define the debate in terms which allow only you to claim expertise.

    There’s the truth of it Dr Curry. You and your ilk can barely hold your own in a discussion of the science with well informed laymen. When it comes to the big picture, which includes who starves to death and who doesn’t based on what actions we do or do not take, you are collectively so far out of your league that you are complete jokes. You are worse than jokes. You suck on the hind teat of society as if the milk were free and only you are entitled to drink it while carefully explaining to the great unwashed that only you know what to do with the milk.

    Its my milk you arrogant snob.

    Gonna take my dare?

  36. Muller on Watts
    by Andrew W. Montford

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html

    Quote:
    [Dr.] Richard Muller is interviewed in the current issue of Physics World (H/T Jonathan Jones). The article is not online as far as I can tell, but there are some interesting comments that I will reproduce here :

    lf Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”

  37. jim @ 9:55 AM illustrates a nice point. Not only is Muller a false skeptic, but PBS is pushing a false narrative; the trend is toward skepticism about climate catastrophe. The astro-turfed petition that the ombudsman received is a symptom of the consciousness of the falseness of the narrative. I don’t think it was outrage over a ‘non-scientist’ at all.
    ========================

  38. Jim Clarke says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am

    “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”

    I totally, 100% disagree. I believe that people as educated on the subject as Anthony Watts are actually more qualified than ‘climate scientists’, whoever they are. What does it take to be a climate scientist? Well, you have to live in the make-believe world of academia or government, where science is secondary to ones ability to garner grant money. That is the real job of the modern day, climate scientist. On campus, they don’t say “science or perish”, they say “publish or perish”. It doesn’t have to be good science. It just has to be published science that adds to the prestige or notoriety of the scientist and university.

    Consequently, the university scientist lives in a strange environment where they study reality through the lens of grant acquisition. Somehow, these otherwise intelligent people, do not believe this process changes [their] work or effects their conclusions, but it obviously does. There is a strong incentive to describe the world in such a way that will produce more support for the university, while not biting the hand that feeds them. This often results in strange language that does not contradict what the scientist truly believes or what the ‘grant-givers’ need to hear, even if they are two different things. So reports are filled with meaningless jargon that implies a lot, but says almost nothing at all.

    Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in [their] area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science. They may become ‘experts’ in one narrow aspect, but remain fairly ignorant of the rest of climate study.

    People like Anthony Watts, who developed their opinion without a stake in the outcome, and have studied a more complete spectrum of the available science, are the MOST qualified to address the public on climate change. I would bet that most regular readers of WUWT could win a public debate on removing the ‘crisis’ from man-made climate change over most ‘climate scientists’, provided the moderator came down hard on ad homenim attacks and appeals to authority.

    It is interesting and informative to note that the CAGW theists (those who so viciously “defend” the so-called of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory) who most closely DEMAND we only listen to their “approved” scientific results and “scientists” and “government experts” are those who most fanatically fought AGAINST “government conclusions” and “MidEast experts” and “official government sources” and “intelligence analysis” of both parties …. when the Iraq War was being debated as necessary and important by their opponents, but denounced as “war for oil” and international disaster by their own side..

    These same extremists who demand “only (CAGW-approved) scientists” can address climate change make up the same group … that claims engineering analysis and forensic investigations ‘cannot be trusted” in the case of the World trade Center terrorism. There, in that case that offends their sense of the world where true terrorism is present and innocents really are killed, it is the “911 Truthers” who have NO engineering knowledge or intelligence who are the “only ones” who can address the situation and “find the truth.”

    PBS is deeply flawed, criminally at fault for destroying the world’s economy in their blindness to the “real” scientific investigations of the unknowns in our world. These supposed 15,000 are even more prejudiced, and yet so ignorantly but elegantly informed.

  39. katabasis1 says:
    September 22, 2012 at 7:45 am

    The mythology of the global warmists is that even permitting non-alarmists to have air time is dangerous because it gives people the impression that there is no consensus, and that it gives us respect we don’t deserve.

    On this I claim bunk. If our evidence is so bad, then publicly shredding it would discredit us, not give us more credit.

    I never shrink from debating a young earth creationist, or a truther, or any of the weird conspiracy theorists out there. Precisely because their so called evidence is easy to discredit. Once people see both sides, and see who is able to defend their evidence, then they will make up their own minds.

    The fact that the warmists refuse to debate at all, tells you all you need to know about how much confidence they have in their “evidence:.

  40. One of Dr. Curry’s comments: “… discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”, seems to imply she does not consider Anthony a scientist. Let’s be clear. A scientist is a “seeker of truth” who follows the scientific method in his/her studies or practice of science. There is no doubt Anthony is a competent scientist contributing to the field of climatology. On the other hand, the public’s increasing mistrust of science is a direct result of the fact that far too many “…ologists” with multiple sets of letters following their names, fail miserably to meet this definition.

  41. The most cogent comment in the interview was Watt’s “noble cause corruption.” If you’ve had any experience in science or in R&D you’ll know (for me remember) the temptation to fudge just a little because the “work” is that important.

  42. davidmhoffer says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:47 am
    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Completely agree. Anthony Watts’ surface stations project and his science papers on the quality of temperature measurement goes to the heart of the research into AGW. He is more of a scientist researching AGW than all the PhD’s who study secondary elements such as polar bears or coral reefs and in doing so make unfounded claims or inferences that CAGW is the cause of any changes in the assumed status quo.

    Professors of climatology are in good company, Kermit the Frog has a Doctorate of Amphibious Letters awarded by Southampton College in New York in 1966. PBS should interview Kermit as an university-accredited scientist about CAGW.

  43. On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.

    Pretty much everyone has picked up on Judith’s faux pas, and she is entitled to her opinion, and she does go on to qualify her opinion, which is appropriate. Most of us just don’t happen to agree with her.
    But there is a bigger reality: there is no appropriate spokesperson for climate science, just as there is none for any other scientific discipline. Science isn’t an agenda, its a philosophical process. There is supposition, there is inference, there is information, there is conjecture, observation and experiment, but there is no agenda. There may be spokespeople who may represent certain methodologies of science, there are spokespeople who may represent certain financing of science, there are spokespeople who may represent viewpoints concerning the use of the results of science, but there are no spokespersons for climate science, itself.
    This is the heart of the argument missed by damned near everybody, most especially those labelling themselves “climate scientists”. Climate science isn’t an orthodoxy; its an unorganised, at times as chaotic-as-its-subject, multi-disciplinary train of research assembling data and testing hypotheses, from which ,eventually, some meaningful conclusions may be drawn. Eventually.

    The absurd, fall-on-their-sword behavior of PBS management, especially that of their has-no-clue-what-his-job-is ombudsman, demonstrates how far from this reality modern mainstream media has strayed. The job of sceptics is huge: first, to return modern society to the tenets of rational thought, then, to teach a couple of generations how to think again.

  44. “is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.” — let’s see… history profs said nothing about Bellesiles Arming America (other than heaping awards on it) until some guy on the internet pointed out it was total crap. And not one “scientist” bothered checking out the methods Mann used to create his hockey stick as it sat on the cover of the IPCC’s report until some guy on the internet thought it looked too pat and decided to try replicating it on his own dime. I think the “scientists” have demonstrated conclusively they’re too busy elsewhere and have nothing useful to add to any debate.

  45. ” On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”

    This is exactly the problem with “climate science”, and by the way, other branches of science as well, if one is not in lock step with “consensus” opinion or accepted theory, they are NOT to be included in the discussion. But then, this has always been the case and at least one is no longer burned at the stake for opposition views. However, Anthony, beware of people with torches and pitchforks approaching your home.

  46. I accidently typed this: [ambushman], when I was writing about the “ombudsman”. Getler needs to pull out his business card and re-read it.

  47. The reason that heads are exploding is that the narrative got turned on it’s head by Anthony Watts. The PBS show was billed as ‘Climate Change Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role In Climate Change’ about Richard Muller.

    It morphed before their eyes as Anthony Watts confesses to having been a True Believer Who now has Reasonable Doubts. Doubts not about the temperature trends. Doubts about WHAT CAUSES that trend.

    Anthony stole the show. They can’t abide a scene stealer. Especially such a nice man, so reasonable, so absolutely persuasive.

    Thus the reaction. Horrors. This Heretic Apostasy CAN NOT STAND. It is a mortal threat aimed at the heart of CAGW and Carbon demonizing. This religion does not tolerate apostasy. Reminds me of another religion that has been in the news lately.
    And also thus NOAA’s response:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/noaas-janus-moment-while-claiming-the-american-public-can-be-confident-in-noaas-long-standing-surface-temperature-record-they-fund-an-experiment-to-investigate-the-effects-of-sta/#more-71281

    …”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.”…

    There is only Doubt About The Cause of the trend.

    Well done Anthony. “Ride through them, they are demoralized as hell.”

  48. When did citizen-scientists become persona non grata? They have made huge contributions to the history of science.

    It seems that a lot of alarmists (whether they have some sort of current academic accreditation or not) regard anyone outside of the mindless-groupthink-ivory-towers as being beneath contempt (although obviously not beneath vitriolic rants).

    Mustn’t forget, though, that Anthony “has no scientific background (Purdue)”. /sarc

  49. Mike says:
    September 22, 2012 at 7:58 am

    But Judy, there is no debate.

    More importantly, and I believe, more accurately: “there must be no debate”. That someone even questions the basis for the policies that enable the global environmental “progressive” movement must be ridiculed, suppressed, stamped out. The voice that says the emperor has no clothes must be silenced.

  50. Three men that were mostly self taught, that bucked the establishment, that were ridiculed by it and also marginalised: Albert Einstein (photoelectric effect, tensor calculus,etc), Oliver Heavyside (vector calculus, made Maxwell’s equations useful etc) Nicolai Tesla (AC induction motors,etc.}
    They were granted honorary degrees by the establishment so that the establishment would not lose face.

  51. Getler’s response to the recent climate change coverage on the News Hour is an example of how PBS has lost its journalistic ethical standards. Climate science is not as PBS has presented it. Inclusion of the Anthony Watts interview was not even close to being balanced because PBS’s overwhelming presentation of climate is one-sided coverage of the “world is ending” climate special interests. Clearly Getler has forgotten Jim Lehrer’s rules he described himself in December 2009. “Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.” http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/12/lehrers_rules.html. PBS is no better in presenting real science than the Iraqi Information Ministry in 2003. At least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf “Comical Ali” was entertaining. (emailed to the PBS Ombudsman)

  52. I would add that the entire CAGW argument is based upon two logical fallacies. Argument from a False Premise, and Begging the Question. The false premise is not “the green house effect is real”, or “CO2 causes warming”.

    The false premise is “Warming is Bad”. Begging the Question is that the false premise is assumed to be true. The discussion rarely challenges the premise or the assumption.

    That, dear people, is where the argument is won. In a phrase: Cold Kills Crops and Animals, Enhanced Atmospheric CO2 Increases Crop Production. These can not be refuted. There are no weasel words like ‘may’ or ‘could’.
    Ask any Farmer worth his crop support payment. ;-)

  53. The bottom line is that A Watts is better looking, more personable, more likeable, than Muller. The bandage on Mullers head made him look Frankensteinish All he needed was a big bolt sticking out of his neck… Uggg…

  54. “The Great Global Warming Swindle” debuted on the UK’s Chanel 4 and it generated much Warmist heat and anger. Funnily there were 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/ofcom+finds+the+great+global+warming+swindle+breached+broadcast+rules+/2351767.html

    http://www.digitalspy.ie/tv/news/a43959/global-warming-swindle-sparks-debate.html

  55. Following her laughable “debate” playing the role of a skeptic to “true” science Mikey Mann in the April 2010 issue of the Disney front, “Discover” science [choke] magazine, i wrote “Non Science Nonsense”, posted at Canada Free Press, and sent the professor a copy. There followed an email exchange where it was obvious that this “skeptic scientist” was clueless on Specific Heat, Thermal Mass Equations, and the two Laws of Thermodynamics necessary to once and for all defeat the GHE false meme. In May i had a lengthy telephone conversation with the professor and suggested she audit a Thermo class, she emailed back that an engineering professor was going to allow that during the climate professor’s planned summer sabatical. When i telephoned in the fall of 2010 to find out her progress, the professor stated that she ‘had attended one class, but did not understand the material’.

    This “qualified” professor has been part of numerous online CC chats among diverse disciplines, including myself and others over the last few years. Rote capacity for citing the false paradigm of the GHE echo chamber does not qualify as science. In her desprate attempt to stay on the fence, this professor feels justified in beating all challengers with her balance sticks. Reading her ‘blog site’ always leaves me wondering the ratio of deluded hero worshippers and brown-nosing current students. Since i can be bullied by far greater foes, so i do not waste my time in Judy’s playpen.

  56. Anthony Watts knows more about thermometers, their use and the proper siting of thermometers for weather and climate than most climate scientists. Anthony is out their with his volunteers getting their feet dirty while climate scientists throw in garbage assumption, press enter and make grave projections about the effects of co2. He is more than qualified to make his statement on PBS of badly sited stations. His livelihood depends on selling thermometers for goodness sake.

  57. I wonder why so many here were in such a hurry to thank Dr. Curry, that they didn’t worry – about her insulting sentence saying Anthony wasn’t the best person to talk about the science of climate. That is a ridiculous claim and not hers to make. For sure, he isn’t the only skeptic that should talk about these issues; let’s include Lindzen and others too; but climate science is far from rocket science and there is room for many people to take part in this discussion if they know what they’re talking about.

  58. Everybody here seems to forget that AW is a meteorologist, far more qualified about climate than a so called “climate scientist” maybe an “atmospheric physicist “would be most appropriate term for persons studying AGW which doesn’t exist anyway….

  59. I am not a climate scientist. Can someone please let me know whether I require a PHD in climate science to tell whether a land based thermometer in a car park close to air conditioning vents is a good or bad method for measuring air temperature?

    Had Dr. Spencer or Dr. Lindzen been on the show they would have talked about $4,000 one of them received 7 years ago for making an after dinner speech attended by one oil executive among many others. Yet they see no problem with the Sierra Club pocketing $25,000,000 from the gas industry or CRU receiving funding from Shell or BP.

    This is why they don’t want a debate because they want the money to keep flowing in from the public purse. Money pure and simple.

  60. In the rush to disagree with Judith Curry’s somewhat back-handed comment on Anthony, many have missed what i think is critical coming from someone who worked closely with the BEST team”

    Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller

    Judith states front and center that Richard Muller was never a skeptic and his “conversion” was false. This should be copied and pasted wherever the headline of ‘skeptic converted” is seen.

  61. Who is “qualified” to speak about climate science?

    The consensus of IPCC scientists is that the Level of Scientific Understanding regarding uncertainties in radiative forcing is ranked BY THE SCIENTISTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE IPCC REPORTS as being either “low” or “very low” in 9 of 14 categories. In only a single category is the LOSU described as “high”.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

    So Dr Curry, when are you going to get on your blog, or do an interview, where you tell the truth? Which is that the whole lot of you haven’t got a clue. By your own admission you don’t know WTF the bunch of you are talking about, but you have the umitigated gall to express an opinion as to who should be allowed to talk about it?

  62. I hope I may be forgiven for defending Dr. Curry just a bit, contrary to commentors with whom I agree 97% of the time ;->. Her comment about Anthony’s virtues as a spokesperson may have other motivations than ivory tower elitism. For example, since a great many people do value credentials, however well- or ill-founded that prejudice may be, a skeptic with more “impressive” credentials (Lindzen? Pielke Sr.? the speakers’ roster of a Heartland conference contains many examples) might make a more effective spokesperson for skepticism on P(BS), turning the ensuing debate from ignorant credentialism to more substantial issues. (I do think Anthony’s deep first-hand knowledge of the station-siting issue and its relation to the BEST data may have been the thinking behind Heartland’s recommendation.)

    I, for one, appreciate the respect with which thoughtful skeptics are received at Dr. Curry’s blog. And I think it inappropriate to take offense on Anthony’s behalf when he apparently took none.

  63. “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.” — Judith Curry

    There’s a lot of umbrage over this remark. But if one wanted to present climate science, as one of Kuhn’s paradigms, then it is most certainly correct. Anthony is simply not much of a cheerleader for the approved narrative. Any disdain held out for Judith needs be on the basis that she is relying social norms, mores, and touchstones in making this statement; rather than on the scientific method.

    After all, the entire point of the scientific method is that an experiment needs no spokesperson. The experiment speaks for itself.

  64. Ha! NOBODY expects the Climate Inquisition! Our chief weapon is confirmation bias…confirmation bias and propaganda… propaganda and confirmation bias…. Our two weapons are confirmation bias and propaganda…and dodging FOIA requests…. Our *three* weapons are confirmation bias, propaganda, and dodging FOIA requests…and an almost fanatical devotion to research grants…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as confirmation bias, propaganda…. I’ll come in again.

  65. Judy Curry is ok
    I read her blog every day

    But I have absolutely no intention of replacing the false authority of the IPCC, with her authority
    If Anthony is not fit to speak about the science of the climate, who is, and how do we know ?

  66. I stopped watching and donating to PBS in 2004. I tuned in to watch a much advertised PBS commentary comparing George Bush and John Kerry. When I realized it was just a big political advertisement for Kerry and an attack on Bush, I emailed OPB and told them to cancel my membership. CAGW is a political argument as much as a scientific argument and obviously more than one viewpoint is uncomfortable and to be censored if possible. Whenever someone argues that people without climate academic degrees are not qualified for this discussion, I just comment that if we had waited until Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got degrees in computer science, we would not be having this discussion now. (Posted on JC blog also).

  67. fretslider says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:41 am

    I’ve been engaged in a rather straightjacketed discussion over on the funny farm that is SkS.

    The gist is that the NOAA measurements are fine, no problemo in situation at all; the biases are removed by some very clever boffins.

    You won’t find many boffins at SkS.

    Certain authorities differ and say that folk of Lewandowsky’s sort (for instance specialists in “Natural Preservatives in toiletries” and “Essential Oils”) really are scientists. As usual, we would advance our preferred term, “boffin”, for an actual real scientist (physicist, engineer, archaeologist etc) to differentiate from the trick-cyclists, sociologists and other marginal eggheads. ®

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/21/lewandowsky_trick_cyclist_rides_again/

  68. Anthony:

    You left out the last sentence of Dr. Curry’s summary paragraph (after she explains why it was appropriate to include you in the PBS segment).

    … As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change. To those who don’t like this fact, I advise you to take the time to understand why WUWT is so successful and maybe you will learn something about the public debate on climate change.

    [emphasis added]

    What we have with internet blogs is in large part an updated version of 17th and 18th century Salons, where a host (or more often in France a hostess) would provide a venue for politicians, scientists, philosophers, writers and in general the educated and cultural luminaries to meet, discuss and debate the issues of the day. Invitations to the most desireable salons were coveted by those wishing to promote their ideas to both the powerful and the general public. A salon where everyone had the same opionion was boring. One where opposing groups merely tried to shout each other down was boorish. A good host(ess) would tolerate neither.

    There is an inherent arrogance to the technological age believing that how people used to do things is no longer relevant. Sometimes true, but it is more often the case that the same underlying purpose is being served in another guise, or that we are missing it altogether. A well-run blog functions like the best salons of an earlier age (without, alas the added dimension of fine food and drink).

    It is therefore no surprise to me that people who don’t understand this also fail to grasp that the way WUWT is run is the reason it is the most read climate blog on the planet.

    Dr. Curry is exactly correct: those wanting to promote the “consensus” view of climate change are well advised to take some lessons here. They can’t say they weren’t told. And even if they believe that only “real” climate scientists are competant to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion, they simply have to accept that to get their findings enacted into public policy they must make a consistently convincing case to the lay public.

    Time for another glass of wine.

  69. Judith Curry is probably right in the context of the public understanding of science and scientists. For the general public, science is done by scientists, and scientists have PhDs in the area of their specialism. My guess that this is what she was getting at in her blog.

    Now whether you need a PhD in your specialism, or whether you need a PhD at all, to be an expert on a subject is another point entirely.

    What’s disappointing in the ombudsman’s statement is that he explicitly took a populist view of the state of the climate science debate, saying that his knowledge came only from MSM. With such a background he was hardly likely to go against AGW alarmists. But to come to a balanced opinion on Anthony’s (very mildly critical) contribution to the AGW debate would take him lots of time and effort which he didn’t wish to expend. Perhaps it wasn’t even in his best interests to expend them, given that the ire of the pro-AGW camp would be turned on him if he said anything other than that he agreed with the complainants. But as it is, he’s given them another victory, another opportunity to claim that ombudsman-reviewed science is on their side. That’s sad, but let’s fact it, we didn’t unexpect anything else.

  70. Three men that were mostly self taught, that bucked the establishment, that were ridiculed by it and also marginalised: Albert Einstein (photoelectric effect, tensor calculus,etc)

    Could we cease to spread this myth please.

    Albert Einstein was not “mostly self-taught”. His high school career was blighted by the fact that his father shifted a lot, but mostly he went to good schools. Then, at just seventeen, he went to the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich which, despite the name, is one of the very best universities in the world. His teachers there were first class.

    His work soon after, far from being marginalised, was accepted almost overnight. He was published in top journals well before he got his PhD. He reached full professor at a speed most people could only dream of. Even though experimental proof for relativity was late coming he got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect because they knew how brilliant he was. It was the scientists who refused to accept his work, and there were some, who were ridiculed.

    Nor did Einstein ever attempt to “buck the establishment”. He accepted academic posts in quick succession at top establishments.

    If you are looking for a lone maverick against the world, Einstein is not your man. He was totally establishment. The number of true genius mavericks is very low, as it happens.

  71. I am a retired BSEE/MS Chemical Eng… For 12 yrs since my retirement, I have been studying climatology… about 2hr/day. As an engineer I was intimately involved in process modeling and statistical control, so I appreciate the problems in model development, limits of modeling, the training of models, setting initial conditions and weighting of variables. I am also very familiar with the science of climate since of the 70’s (i.e., global cooling) since I was associated with a climatologist who had spent his entire career as a climate scientists.. very rare indeed.

    The basis of my skepticism is not the science, physics, chemistry or material/energy balances, it is the jumping to conclusions on climate predictions whether through models or research based on so little data. The folks making gross claims based on so little accurate historical data are not true, scientists or engineers…. These folks know better.. Climatogy is the study of climates over 1000’s of years not 10, 20 or 30 years. Climate science is vastly complex… and as humans, we tend to over simplify it and constrain it… for modeling purposes.

    Fortunately, we do have instrumentation in place now to measure and collect climate data fairly accurately… However, we perhaps have another 100 yrs or more of data collection, analysis and model TESTING & development before we can come close to making creditable future climate predictions. Do I consider myself a scientist… ABSOLUTELY… I have used straight-forward scientific principles, techniques and methods throughout my entire career…42 yrs and going strong. Keep up the good work Anthony… we’re behing you!

  72. It’s interesting the contrast, Anthony speaking in a resonable voice, voicing his points articulately, carefully avoiding even the hint of an Ad Hominum; then the response from the alarmist rabble a loud hysterical outcry for even alowing a vile denialist a chance to speak.
    If they’re thinking it’s a PR war, I’d say they lost that battle.

  73. I think part of the problem, if there is such, between Judith and Anthony is the standard war in academia between the theoreticians and the engineers. The theoreticians have never accepted the engineers as anything other than wrench turners and table jockeys while the engineers look down on the theoreticians as nothing but impractical dreamers that couldn’t design a working lunch box… and never the twin shall meet.

  74. The outrage at allowing someone to have a negative position on AGW show that the west is no more free from bigoted fanatics than the Islamic world. The only difference is the subject matter of their dogma.

  75. Maybe a bit OT, but I just want some hard evidence of a tipping point from the Warmistas–anything scientific would be greatly appreciated.

    If nothing is forthcoming in, say, 10 years or so, they are required to cough up all their ill-gotten gain and forever wear a large red letter “W” (for “Warmista”) on their fronts. Oh, and sign a public apology document, too.

    It’s time to throw their silly accusations out so they can concentrate on science instead. What a revolutionary thought.

  76. [snip – snooty derisive comments about our host serve no good purpose – mod]

    I disagree. It reveals a great deal about the mindless, emotion driven, turd burglar that posted it.

  77. Why didn’t the ombudsmen stand up to the PBS audience. The people commenting seemed to want PBS to suspend the first amendment when they say so. Of all networks PBS is obligated [to] offer dissenting voices. They are acting like magazine editors the way they kowtow when the TEAM says jump for the ’cause’. Is there a pattern here? Roll over for the bully. Where was their argument of the facts?

  78. Reg Nelson says:
    September 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm
    Ha! NOBODY expects the Climate Inquisition! Our chief weapon is confirmation bias…confirmation bias and propaganda… propaganda and confirmation bias…. Our two weapons are confirmation bias and propaganda…and dodging FOIA requests…. Our *three* weapons are confirmation bias, propaganda, and dodging FOIA requests…and an almost fanatical devotion to research grants…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as confirmation bias, propaganda…. I’ll come in again.
    ——————
    still lmao
    cn

  79. The main commandment for NOAA seems to be — adjust the numbers as much as needed to show what you want. Honesty has no place in the “science” as done at NOAA. They are not the only ones of course, but just one example.

    With all the out and out number cheating — why can the climate realists not get on TV and get that across? Why does the average Joe on the street not know that the governent agencies are engaged in massive, institutional fraud? We have them dead to rights on this issue.

  80. Hi moderator,
    That joke was not at our host’s expense. It was a double entendre where I played the fool & how unfairly fools judge our host’s science .
    Play on words was how foolish commentators denigrate our host’s scientific capability when said fools discuss things (“letters”) which they can only process one way in their own minds (“alphabetize”) & despite revealing their own limitations use their perception to criticize our host’s science.

  81. David M Hoffer,

    +1 your comments. Dr Judith Curry has a Bachelor of Science in GEOGRAPHY !!!! If she was so sharp then why didn’t she do pure Physics, Engineering or Mathematics?

    How PATHETIC. She has absolutely NO RIGHT to speak condescendingly of others and consider that she holds the “truth”. Geography and Psychology degrees are well known to be about as close to basket weaving as it gets in higher education. Absolutely PATHETIC.

    The very problem with Climate Science is that it is actually cluttered with far too many second rate pseudo-scientists. Geography Students who have a poor grasp of statistics (mathematics) and physics.

    Dr Richard Lindzen holds the kind of qualifications that would allow him to speak condescendingly of Geography graduates like Phil Jones and others.

  82. OK, this statement has been on my mind, all day.

    Dr. Judith Curry says:
    “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
    =======================
    If not, who would it be.
    And why is the media not talking to said spokesperson ?
    I don’t see many people lined up, for the beating they are sure to take.
    Besides, Anthony, of course.
    Appropriate ?, its as good as it gets.

  83. BBC: Earth Watch
    CE Journal
    Climate Central
    Climate Debate Daily
    Climate Progress
    Climate Science Watch
    CNET Green Tech
    DeSmog Blog
    Grist
    LA Times: Greenspace
    Nature: Climate Feedback
    NYT: Dot Earth
    NYT: Green
    Pew: Climate Compass
    Real Climate
    Science Blogs
    The Climate Desk
    The Daily Climate
    Yale Environment 360

    http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/

    That’s the blog roll at our local PBS affiliate’s climate watch.
    Not familiar with all of them, but the ones I know,
    BBC: Earth Watch, Climate Progress, DeSmog Blog
    Grist, LA Times, NYT,
    Nature, Real Climate, Science Blogs,
    are all at least philosophically in agreement with the PBS audience about allowing open decent from skeptics.

    Perhaps we are seeing a new PBS policy being birthed.

  84. Curry is not the monster here, gentlemen. Systematic one sided reporting by sycophants is the monster.

    KQED’s Desmog link is dead. heh

  85. Allan MacRae says:

    September 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    It’s a tough crowd Judy – one litte slip and they jump all over you. :-)
    =============
    Wouldn’t have it any other way !!

  86. On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not………..

    what a pompous load……..

  87. Is anyone really surprised at this response? Anyone and I mean anyone, who dares to speak out against the consensuses will get their head handed to them. As for a debate, maybe in a root cellar with the lights turned out and the door closed. Dr Curry is consistently admonished on her own blog for allowing decenting views without comment and is placing her position amoung colleagues at risk with this stance.

    Jim

  88. The Ombudsman said:

    What was stunning to me as I watched this program is that the NewsHour and Michels had picked Watts — who is a meteorologist and commentator — rather than a university-accredited scientist to provide “balance.”

    Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. replied:

    What in the world is “a university-accredited scientist?”

    If this means that one has to be a faculty member at a University, this definition fails. For example, Alan Betts is an internationally well-respected scientist who has chosen to work by himself. He has not been a university faculty member for years.

    Could the definition mean you must have a Ph.d? Clearly No. As just one example, Lew Grant, also an internationally well-respected scientist who was a Professor at Colorado State University, but does not have a Ph.d.

    Could it mean that you have to be a university professor that works in the area of study; in this case climate science. Also, the answer is No. Richard Muller has internationally well-respected credentials in physics, but he is a newcomer to climate science.

    In contrast, Anthony Watts has been working in weather and climate for quite a few years, and is clearly well-qualified to discuss the surface temperature siting issues……………………….

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-pbs-overreaction/

  89. ………..rather than a university-accredited scientist to provide “balance.”

    So a university-accredited scientist would have made the sceptics case stronger? Weaker? Balanced????? Heh, heh. ;-)

    Goodnight all.

  90. If PBS were interested in balance, they would have also had a former CAGW believer who turned skeptic. Those are relatively easy to find.

  91. “Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.” (emph added)

    That is an interesting distinction. But anyone who looks objectively at the surface station project and the recent paper on NOAA adjustments will be forced to acknowledge that Watts has not merely provided a public forum. He has done excellent work in analyzing the locations, classifications, and histories of the thermometer sites. And the warming is <.15 decade – less if you look at Class 1 sites. So no, he is both “the appropriate spokesman for climate science” and “a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.”

    Honestly, if Europe covers but 3% of the surface of the globe, this nonsense of blaming their way of life for a dinky 1.5C increase per century is criminal misuse of science and needs to stop right now.

  92. Incidentally, I found the PBS Ombudsman contrary “even handed ” response to be reprehensible. This is supposed to be Public TV ? Not a politically active conclave of thought reactionism reminiscent of various propaganda regimes attempts to compel beliefs, Not “approved” dicta? Talk about “1984”, one wonders whether the Ombudsman ever read the novel, because he is a main player in its unfolding today.

    Second, I believe that this response to contrary views to be quite compete:

    davidmhoffer says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:47 am

  93. True to form, the warmist objection to Watts is not anything he said, but that he was allowed to say anything at all. It is *all* about silencing alternative views, especially very sober and reasonable spokesmen, like Anthony. It is never about holding their own ideas up to critical appraisal.

    A true scientist knows and accepts that his life’s work can be undone by a single experiment performed by an amateur, if that experiment proves his theory wrong. The warmists are a cult. They don’t practice science. They practicing silencing scientists who don’t toe their line.

  94. It is interesting how after one individual turns the orthodoxy on its head is at first ridiculed and vilified, then sanitized and lionized. I am specifically speaking of Albert Einstein. He was mostly self taught with the help of Max Talmud and driven by his family’s tradition of education. Jost Winteler recognized Albert for his strengths and weaknesses, and helped him at his school.
    Marcel Grossman helped him land a job at the Swiss patent office. Some at the patent office had the opinion that his appointment was a bad joke. He was quickly promoted over his peers and then quit.
    What annoyed his superiors and some colleagues is that Einstein was able to fly over objects placed in his path and then land in a high place.
    Some of his professors had a poor opinion of him. Prof Weber and Herman Minkowski specifically.
    Albert Einstein was definitely not an approved product of the establishment. He was an outsider with his own agenda.

  95. I absolutely cannot understand the critics here who jump all over Dr. Curry, Lucia, and others who are open-minded, respectful, and knowledgeable. There are people out there who are calling skeptics criminals against humanity and meaning it, and you’re attacking those who would give you an opportunity to speak? It’s easier to shoot those who are not pointing a gun at you than those that are, I guess. And stupid. And destructive. And discouraging.

    (Besides which, as has been pointed out already, those criticizing Dr. Curry evidently ran out of reading power before reaching the end of the article.)

  96. Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company.

  97. I have only a minute.
    Per Judith Curry:
    “His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa). As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.”
    =================
    Perhaps Anthony Watts can read through all the BS. He has a good track record. Attack the messenger? Sorry, but Watts has a handle on it. It’s that independent army of realists marching for the truth that is the real threat to the “cause”. That’s where the traffic is generated.

    When I get time I will read the comments prior to this comment.

  98. When I went to college they used to make fun of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the SAE on your oil can next to 10W-30. It seemed, at least at the time, that there was no college or university that gave a degree in “Automotive Engineering.”

    Is there any college or university that gives a degree in “Climate Science” ? … or is it a priesthood ?

  99. POST NORMAL SCIENCE AND ANTHONY WATTS

    One hopes that Franziska Hollender of recent WUWT fame is monitoring this flap over Anthony’s appearance on PBS. It is the Post Normal Science that she advocates put to application.

    Let a thousand flowers bloom!

    Then cudgels and pitchforks raised against the dissenting voice! Silence all who disagree! The mob rules!

    Post Normal Science is really nothing more than the politics of the mob. Nothing new — just a new name. First create the mob and then control it.

    Your academic advocacy of Post Normal Science is a sophist’s attempt to legitimize mob rule.That’s all it is Franziska Hollender.You write in “big words” what history has writ in blood — thinking that thereby none will recognize it.

    But wait! Could it possibly be that you really don’t understand what you are actually advocating –the rule of the mob? After all you do have a brain the size of a peanut.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  100. I agree with a number of comments here which hint at what I call the ‘Ph.D Club’. This is a club comprising those with a Ph.D who tend not to take seriously anyone without one.
    Mr. Watts doesn’t have one, so he can be treated with varying degrees of disdain (excuse the pun) by those who have one.
    I also agree with those here who have pointed out that a Ph.D is a very specific thing. It doesn’t mean you know everything about everything. In fact it probably only means you know every last excruciating detail about a very confined area of scientific enquiry.

    This leads me to a question.
    Dr. Judith Curry did her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. To my way of thinking this means she ought to know at least something about Arctic sea ice, even though it may not mean much else.

    Here’s a quote from Dr. Curry : “In my most recent posts on the Arctic sea ice decline, I estimated that about half the decline could be attributed to human induced CO2, which is in line with the latest analyses from the CMIP5 climate models.”

    I found that remark startling.
    50% of Arctic Ocean sea ice decline, according to Dr. Curry, is due to human CO2!
    How can that be possible, when all the evidence suggests CO2 is at best a minor factor in climate change?
    And if it’s true, what proportion of the recent record increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to human CO2?

    What am I missing here? Is Dr. Curry a reliable source?

  101. So just what IS a “Climate Scientist”; and what is “Climate Science”.

    Well as near as I can tell, the fundamental foundation of Climate Science, is Physics; so ergo, ANY real climate scientist should have at least a degree in Physics. Not necessarily a post graduate degree. The next feather one might need in one’s hat, or a next specialty to go with the Physics, would likely be Chemistry, which really is just applied Physics.

    Now in my view, the ability to identify some species of pollen in sub ocean mud, that is of geologic age, is NOT climate science. Come to think of it, geology is also a nice arrow to have in the quiver, since how earth’s geology has altered over the millions of years has certainly affected the ancient state of earth’s climate, and volcanism has played its part in earth climate.

    Lots of other branches of science are associated in all manner of ways, but the study of those is hardly climate science. How species adapt to climate change, is the science of how species adapt to climate change, it isn’t climate science.

    Mathematics is simply a tool of all science; it isn’t climate science.

    But you see the gravy train inside the big tent of climate science is just too well fed, so it seems almost anyone whose course of study is impacted by the weather, thinks they are a climate scientist. Certainly, the job listings in the daily newspapers, seldom will ask for skill in identifying sub-ocean mud pollens.
    Even in Physics, it is reported that 65% of all PhD Physicists will never find full time jobs plying their trade, and only 5% will find even temporary jobs. The rest will likely be found inside the “climate science” tent getting post doc fellowships; by the way, what IS a fellowship, and do they have female counterparts ?

  102. “””””…..pete50 says:

    September 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company…..”””””

    Before Chadwick, the Quantum Mechanics of matter knew of just 92 different sized quanta of matter, which changed Alchemy into Chemistry.

    Then Chadwick had to come along and mess it all up, so now the Quantum Mechanics of matter involves maybe a thousand or so different quanta of matter.
    Well we call them isotopes or something like that.

  103. In a related area, Dr. C D Mote Jr, a PhD Mechanical Engineer (Cal Berkley) and past President of the University of Maryland, has just been selected to run opposed for a six year term as the next President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). The supposedly technically strong Dr. Mote was an eager drinker of the Global Warming Kool Aid and pushed many efforts at Maryland to respond to the threats of Global Warming and to control CO2. He never made any attempt to question the basis of the “science” of Global Warming. He just made sure that the school got some of the Federal gravy. His choice will mean that NAE will be pushing “politically correct engineering” for the next six years. Are there any readers out there who are in the NAE and can stop this.

  104. Bill Illis says “inquistors”

    Yeah–not warmists, or even scientists..”climate inquisitors” Perfect! (or is it inquisitioners?)

    @ davidmhoffer
    I can certainitly see you are angry and I might agree with your underlying premis somewhat if not reading the whole article, but certainly not your method of sharing your thoughts–Dr. Curry deserves respect as any of us do… and I hate to see you stoop to the level of the PBS drone (ah, audiance….) and the fact that she “appears” to talk down to us is not the point. The point is how we respond to each other.

    Paul Coppin says “The job of sceptics is huge: first, to return modern society to the tenets of rational thought, then, to teach a couple of generations how to think again.” Thanks for both that and your points on Judith Curry–much appreciated.

  105. At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake. One should decide whether it has gone completely astray and falls into the same category of human endeavor as “astrology” or “homeopathy”, in which case genuine experts are the least qualified to deliver judgement, in spite of the fact these fields have their own educational institutions and peer reviewed journals.

  106. Anyone, ANYONE!; who applies deductive reason and logic (within the concstruct of the scientific method) to observations, is a scientist, Meterology is a science, in fact the science of weather. Climate is composed of weather. Per Wik, ” Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate, and are explained by the SCIENCE of meteorology. Those events are bound by the variables that exist in Earth’s atmosphere; temperature, air pressure, water vapor, and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Different spatial scales are studied to determine how systems on local, regional, and global levels impact weather and climatology.”

    So according to Wik. Anthony is a climate scientist. Judith deserves both praise and scorn for her comments. The praise is due to the fact of her sincerity in desireing to be a scientist, to follow whatever the observations show, and to ovewrcome the prejudices which she knows exist in the “scientific/academic” institutions. The scorn she earns because her own prejudices are uncounciousely present . davidmhoffer makes some very valid arguments. However Judith fully deserves that the critical comments be framed respectfully.

  107. Please excuse the late night typos in my above comment. By the way, Richard Feynman defines Anthony as a “scientist”

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

  108. “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson?”

    As Professor Curry should know, all science is based on facts. Where, as in climate science, much of the data on which the facts are based is suspect, who can be a more appropriate spokesperson than the man who has led the way in questionnung that data? If the data is wrong then the science can never be right.

  109. As “Jason Nesmith” (Tim Allen) said to the alien bad guy in “Galaxy Quest”:

    “You don’t have to be a great actor to recognize a bad one. And you’re SWEATING!”

    They’re sweating.

  110. John Brookes says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:04 am
    David quotes:
    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
    So what is the technical term for the ignorance of ignorami?
    ==================================================
    Climate Science ?

  111. I just recall some of the history of Galileo and his telescope. It went something like this, ‘love your new invention, very interesting, you have no authority to speak on this subject, now to jail “monastery” you go’ . . . “and the beat goes on . . . and the beat goes on”!

  112. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in any field of science to understand the scientific method and recognize climate science isn’t following it. One doesn’t have to be an expert on Karl Popper to know Post-Normal Science isn’t science, but advocacy by highly biased technocrats. It doesn’t take too much world-experience to know that when climate scientists focus on the PR campaigns instead of the science, something is wrong with the science.

    I write software for a living, and sometimes teach computer programming classes at the college level. A second-year junior college student programmer can recognize the poor quality of the published climate model computer code. If I worked on a team using the same quality control methods and source control methods as used by the climate modelers, we would all be fired.

    I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m from Missouri and recognize cow flop and pig excrement when I see it or smell it.

  113. daybyday;
    I can certainitly see you are angry and I might agree with your underlying premis somewhat if not reading the whole article, but certainly not your method of sharing your thoughts–Dr. Curry deserves respect as any of us do… and I hate to see you stoop to the level of the PBS drone (ah, audiance….) and the fact that she “appears” to talk down to us is not the point. The point is how we respond to each other.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Lest anyone believe that the invective I have hurled at Judith Curry is based on simply her recent comments above, I would urge you to read her comments on this blog just after ClimateGate1:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

    Her follow up comments, in which, even after a direct request from Anthony she continued to use the word d*nier:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

    ….and the stinging rebuke from Willis Eschenbach that followed:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/

    It “appears” that talking down her nose to the great unwashed is a repeat offense of hers. She has become a little more polished in the manner in which she does so, but that is what she does. She’s broken with the pack and donned sheep’s clothing, but she’s still a wolf. She’s dropped the use of the word d*nier in more recent times, attempted to stake out a middle ground in the debate, even done some good in many ways. But underneath…. she’s no sheep, she’s just a wolf who is trying a kinder, gentler method of herding us where she wants us to go with nary a thought that we may have minds of our own and that our opinions on the matter may have merit because we’re not “scientists” and she is.

    She’s staked out a middle ground in the debate, but frankly, Muller’s conversion is no more faux than hers.

  114. I agree with the above comment questioning Judith’s assumption that 50% of Arctic ice decline is related to CO2 AGW. In what way Judith? Air temp increase or oceanic SST increase?

    You have two routes of investigation, both of which must be completed, and then a huge caveat:

    1). What would be the anthropogenic CO2 mechanism for increasing air and SST and how much energy is then available from just the anthropogenic CO2 increase in warming the air and SST? Is it enough energy to cause warmer SST’s and/or warmer Arctic air temps? Then coming from the other way, have the changes in Arctic weather parameters (IE air temps measured where the ice has melted and SST changes measured where the ice has melted) match what you have calculated (temp increase, water vapor increase, etc)? Or are you suggestion anthropogenic CO2 has changed the weather systems (IE pressure systems) in the Arctic? If so, how did it do that?

    2). Before you answer the anthropogenic CO2 question, you must rule out intrinsic, natural ENSO and other oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection causes. If these causes can account for the warming (using the same thorough investigations), and I think they can by looking at Bob Tisdale’s work, you have at best a tie. Which requires you to accept the null hypothesis, not your 50% WAG.

    Caveat: But even then, if you believe the anthropogenic CO2-related changes are real, they are still buried in the overall noise. Therefore you cannot say that CO2 is causing any of it. Why? You know as well as the rest of us that CO2 changes in temperature (air or SST) cannot be extracted from natural noise variability. The changes are too small and the signal you seek is no different from natural noise and trends.

    What part of my argument is not entirely logical?

  115. From Wayne2 on September 22, 2012 at 7:21 pm:

    I absolutely cannot understand the critics here who jump all over Dr. Curry, Lucia, and others who are open-minded, respectful, and knowledgeable.

    For me, it seems a “the company you keep” issue. Like the few times I’ve gone to read something over at Lucia’s, people were trying to be oh-so logical and scientific, while talking smack about Anthony and Willis and WUWT and other guest posters and commenters here…

    It was like stopping by someone’s house, and there are all these people who just hang out there, and some are drinking, and some smoking weed, some snorting stuff. Over in the corner there are people shooting up while the others are ostensibly ignoring them. But everyone is debating philosophy and politics therefore it’s serious discussion. And there’s Lucia, a “lukewarmer”, who will defend her visitors’ freedom of choice, they’re not hurting anyone… And while she’ll partake herself some times, just “a little warmth”, she’s not like the others, she doesn’t have a problem, she’s being open minded and will decide for herself if something is good or bad…

    And too many people are just too polite to tell her how badly the stench clings to her.

  116. Well of course my little ditty above about “Climate Scientists” needing to first be Physicists, was tongue in cheek. To point out that applying the mathematics of statistiscs, to essentially random noise masquerading as data, and detrending this and running average that; aka “Throwing away much of the data”, is NOT science; you can apply the same numerical methods to the numbers in your phone book, and extract about the same amount of information.
    Everybody is statistics happy. Baseball players have to keep records of how many times they drop the ball. Football players; well those who play the American game of “please don’t kick the football” ; when they drop the ball, everything stops, so they all stand around and talk about it, and who should get credit for dropping it.
    That’s why we have records. Keep the daily temperature outside the back door for a hundred years, and you’ll find on average you get 3.65 new all time high unprecedented daily records each year; and the same for never before happened, lows.

    But Dr Judith Curry is starting to sound like a professional in training. Remember, that professionals have a “practice”, not a job, and they practice on their clients, and never give a money back guarantee.
    Well there’s one other characteristic of “professionals” that I never mentioned before. Professionals protect their monopoly, by getting laws passed to prohibit anyone not in the club from practising their gig as well.
    So Dr Curry would decide who is a scientist, or a climate scientist and who is not. Who are engineers; only those with State approved professional licences, or those who do actual engineering, and design things that work.

    Many of the best engineers I’ve encounterd in nearly 51 years in industry, did not have any University degree; maybe they had some military service backgound, and worked as technicians fixing things that broke. Some of those technicians have gone on to become among the best engineers I have ever encountered; well because they knew from experience, how to make things work, rather than study books, that told them how things are supposed to work; often written by academics, who never ever had to make anything work. Note, that does NOT mean that all academics, are that way. Some of them change peoples lives with their diligence and patience. I know a few who changed mine.

    Anthony’s community organizing project to run down all the different models of Weber grills, out there making weather, and contributing their part to the runaway warming catastrophe, we have been promised; is classic science at its best.

    Lacking a budget to build the world’s largest weather and climate reporting station; he devised a way, to catalog the mottley collection of bric-a-brac, that passes for the official weather network, and uncovered a pattern of random deviations from approved design and environment; and recruited his international army of fellow tinkerers to get some really important knowledge about the total inadequacy of the network that tells us the sky is falling.
    And having an actual weather reporting background anyway, he was well qualified to see the errors in the existing network.

    How dare “professor” Curry from her ivory tower, imply that isn’t science.
    Science starts with the data; and if the data is crap, then so is the follow on; and the “approved scientists” are simply embarrassed, that a weather geek, showed what a load of malarkey they have been peddling as accurate weather data.

    Did Spencer Michels set out to have an on screen sacrifice ? Who knows; I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt; but he should have had more gumption than to be cowed by the wolves who are shivering in their moth eaten sheepskins.

  117. george e smith says:
    September 23, 2012 at 10:22 am

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 23, 2012 at 9:17 am

    Pamela Gray says:
    September 23, 2012 at 8:50 am

    davidmhoffer says:
    September 23, 2012 at 8:23 am

    All excellent posts.

  118. Berényi Péter says: September 23, 2012 at 12:19 am

    At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake. One should decide whether it has gone completely astray and falls into the same category of human endeavor as “astrology” or “homeopathy”, in which case genuine experts are the least qualified to deliver judgement, in spite of the fact these fields have their own educational institutions and peer reviewed journals.
    —————————————————–
    Oohhh, I like that. How’s this for a new sound bite: “The difference between astrology and climate science is that astrologers don’t use taxpayer’s money to redraw the star charts”

  119. Berényi Péter says: September 23, 2012 at 12:19 am
    “At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake.”

    “Climate science” and climatology are not the same thing. I do get your meaning, however.

    It is necessary to understand the distinction. Climate scientists would prefer that you were unaware of the difference.

  120. I’m with David on this (recursively follow the path from there). I have always found JC to be a bit disingenuous and rather condescending. The fact that she is even willing to stand up to the establishment in any manner is good, but there has always been this “I know, you don’t” attitude to anyone outside of the circle.

    @george e smith: I recently had a Facebook argument (er, discussion) with some of the people I went to school with regarding people referring to themselves as “engineer” without a degree. Legally speaking, none one of the posters in that thread (including me, with a PhD) is allowed to title himself “engineer,” simply because none of us has a PE license. My argument resembled yours (which is rather anti-elitist in nature): what you do has little to do with what, if any, degree you have. It is sad that society has gotten to the point that authority means so much, and is typically based solely on educational background. By their own logic (those I was debating), I should be right simply because I had the most authority (the biggest degree)… sigh. For the record, I thank the many “engineers” I worked with in my early career, those that did not not have a degree, but Harris Corporation still saw fit to title them as such. They knew their stuff.

    Mark

  121. Having recently spend time trying to understand the Lewandowsky paper, I do not find the response to Anthony Watt’s appearance on PBS bizarre at all. Climate Science requires belief in the science. This blog threatens people’s most deeply held beliefs, causing huge insecurity.
    The more conventional philosophy of science developed over centuries, and culminating in Sir Karl Popper was that scientists should have belief in the scientific method, That means making their theories vulnerable to falsification, and rejoicing if their greatest achievements are overturned. On this basis, the best theories are those that still stand, despite their vulnerability.
    A pertinent example for me was last week. Lewandowsky criticized the use of pivot tables in analyzing his paper “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax”, claiming it was just noise, whereas you needed proper statistical analysis to understand the true relationships. The noise just consisted of minor details like on 10/1145 people supported the CYMoon theory, or 75% of the responses were from alarmists. Most telling of all was his posting of the SkS graphic on the “skeptics” view of temperature trends. He was basically saying “I do not want to know what your views are”.

    Steve McIntyre, in two follow up posts, has fundamentally undermined Lewandowsky’s claim that his heavyweight statistical analysis is valid. However, as the main user of pivot tables, see if my claims are analyzing noise, or a low-level sense-check, that indicates that things are fundamentally wrong with the paper. Then consider if this is a defense of Popperian science, or scientistic belief.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/01/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-3-data-analysis-of-the-conspiracy-theory-element/

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySEM.html

  122. John Brookes says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:04 am
    I am curious if you think it is ok that JoNova’s site is being attacked like it is?

  123. george e smith says:
    September 23, 2012 at 10:22 am

    . . . How dare “professor” Curry from her ivory tower, imply that [Anthony Watts’s work on the Surface Stations network] isn’t science. Science starts with the data; and if the data is crap, then so is the follow on; and the “approved scientists” are simply embarrassed, that a weather geek, showed what a load of malarkey they have been peddling as accurate weather data.

    Pretty much sums it all up. Dr. Curry, if you’re reading this, please go back and read Mr. Smith’s comment in its entirety, and let’s have a response. I assume it will take the form of an apology.

    /Mr Lynn

  124. “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
    I’ll join the others here who think Curry is dead wrong with that statement. Climate science, as practiced by the likes of Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen and company is so far from real science that one does not have to have a PhD or even a MS to point out all the data errors, data manipulation and in some cases falsification currently being done by “climate scientists”. Frankly, Professor Curry should hang her head in shame if she is considered a climate scientist. In my book, climate scientists are a lower order of life than lawyers, and we all know how low they are.

  125. If I remember correctly, Freeman Dyson does not have a PhD and may not even have got a BSc, though that last I am probably wrong. Even so, he’s a full professor because he’s just bloody brilliant.

    I’m sure someone will correct any errors I’ve made.

    DaveE.

  126. Jim Clarke says:
    September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am

    “On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”

    I totally, 100% disagree. I believe that people as educated on the subject as Anthony Watts are actually more qualified than ‘climate scientists’, whoever they are. What does it take to be a climate scientist? Well, you have to live in the make-believe world of academia or government, where science is secondary to ones ability to garner grant money. That is the real job of the modern day, climate scientist. On campus, they don’t say “science or perish”, they say “publish or perish”. It doesn’t have to be good science. It just has to be published science that adds to the prestige or notoriety of the scientist and university.

    Consequently, the university scientist lives in a strange environment where they study reality through the lens of grant acquisition.

    For a cutting insider look at this world, go thru the annals of ‘Piled Higher and Deeper’. It will only take at most a day of your time! :)

Comments are closed.