“Climate of Doubt” online live chat right now

UPDATE: PBS Admits to a “mistake” on my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature see below…

Live chat on now – join in  (ended, my two questions were ignored, as were many others.)

The producer and host of the “Climate of Doubt” Frontline program will be on a live chat at 1 p.m. ET. Good chance to challenge them on their omissions and misleading “reporting.”

Login here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/live-chat-2-p-m-et-thursday-inside-the-climate-wars/

UPDATE: Here are two messages placed side by side from the live chat showing that PBS has reacted to my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature. Catherine Upin is a co-writer of the program:

No mention as to the rationale of the “late stage production decision” only that it was a mistake.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to “Climate of Doubt” online live chat right now

  1. rk says:

    well, as usual Anthony was right wrt to the blurred image…a “last minute’ decision…a Mistake. Oh, so sad.

  2. Brad says:

    I have a feeling they will “edit” the quetions.

  3. katabasis1 says:

    Yeah questions are being pre-moderated. Mine has yet to appear (“What exactly is it you think the “scientific consensus position” is?”)

  4. BargHumer says:

    I have been watching the comments on this live chat and it gives the sense of a climate alarmist consolation chat. They seem a bit sad, and disappointed that it has come to this. The reason why new students are wary of going into study climate change is only seen in the light of fear, that the students are afraid of the way skeptics will expose their emails and so on, but not the possibility that these students realise that all is not well in their field of interest.

  5. rk says:

    no doubt they are getting large numbers of questions….so they have to filter most of the OUT.

    this is pretty much a joke

  6. _Jim says:

    I’m getting the sense that not many questions are being allowed through …. could be wrong, but so far the action seems on the light side …

    .

  7. rk says:

    well,, i learned one thing Merchants of Doubt. was pretty influential for them

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

  8. MieScatter says:

    I agree there were some problems with the programme, but it only had an hour to explain things. I wish a larger variety of scientists had been interviewed, but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.

    Overall I thought it was very good with pretty clear coverage of the actual science behind some of the claims. But they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second which clearly shows to me how ridiculous the ‘warming has stopped’ meme is.

    However, I work in a climate science department so I guess my viewpoint is skewed. I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?

  9. _Jim says:

    So far, here’s the exchange btw Heartland and Hockenberry:

    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Heartland Institute@HeartlandInstHey,
    @JHockenberry. Why didn’t you even call us to ask us about our funding? Isn’t that what honorable journalists do? #ClimateOfDoubt

    John Hockenberry:
    Oh for heaven’s sake, folks at Heartland, that is absurd. I did not personally call you. Our team reached out twice for an interview with your head Joe Bast and was refused. We spoke extensively about funding sources with your colleague James Taylor who appeared in our film. We went to your conference and spoke with your participants. Would you like to discuss whether I am an honorable journalist or who is funding you? I’m confused. We made numerous contacts at Heartland. Say hello to Mr. Taylor for me and thank him once again for his candor.

    Comment From Jim Lakely (Heartland)
    John, I’m guessing James Taylor told you Exxon is not a big funder, stopped giving gifts in 2006 — two years before we held our first climate conference. If not, now you know.

    John Hockenberry:
    Mr. Lakely That’s exactly what we got from Taylor and reported it in our film. I guess the nuanced point that the money cut off more than 5 years ago preceded your conference but not your institute is worthy. But I dont’t think you are saying that “Heartland decided to refuse money from the fossile fuel industry after 2006.” If Exxon had offerred I wonder what you might have done? Taylor made it seem as though Heartland had no problem with its Exxon connection and would be happy if they were funders again.

  10. march says:

    Here’s my question…
    Doubt and uncertainty are a natural part of science. It is simply incorrect to take a scientific result and ignore the errors that make up that result. Without an understanding and appreciation of the errors we end up with something Richard Feynman described as Cargo cult science. To what extent do you think so called “alarmists” are guilty of ignoring and deliberately manipulating scientific uncertainty in their mis-characterisation of the effects of man made climate change? How much damage has this cargo cult mentality done to the policy debate?

  11. I asked whether they don’t consider the fact that Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson were amongst the signatories of the Oregon Petition news worthy, and if that is the reason why they obscured Edward Teller’s signature. The question was not posted to the chat.

    To participate in the chat is a waste of time. They used the questions by the Heartland Institute to deride them further.

  12. kcrucible says:

    “Taylor made it seem as though Heartland had no problem with its Exxon connection and would be happy if they were funders again.”

    And why not? The Climate Scientists don’t seem to have any moral qualms about taking money from Big Oil.

  13. GeneDoc says:

    World’s. Slowest. Chat. Completely absurd–why bother?

  14. march says:

    Here was my question…
    Doubt and uncertainty are a natural part of science. It is simply incorrect to take a scientific result and ignore the errors that make up that result. Without an understanding and appreciation of the errors we end up with something Richard Feynman described as Cargo cult science. To what extent do you think so called “alarmists” are guilty of ignoring and deliberately manipulating scientific uncertainty in their mis-characterisation of the effects of man made climate change? How much damage has this cargo cult mentality done to the policy debate?

  15. rk says:

    wow…so there you go:

    John Hockenberry:
    Julie, I think the planet will answer that question. In many ways “Climate of Doubt” is the story of how difficult it is for a democracy to act in a crisis until the fire is in the stairwell. Coll says it well at the end of our story. Circumstances will move us forward if people on their own, can’t.

  16. Mike Haseler says:

    My question:

    “As a UK sceptic I was recently invited to a meeting of the Royal Society of London on climate. Much to my surprise, when talking to those present, I found it very difficult to know who was and wasn’t a sceptic. I even found myself thinking: “I wish they had badges on so that I could tell”. In contrast on line the debate seems very partisan and I wonder whether you might comment as to whether this could be because the online debate is dominated by the US where it is heavily influenced by the partisan nature of the debate between republican and democratic.”

  17. “The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”

    —Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

  18. Eric H. says:

    Same BS. Tobacco = cancer deniers same as climate skeptics, funded by oil…scientific consensus…

  19. katabasis1 says:

    What the hell? – So which sceptics has John Hockenberry been talking to? –

    “The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.
    Their search for truth and quest to challenge each other’s findings was exploited as “debate” and “uncertainty” by people in the political world. In some ways the scientists didn’t have a chance in this battle… but that is my personal opinion and some of our scientists would not have agreed with me. “

  20. _Jim says:

    So far, this is all we’ve heard from; does this seem like it’s dragging?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    2:01 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:02 FRONTLINE: Hi everyone

    2:03 John Hockenberry:

    2:03 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:05 catherine upon:

    2:06 John Hockenberry:

    2:07 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:08 John Hockenberry:

    2:08 Comment From Ron Pate

    2:11 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:11 John Hockenberry:

    2:13 John Hockenberry:

    2:14 Catherine Upin:

    2:16 Comment From Sean White

    2:16 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:16 John Hockenberry:

    2:18 Comment From Tom Barney

    2:18 John Hockenberry:

    2:18 FRONTLINE:

    2:21 Comment From Terry Fife

    2:22 Catherine Upin:

    2:23 John Hockenberry:

    2:24 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:25 Heartland Institute@HeartlandInstHey

    2:26 Comment From Renee

    2:28 John Hockenberry:

    2:31 FRONTLINE:

    2:34 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    2:37 Comment From Jim Lakely (Heartland)

    2:39 Comment From Julie Fanselow

    2:41 John Hockenberry:

    2:45 John Hockenberry:

    2:46 Comment From Richard Miller, Ph.D.

    2:49 Comment From Julie Fanselow

    2:51 John Hockenberry:

    2:52 Comment From Greg Goodknight

    2:53 Catherine Upin:

    2:53 FRONTLINE:

    2:57 John Hockenberry:

    – – – –

    Has anybody submitted and not seen their name yet?

    .

  21. rk says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:43 am

    well,, i learned one thing Merchants of Doubt. was pretty influential for them

    It would have been better for them to read Robert Zubrin’s, “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism”: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Zubrin%20Merchants%20of%20Despair&index=blended&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=mozilla-20

  22. David A. Evans says:

    It’s like being in church. No dissent is allowed, not real dissent anyway.

    There was a sycophantic comment from one calling himself Richard Miller PhD. Don’t know if that was some sort of play on Richard Müller PhD.

    Apparently, we sceptics are the certain ones, the consensus is full of doubt.

    The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.
    Their search for truth and quest to challenge each other’s findings was exploited as “debate” and “uncertainty” by people in the political world. In some ways the scientists didn’t have a chance in this battle… but that is my personal opinion and some of our scientists would not have agreed with me.

    Pick from that what you will, I was sick after the first time a actually read it.

    DaveE.

  23. Brad says:

    John Hockenberry:
    Greg,
    The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.
    Their search for truth and quest to challenge each other’s findings was exploited as “debate” and “uncertainty” by people in the political world. In some ways the scientists didn’t have a chance in this battle… but that is my personal opinion and some of our scientists would not have agreed with me.

    I then asked if he was implying all skeptics were not scientists.

  24. David A. Evans says:

    I’ve made several comments. Not seen one yet. They’ll pick one where I made some error.

    DaveE.

  25. rk says:

    boy, Hackenberry really wants to get moving Forward on this stuff

    Comment From Jay Currie
    Perhaps, Julie, we wait until the uncertainties which are typical of a very young science are resolved before spending trillions of dollars on “solutions” which may do nothing to actually help (assuming help is needed).
    3:05

    John Hockenberry:
    3:03

    Jay what would you do besides another study?

    Me:

    yeah, Move On guys…the Science is Settled, the only thing left is to Save the World

  26. _Jim says:

    A few more commenters have been allowed to trickle in:

    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    3:00 FRONTLINE:

    3:01 John Hockenberry:

    3:01 Elizabeth Kolbert:

    3:02 Catherine Upin:

    3:05 Comment From Jay Currie

    3:05 John Hockenberry:

    3:07 Comment From Gary Anderson

  27. Bruckner8 says:

    This chat is pointless. I wish I were in the “moderation room” watching them decide how/when things get posted. I’m done.

  28. _Jim says:

    THE END:

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    3:08 John Hockenberry: USA not the only one. China has an institutional push-back on global warming related to the perception that it is a ruse for the industrialized world to hold China back.

    3:10 John Hockenberry: Thanks everyone, I’ve got to go interview someone about the sensitivity of language in electoral politics.

    see you next time

    – – – – – – – – – – -

  29. David A. Evans says:

    Was that it?

    DaveE.

  30. DAV says:

    That was a waste of time

  31. rk says:

    I actually think that the Teller thing wouldn’t have made any difference. One of the threads of the Merchants of Doubt appears to originate with Anti-Communism…Teller was very anti-communist. So I’m sure to these guys he’s the thread that proves their story.

    the Anti-communist nuts had to go somewhere after the fall of the Soviets…so they went to the various Anti-eco-projects that were going on….i.e. they are market Fundamentalists who are reactionaries

  32. David A. Evans says:

    FRONTLINE:
    We’re all out time for today. Thanks so much for all the great questions everyone. As always, we wish we could have gotten to more of them

    Would have been nice if they could have got to some of them.

    DaveE.

  33. JJ says:

    MieScatter says:

    I wish a larger variety of scientists had been interviewed, but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.

    No, we don’t know that. Among the reasons we shall never find out, is that Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc are the ones that get the airtime. That is their designated role in the propaganda effort.

    But they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second which …

    … is another content free warmist talking point, that in no way demonstrates the validity of the ‘global warming’ conjecture. When do you think an honest examination of that topic will make it to the MSM? You know, hypothesis testing, falsifyability criteria, comparison of predictions to observations, assessment of error bands, etc, etc, etc?

    <i…. clearly shows to me how ridiculous the ‘warming has stopped’ meme is.

    The ‘warming is stopped’ meme rests on precisely the same metric as the ‘global warming is going to kill us all’ meme. Too bad that metric it isn’t going your way right now, and hasn’t for nearly two decades. You might have picked a more robust parameter on which to base your fairy tale, but then there wasn’t one, was there?

    I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?

    Yes, the message is the matter, is it not?

  34. jaycurrie says:

    The funny part is that John actually addressed a comment I made without the comment itself appearing…snort!

  35. Mr A. O'Brien says:

    Jim,

    I asked a question as to what number actually represents “97 percent of climate scientists” and it went out at 1903 UT but it never appeared.

  36. Greg Goodknight says:

    This is the “Greg” that got through with a partial “Did any of the climate scientists you chatted with express any doubt?” but they deleted the preface to it, this James Lovelock quote,

    “”The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

    They also didn’t let a followup through, more of the Lovelock quote: “One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”

    It’s sad to see PBS and propagandists like Hockenberry working in real-time.

  37. David A. Evans says:

    One of your comments did appear Jay but the non-answer was laughable.

    DaveE.

  38. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Elizabeth Kolbert: I think one of the things that’s important to note is that scientists have understood the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate since the 1850’s. Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, did the first calculations of what increasing CO2 levels would do to the climate in the 1890’s. The idea that this is new or untested science is basically ludicrous. The only sense in which there is uncertainty is that the earth is a complicated place and so the effects of warming will be complex. But that the planet will warm — and already has — is really not debatable at this point.

    That’s about as ludicrous a response as can be expected from “guest questioner” Elizabeth Kolbert. She basically says that climate science put the cart before the horse, by accepting Arrhenius’ thesis and carrying forth to look for its effects in the atmosphere. Not to mention playing the Nobel card. This followed by an equivocation between warming and debate…sullied by the erroneous ‘”But that the planet WILL warm”….we know that, EK. It has, will, whatever. It will also cool, has, whatever.

    Thanks for your enlightening drivel.

  39. Left about 15 questions and 5 comments, none of which showed up at all. I’m guessing that few people from the climate changers showed up.

  40. RHS says:

    WRT to funding, anyone ask why WWF gets more Big Oil Money than all the sceptics combined? They have to raise (because they spend) about 1 Million USD a day. Thats a lot of cash!

  41. Ben says:

    I asked about the comfort level relying on “Merchants of doubt” when no evidence of its claims has ever been seen.

    I asked about how many of the skeptics they spoke with actually denied that CO2 is a green house gas and could cause some warming

    I asked if anyone gave them evidence of a “well funded denial machine” that is even with in an order of magnitude of the funding from NGO’s and Government the mainstream climate community receives.

    Of course nothing got into chat Bleh.

  42. Bob Koss says:

    I asked why several questions rattled off by Hockenberry to Fred SInger were left on the cutting room floor by cutting away to Andrew Dessler after Singer said he would happily respond.

    My question was also left on the cutting room floor. Disgusting.

  43. David A. Evans says:

    I think what we saw here was, they got a lot of comments & questions they couldn’t answer so they just didn’t post them and talked amongst themselves.

    DaveE.

  44. Chris B says:

    The “Chat” felt like 1984.

    Big Brother John word-smithing consensus, with lieutenants at his side.

  45. GlynnMhor says:

    Miescatter suggests: “… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…”

    I have to wonder why you believe that.

    Certainly the oceans themselves are not expressing, in the form of increased temperatures, anything like that amount of increased heat.

  46. ggoodknight says:

    I think WordPress may have swallowed a Reply due to machinations in ‘login hell’. I reproduce it here, apologies if it’s a duplicate:

    I’m the Greg Goodknight that got through with “Did any of the climate scientists you chatted with express any doubt?” but they deleted the preface to it, the James Lovelock statement that
    “”The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”

    They also deleted a continuation of the Lovelock quote,
    “One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”

    It was sad to see PBS and the propagandist Hockenberry working in real time. This is how one manufactures a “consensus”.

  47. Snotrocket says:

    Catherine Upin: “Our focus was on the requirements for signing the petition.”

    Such a pity they could not also focus the darn camera!! What a dissembler!

  48. Ben says:

    Do you think any of the questions even made them doubt themselves or think to follow up on something? I know when i am asked things I do not have an answer to I go looking when I have a chance, but that is one reason I ended up here in the first place….

  49. Late to chat says:

    Watching Climate of Doubt now and I want to modify my survey response to YES…I viewed the climate change debate to be based scientific research and did not realize how much the disrespectful monikers “skeptic”, “denier”, “doubter”, “dissenter”,”radical” etc. etc.cloud the debate of science.

  50. William S says:

    Vote early; vote often.

  51. So am I counting correctly that they actually addressed less than a dozen questions?

    I found this interesting as a measure of scientific corruption or whatever:

    “John Hockenberry: But I dont’t think you are saying that “Heartland decided to refuse money from the fossile fuel industry after 2006.” If Exxon had offerred I wonder what you might have done?”

    So you’re now guilty even if you DON’T take money because you MIGHT take money if it were offered?

    Maybe that will be the election eve surprise:

    Mitt Romney to Interviewer: “We’ve noticed that Mr. Obama has not admitted to taking money from the Kremlin for his foreign policy decisions. But he’s also neglected to state that he would NOT take money from them if they offered it in the future!”

    I’ve actually had the same charge leveled at me several times over the years regarding smoking bans and “Big Tobacco.” And the justifications for the arguments are largely identical: Once you make an argument that an industry agrees with or might agree with, then obviously you must be fronting for that industry.

    – MJM

  52. David A. Evans says:

    RHS says:
    October 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    WRT to funding, anyone ask why WWF gets more Big Oil Money than all the sceptics combined? They have to raise (because they spend) about 1 Million USD a day. Thats a lot of cash!

    Not exactly. I did say that big oil and gas are very invested in “Climate Change” but not on the sceptic side. Not even the EVIL Koch brothers.

    DaveE.

  53. Merovign says:

    I think the most amusing part of this particular chain of events is the question, “will they give an honest and accurate accounting of the situation?”

    Not in this lifetime, sunshine.

  54. David A. Evans says:

    Late to chat says:
    October 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Watching Climate of Doubt now and I want to modify my survey response to YES…I viewed the climate change debate to be based scientific research and did not realize how much the disrespectful monikers “skeptic”, “denier”, “doubter”, “dissenter”,”radical” etc. etc.cloud the debate of science.

    From an earlier post of mine quoting the dissemblers…

    John Hockenberry:

    Greg,
    The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. (My comment: questioning each others work,) The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.

    Of course they allow anyone to examine and question their work…

    They do don’t they?

    DaveE.

  55. David A. Evans says:

    Blockquote close missing after trend of global warming.

    DaveE.

  56. atheok says:

    As damage and control that was lots and lots of absolute control with no effect on damage. (Can you say ‘totalitarianism’ kids? How about ‘tyrant’?) Stay tuned for next weeks show when we show you how to give back freedoms and become puppets like us!

    The CAGW ship is plummeting like a rock PBS set up the chat so they absolutely controlled who said what and all PBS responses. I am curious if they ‘edited’ the questions. Sure looked like it. Almost liked the questions were texted and transformed properly so that PBS could ‘mock’ them.

    Bogus!

    Everytime I read any of those writers/producers names that claimed to have ‘worked’ on that horrid show, I’ll know to skip it. Fool me once…

    The commentary following the ‘we chat, you listen’ room in more interesting. Time to contact your local ‘pull PBS funding out of your wallets’ reps and complain. Loudly!

  57. stephen richards says:

    Miescatter

    A scatter gun of conjecture. No facts only religious expression from the bible of AGW and its’ high priests. Grow up you idiot. Learn to think for yourself. Study, question, demand you know like us scientists do.!!!!

  58. Crispin in Jakarta says:

    PBS looks, smells and walks like a duck. Why is anyone surprised when it goes “Quack”? The American public space has always been full of “quacks” and it is a venerable tradition.

    I do appreciate, however, the efforts made to communicate and participate and they do have to listen.

  59. AndyG55 says:

    ““… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…””

    As it has always been…. It just highlights how puny any human generated forcing is, and how ineffective and irrelevant 2 Hiroshima bombs is, versus nature.

  60. KnR says:

    Anyone surprised, warmists propaganda organisation promotes warmist view point by the usual approach of smear and BS .

  61. papiertigre says:

    The reason why new students are wary of going into study climate change is only seen in the light of fear, that the students are afraid of the way skeptics will expose their emails and so on, but not the possibility that these students realize that all is not well in their field of interest.

    Maybe the new students see crap like this ARC Los Rios Catalog Energy (new course) {pdf warning}, where whole sections of the school are turned over to the the charlatans pushing “sustainability”.

    Who would want to spend two years studying to become a Solyndra salesman? Or a solar panel squeegie technician?

  62. I’ve listed the questions I prepared, and their non-answers to them, at Heartland’s blog — as well as a full transcript of the chat. For the record: 17 questions (or comments) from the public, 21 answers (or comments) from the PBS crew. That’s one question every four minutes. So, if you thought the chat was slow, you were not imagining things. I’ve exchanged emails back and forth in groups faster than that.

    I also am puzzled about how that tweet from Heartland got into the chat. As I note, I wasn’t using Heartland’s Twitter account at the time, and I wrote that tweet at 10:45 p.m. Tuesday when the show was on in Chicago.

    http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/climate-of-doubt-chat-transcript/

  63. Mike Haseler says:

    It was like reading a discussion between three men of entirely different views (male) about feminism.

    Actually, now I come to think of it, it would be quite interesting to hear men talking about feminism. It would either be the same toe curling patronising nonsense … or it would be hilarious.

  64. Lance Wallace says:

    Sent this to the PBS Ombudsman:

    The Frontline show on Climate of Doubt fuzzed up the signature of Edward Teller on the Oregon Petition while at the same time implying that anyone could sign. Your spokesperson agreed it was an error due to “rushed last-minute production” or some such formulation, but it is clearly more serious than that–a knowing decision by some person (who?) who recognized that the Teller signature would subvert a certain point of view. Presumably you could find out who made this decision and the chain of command that ratified the decision. (Does it lead to Mr. Hockenberry, whose views are well known?) A bit of attention paid to this would help PBS in the end by recognizing the subliminal pressure to confirm the prevailing opinion that leads to such violations of journalistic integrity.

  65. Frontline replied to the Tweet ( https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs/status/261578327117148160 ) in my above 12:54 pm comment: “Thanks for your questions. We received over 330 of them and, as always, wish we could have gotten to more.”

    I wonder if 97% of those questions represented a skeptical opinion…..

  66. u.k.(us) says:

    AndyG55 says:

    October 25, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    ““… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…””

    As it has always been…. It just highlights how puny any human generated forcing is, and how ineffective and irrelevant 2 Hiroshima bombs is, versus nature.
    =================================
    From:

    http://webphysics.iupui.edu/webscience/physics_archive/hurricanes.html

    “Hurricanes are among the most powerful of all natural phenomena, and by far the most powerful storms. At its peak, a severe storm may have a total power near to 1015 Watts: about 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 atomic bombs per day (the little ones that were used at the end of WWII). ”
    —–
    I’ve always liked “the little ones” caveat.

  67. Sparks says:

    Okay, so.. I guess I have to watch the program now? ffs.

  68. ferd berple says:

    MieScatter says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:45 am
    2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second
    =========
    emotional fear mongering. what has an atom bomb, dropped during a time of world war, have to do with the current situation? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    How about the millions of acres of forests being cut down every day? Millions of times greater than the amount consumed by all the atom bombs ever exploded. These of course have no effect on anything.

  69. Spector says:

    I assume this program will be another attempt to propagate the non-scientific myth that global temperatures are rising catastrophically even though the Climate Research Center in the UK has documented only a net global average temperature increase of about 0.8 degrees C since 1880.

    Also I assume they are promoting the fear that the narrow line absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide is causing temperatures to rise exponentially even though this is subject to a law of diminishing effect due to self-masking and the raw effect appears to be about one degree C for each complete doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    This mythical fear has already prompted one public spirited businessman to dump more than 200,000 pounds of iron ore into the Pacific Ocean to promote the growth of CO2 consuming algae.

    So far we appear to have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only by about 41 percent. Some are saying (cf. David Archibald The Fate of All Carbon) that there does not appear to be enough recoverable combustible carbon left in the ground for there ever to be a complete doubling (100 percent increase) of CO2 by that mechanism.

  70. Paul in Sweden says:

    PBS has never been high on my list. I doubt Hockenberry considered reviewing Donna Laframboise assessment of IPCC author qualifications.

  71. catweazle666 says:

    MieScatter says:
    October 25, 2012 at 11:45 am

    but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.

    Oh no we don’t.

    “they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second

    That must be why the latest study shows the Southern Ocean is actually losing energy, and why the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased year on year since we started observing it, and set a new record last month.

    As for “2 Hiroshima bombs”, well, you really defined yourself there, didn’t you?

    However, I work in a climate science department so I guess my viewpoint is skewed.

    As your future employment is therefore predicated on the continuance of the current climate alarmism, I guess you’re right.

    I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?

    This is what James Hansen has to say on the subject: “Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9192494/Climate-scientists-are-losing-the-public-debate-on-global-warming.html

  72. DJ says:

    Headline in 48pt bold, front page. Retraction in 4pt Comic Sans Serif, inside back page.
    And the retraction is only because they got caught.

    The “last minute production” excuse fails if, for no other reason, you consider that it takes time to blur a portion of an image. A conscious, specific and willful effort. Kind of like glueing an upward curve onto a graph to make a hockey stick shape……

  73. Jimbo says:

    At the end I see a pool result saying

    Did “Climate of Doubt” change the way you view the climate change debate?
    Yes 12%
    No 88%
    Not Sure 0%

    I may have missed something somewhere but this result does not tell me whether most of the 88% were sceptical or not before the program. If their aim was to sway people heavily it obviously failed as I sure at least some of the 12% were and remain sceptics.

  74. MieScatter says:

    Glynn Mhor “I have to wonder why you believe that.” And JJ, Stephen Richards, catweazle666 and any others who asked about the Hiroshima figure.

    Please excuse the typo, I meant 3 (three) Hiroshima bombs. This is based on data of ocean heat content from NODC. Here are the ARGO data for 0-2000 m, beforehand they used XBTs and other methods. The full data are available on the same website in netCDF.

    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_sl/a-mm-w0-2000m.dat

    From the latest assessment of global heat by Nuccitelli et al, 2012, the radiative imbalance 2000-2008 (for which data are available) is equivalent to 0.5 W m^-2. Globally that’s about 255 TW or 3.35 Little Boys per second. I rounded down to 3.

    In the period that Singer says ‘global warming stopped’, we have been gaining an enormous amount of energy, global warming clearly hasn’t ‘stopped’. Catweazle, I agree that there in the short term there are regions that will lose energy, but when talking about global warming we tend to look at global data.

  75. richardscourtney says:

    MieScatter:

    At October 27, 2012 at 7:28 am you say

    In the period that Singer says ‘global warming stopped’, we have been gaining an enormous amount of energy, global warming clearly hasn’t ‘stopped’. Catweazle, I agree that there in the short term there are regions that will lose energy, but when talking about global warming we tend to look at global data.

    No!
    Others have tried that rhetorical trick here and have been refuted. Notably, Jan Perlw1tz has repeatedly tried it on. I will refute it again.

    Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
    Heating consists of an increase in heat.
    Cooling consists of a decrease in temperature.

    If temperature does not rise then there is no warming.
    For example, the Arctic does not warm in Summer despite much heating because the heat melts ice with no resulting warming. The Arctic surface temperature reaches close to 0deg.C then stays at that temperature so no warming.

    Global warming is an increase to the average temperature of the global surface.
    About a third of monitoring sites show cooling over the last century, but nobody claims there was no global warming.

    Starting from now one can reasonably ask how long a period one has to consider before global warming is seen to exist. The answer is 16 years ago. In other words the global temperature trend is such that there has been no global warming over the last 16 years.

    So, global warming stopped 16 years ago whatever was the heat input since then.

    Ricard

Comments are closed.