WUWT-TV's answer to Al Gore's 'Dirty Weather Report' is ON THE AIR

Great job Anthony.

Wow. That’s a great line up.

Feeds works. Only I noticed is a flickering blue bar at the bottom

What a fantastic selection of speakers!
Unlike the BBC 28.

Anthony, thanks for putting this together.
However, it keeps cutting in and out and dropping bits. I’m on a pretty fast cable modem and don’t have any problems with other streaming (YouTube, Netflix, etc.), so I’m guessing it is a bandwith issue on the front end? Anyway, I don’t know if there is anything that can be done, just wanted to make you aware FYI.

Anthony, you should have negotiated a payment from UStream, for stress testing their system with such a high volume of traffic.
When did you last see a server catch fire?

I’ve got the WUWT ustream feed and the Gorefest ustream side by side here. Unfortuately for the Gore team, the ustream player shows the current number of viewers, and the total count of views.
At about 02:05 GMT (6:05 PM PST I think) I noticed the total Gore views tick past 300k views, with something like 9000 current viewers. As I start typing this (at about 02:50 GMT) the views has gone past 500k views, with a current viewership of 11200 viewers. The WUWT stream has smaller figures, but the total views figure is not climbing at all to the same extent.
I suspect one of three things is happening.
1) ustream is having major technical problems where the users are having to reload on the Gore stream to try to get it to work–whereas the WUWT feed seems OK.
2) The Gorefest is actually getting hundreds of thousands of individual viewers but they are getting bored really quickly and stop watching.
3) I don’t like to say this since Al Gore’s and his team are all decent upstanding honourable people, but it seems possible to me that there’s some automated “hit fiddling” going on to boost the viewing figures. Perhaps it is not them doing it, but those nasty deniers trying to discredit the Climate Reality Project by generating obviously bogus viewing counts. Anyway, I’m sure they will not take the opportunity to claim 6+ million view(er)s after 24 hours of this… activity.
Anyway, this anomaly has prompted me to run a script that takes a screenshot every 30 seconds with both browser windows side by side which will therefore capture an image of these viewing statistics. This was started at 02:18 GMT so it misses the bit at the start. I’ll extract the data from these images later. It will be interesting to see the viewing figures over time.
Now it is 03:14 GMT and the “reality” viewing figures are 12100 current viewers with 610k total views.

Trying to view Judith Curry’s site, WordPress indicates the blog has been suspended for violation of terms of service\.
Anyone know WUWT?

watching tv and learning…and thinking…how novel!
give me content over style any day.
difficulties commenting as well, but not to worry.

@ GaryM,
Judith Curry’s site’s recent Google cache version looks good. Last story posted was an hour ago (10:06 PM EST), “Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment”. Features only a long Mark Thompson quote on the main page “teaser”.
Googling the beginning of the quote with the name turned up one other usage, where it’s given in the comments of a recent Bishop Hill piece featuring a lecture at Oxford given by Mark Thompson, former head of the BBC, with Thompson getting skewered in the BH comments.
Side question: Is there a “official” Bishop Hill blog to be used for linking, the other site is just a (temporary?) mirror?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/12/mark-thompson-on-the-gwpf.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/mark-thompson-on-the-gwpf.html (original site)
Maybe Thompson didn’t like the attention, and put in a claim of copyright violation or some such nonsense.

I’m getting a bad echo.

As soon as I posted that the echo stopped.

Darn. I can’t watch this on my iPhone.

In my haste I missed ‘not’.
Until we do that we are not in a position

Excellent! Enjoyed watching.

The Skeptical Science “crusher crew” is trying to spam the social stream,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html

I did not buy Mosher and Fuller’s book, and I am increasingly glad I did not. They sounded much more like journalists attempting to strike a middle ground lest they lose access to the key players on one side or the other than investigators determined to call a spade a spade. No one who reads the climategate emails and has even a shred of ethics should be anything less than outraged at the behaviour of the “hockey team”. I heard rationalization of the team’s actions where there should instead have been condemnation by Mosher and Fuller.
The one thing they got correct was that the debate is ultimately about sensitivity. On this I would make the point that I have made many times before. If sensitivity was high, we wouldn’t be having this debate, the impact on global temps would be pronounced and unequivocal. It is not, we can barely discern the signal if indeed that is what we are discerning at all. If sensitivity is low, then we have nothing to be alarmed about, and that is precisely what the preponderance of evidence points to.

David, excellent presentation.
What do you think of the proposition that the primary cause of 20th century warming is reduced aerosols and particulates, and the increased solar insolation from decreased aerosol seeded clouds, which have declined in line (in the developed world) with temperature rises. As evidence for this I point to India, where aerosol/particulate pollution has substantially increased and temperatures generally declined over the 20th century, except during the monsoon which washes aerosols out of the atmosphere?

Dr. David Evans: The ARGO chart showing Predictions vs. Reality was scaled at 0.01 degree. Can the ARGO buoys actually measure temperature to that degree? If not, would it not cast aspersions over a ‘Reality’ plot on the graph? I mean, what are the error bars on the Reality line?

Ack! Around 1:30AM EST I was trying to reload this page, but there was a “too long to respond” error. Tried again, got “can’t connect” error. Tried to load main page at different tab, still not working. The site was gone!
And I had just reported about Curry’s WordPress site being down, and now Anthony’s WordPress site is gone…
Did the Minions of Gore decide NOW was the Great Day of Reckoning, during their High Priest’s marathon revival service, and begun shutting down the sites of heretics and apostates?
But then about 1:34 WUWT was loading again.
Anthony, did you overload WordPress?

Jo,
Is the title of your talk an allusion to the German Novel, Die Andere Seite. A favourite of mine BTW. In the novel, idealist people move to a new city where initially everything seemed wonderful and progressive, but it descends into a nightmare.

Anthony–Dr. David Evan’s presentation was absolutely outstanding and I’d love for there to be a downloadable recording. Will there be a recording available? Would it be accessible from the resources section, perhaps?

Getting perfect reception on my wireless broadband here in Canberra, Australia.
Great stuff so far. The David Evans ‘primer’ was brilliant – needs to be seen more widely by the general public.

Congratulations, love to be watching but I haven’t paid for a BBC Licence so I can’t watch live (true, not ‘Sarc’ at all).

I doubt if the BBC seminar would have arrived at their conclusion about the ‘settled science’ had the guys you interviewed been present in 2006. On the other had the heads of BBC comedy, drama, political programming, Church of England were present so perhaps they had already arrived at their conclusion.
Hope all goes well in presenting the other side’s view as the BBC promised to do in “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century” – oh the irony.

Thanks so much for doing this!!! Thanks to all the presenters, too!!!

Someone please make PM David Cameron and his Cabinet watch/listen to Burt Rutan/WUWT/Telecast

I look forward to rewatching Burt Rutan’s presentation from Youtube. I’ve seen his slide shows from 2 years back, but the refresh he did for this show is a treasure. Getting the IPCC reviewers comments was a great add. The background of his office with the slanted bookshelf s classic Rutan: why use bookends when a slope bookshelf holds them better.

I am disappointed. I have now tried to watch a number of times, but the streaming is so broken that I can only get sound for around 2 seconds out of every 10. Hopefully I’ll be able to watch the best bits on line later.

From the Boy who Cried Warming: The bit about the ice cap on Mars shrinking as seen from telescopic observations from 1960s to 1990s and confirmed by Global Surveyor is a claim worth a return. It is either a stunning coincidence, error in data collection, or smoking gun that “It’s the Sun, Stupid!” I can’t think of a fourth possibility.

I forgot to add I loved Rutan’s aside about why it is true that talking to plants makes them grow better: You are breathing CO2 on them. Moist, warm, CO2 rich air…. heaven.

Feeds works. Only I noticed is a flickering blue bar at the bottom

Brian Johnson uk says:
November 14, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Someone please make PM David Cameron and his Cabinet watch/listen to Burt Rutan/WUWT/Telecast
Brian
Don’t be stupid 😉 They don’t watch anything more engaging than Sesame Street.

Burt was simply great, his slides ideal, simple and to the point for all. No rocket science needed.

If you can control the bit rates (like on The Boy who Cried Warming movie) and are set at HD 480, maybe 360 sure would help. Somewhere along the ol bit-chain even my high speed link that normally can just keep up at 480 is breaking up about every 20 seconds.

I’m quite miffed with myself. 30 minutes before the start ( that was 1am here ) I lay down to pass the time with a bit of TV as I waited. Woke up 7 hours later having missed all the good bits ( well most of them, had no interest in luke warmers Mosher & Fuller try with more of their sitting on the fence alarmism through the back door. )
Hopefully there will be youtube presentations of the live talks available. It would be a travesty if they were missing in the future debate.
Been enjoying the recorded filler as America sleeps but I’ve seen it all before.

The weather is getting worse. New paper just out. Pay attention Al Gore
“Little change in global drought over the past 60 years”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
H/t Marc Morano

davidmhoffer says:
“The one thing they got correct was that the debate is ultimately about sensitivity. On this I would make the point that I have made many times before. If sensitivity was high, we wouldn’t be having this debate, the impact on global temps would be pronounced and unequivocal. It is not, we can barely discern the signal if indeed that is what we are discerning at all. If sensitivity is low, then we have nothing to be alarmed about, and that is precisely what the preponderance of evidence points to.”
Spot on. Where is the global warming from the rise in CO2??
Real world evidence shows conclusively that sensitivity to CO2 must be so low that it can be completely disregarded. Thus, the “carbon” scare is ipso facto falsified.
Any questions?

Had to chuckle hearing John Coleman describe Margaret Thatcher as the Prime Minister of England.

just posted these cached versions of judith curry’s pages on bishop hill in response to a comment by omnologos from memory mentioning mark thompson was being quoted last time he went to her site. now i don’t see the comment i responded to:
cached version of homepage with the Mark Thompson quote:
ClimateEtc: Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment
Posted on November 14, 2012 | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry
Science is the most formidable intellectual force of our age, perhaps any age. The irony is that, without the insights of the humanities, it may still find itself without words. – Mark Thompson
Continue reading →
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Hf4842Llg0J:judithcurry.com/+%22judith+curry%22+%22mark+thompson%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
full cached version:
Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment
Posted on November 14, 2012 | Leave a comment
by Judith Curry
Science is the most formidable intellectual force of our age, perhaps any age. The irony is that, without the insights of the humanities, it may still find itself without words. – Mark Thompson
Bishop Hill points to a remarkable essay by Mark Thompson, the former head of the BBC. This was a lecture given at Oxford about science and rhetoric, focusing on the climate change debate and the problems of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is rather lengthy (16 pages), the whole essay is well worth reading. I excerpt here the parts of his argument that I found particularly interesting:
I’m going to explore the present state of the argument from authority through a single prism—namely the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy. And I’m going to attempt to tease apart a paradox which genuinely perplexes most of the scientists that Iknow, which is this: almost everyone accepts that science gives us our most secure understanding of the physical world – so why doesn’t it always carry the day?
Surely, if anything can, science can pierce what I’ve called the cloud of unknowing and replace public bewilderment with public enlightenment. So why is it so often questioned and challenged by non-scientists witout anyone accusing them of stupidity or absurdity? Why, when it comes to public policy formulation or media discussions, is science typically regarded as one of the considerations rather than the card that trumps every other card?
Hume’s sense that science represents an epistemological gold standard almost universal today. Like most non-scientists of my age and background, I accept that fundamental authority completely and whenever it comes to an argument I usually find myself instinctively on the side of mainstream science. I don’t do that because I have personally checked the evidence which underpins The Origin of Species or examined Bohr’s or Schrodinger’s equations: I haven’t the expertise to do either. No, I back science because I find Popper’s account of the scientific method and its falsifiability intellectually compelling and because, at the level of common sense, the explanatory and predictive success of science is so overwhelming. Moreover, I’ve spent enough time with scientists to be wholly convinced that the culture and practice of science genuinely aim at truth.
As non-scientists then, our acceptance of the primacy of science is based less on our own scientific training than on a mixture of cultural, social and philosophical factors. This is exactly what is implied by the argumentum ad verecundiam if you can work out the equation for yourself, after all, you don’t have to take it on trust.
At the same time, many of us know that it’s too simplistic to say that science always and immediately right. Sometimes there’s not enough data, or the puzzle of what the data means has yet to cracked, or the whole thing is still a work in progress: sometimes, in other words, the science is or at least appears unfinished.
On other occasions, scientists disagree there are rival explanations, or there’s one candidate explanation which some sicntists back but others oppose: in these cases, the science is disputed.
On still other occasions, someone may call into question the good faith of the scientists – they’rein the pay of the government or Big Pharma or they’re committed to some cause and therefore their work may lack impartiality and thus reliability: we might call this corrupted or even perverted science.
We also know that, on a few very rare occasions, there have been dramatic revolutions in the history of science when a consensus view has been overturned in favour of a radical new theory Copernicus, Einstein and that, before such revolutions, scientific group-think is possible; this is what Lee Smolin alleged about contemporary American physics and M-theory and string theory in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics, though one would need to understand the science rather better than I do to judge whether he’s right or not.
So as we listen to a given scientific debate, in theory any number of doubts can appear. Yes, of course we still believe in the authority of good, finished, honest science but maybe in this case it’s not quite ready; or maybe we’re in the middle of a he-says-she-says wrangle and God only knows who’s right; or maybe there is something fishy about the way that report was paid for; or maybe that lone scientist I heard on the radio is right and it’s the other 99% of physicists who will be proven wrong in the end. In an age of pervasive suspicion and uncertainty, and it doesn’t take much for the weevils to get to work.
Sometimes one comes across a letter about some matter of public concern signed by a long list of notables from many different and unconnected backgrounds: this is authority sliced and diced and repackaged like the Collateralised Debt Obligations which precipitated the financial crisis, authority each piece of which may be far from its point of origin and justification, but where it’s still hoped that the whole can be greater than the parts.
We might have hoped that authority might be one sure way of piercing the cloud of unknowing. Instead, we find that even the most clear-cut authority, that derived from science, can find itself in the most opaque, impenetrable regions of the cloud. And if what I’ve said this evening is true of science, it is probably even more true of economics and the other social sciences, indeed of any area of professional expertise which intersects with the world of public debate and policy.
Misrepresentation is undoubtedly often part of the problem, but it’s too easy to blame the public’s lack of knowledge of, or unwillingness to trust science entirely on the dark forces of misrepresentation. When science enters the public arena, it almost always ends up having to play by at least some of the rules of that arena, rules which often confuse the question of authority. It also finds itself in competition with radically asymmetrical rhetorical forces which derive their power from the spheres of morality, culture, superstition, even the mystic.
But to wish we could eliminate those ‘divisive cultural meanings’ is to wish away the freedom and openness on which modern democracies are built –and, short of dictatorship, its impossible to achieve anyway. In my view our task rather is to find practical ways of helping the public to pick their own way through this difficult, cluttered landscape. I’ve tried this evening to give some examples of how it is possible to parse public statements about science and disentangle them so that one can analyse and understand the different elements: exposition, assertion, opinion and advocacy. It takes time and, in its own way, a little training. Our challenge is how to encourage more people to take the time and acquire the skills to do this for themselves
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QKSn2u4sU7EJ:judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/+http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/14/policy-rhetoric-and-public-bewilderment/%23more-10472&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

The portion about the solar amplifier via UV variations is very close to my proposals.

Anthony, thank you very much for putting the program together. It is amazing that you were able to overcome the difficulties of producing a program with contributors from different arts of the world in real time.

Dr Luning
Thank you
***appause***

Mike Smith – very articulate – very good.

at the top of this page, is the blackmores vitamins ad (with gentle, calme soundtrack) which has been interrupting presentations in australia, sometimes every 10 or 15 minutes, except for the period of when the docus were shown. however, when it interrupts the broadcast, it is pure static, screeching and at first was accompanied by heavy metal music, with no dialogue. the volume level of the noise is unbelievable.
http://www.blackmores.com.au/about-blackmores/media-centre/media-releases/blackmores-voted-australias-most-trusted-vitamin-and-supplement-brand

Just a luck of the draw, dropping by to view this…. Great videos… works great here in Peoples state of Hawaii….

@Patrick Guinness
I don’t see any adverts on this page in firefox with adblock plus ( apologies Anthony but you’ll get more from me in direct contributions than you will by me clicking ads that have no relevance to me )
I don’t as yet see any adverts in the video stream. I expect that this is geographical. So perhaps if you don’t want adverts in the stream view it via an EU proxy.

Loved Ross Mckitrick’s presentation – very clear and informative on the issues.

Sorry I missed the S
“….gang of criminalS in….”

McKittrick was outstanding.

Hi Anthony,
A question I would like to be asked to one of your experts is this. If warmists 0.7 of warming is

my sincere gratitude to Lord Monkton for persevering through his presentation despite being clearly unwell. No doubt his opponents will mumble something about ‘coughgate’ and dismiss him.

Lord Chris, did the job, sent them all packing to Tyburn Cross.
Brilliant

Hi Anthony again,
Sorry for not entering my question correctly. My question to ask you experts was this. If warmist believe that a future warming of 1 or 2 degrees is likely to raise global temperatures to a dangerous tipping point, wouldn’t the rise in temperature of perhaps 20C that occurs when we move from winter to summer bring about the same effect? In comparison, 1 or 2 degrees seems extremely small. Similarly, why doesn’t an exceptionally hot summer in, for eg. Europe, when temperatures are above average initiate the same effect?
Regards William S

This is just too painful to watch. I’ll wait for the youtube videos.

I certainly hope a DVD will be made available of this excellent broadcast, I’ve watched about 10 hours total but have missed ones I wanted to see because of the time slots allocated. I would like to thank all of the participants for sharing their excellent presentations.

WUWT University! I’m enjoying the lectures. Very well done!

William Sluman says:
November 15, 2012 at 9:21 am
“If warmist believe that a future warming of 1 or 2 degrees is likely to raise global temperatures to a dangerous tipping point, wouldn’t the rise in temperature of perhaps 20C that occurs when we move from winter to summer bring about the same effect? In comparison, 1 or 2 degrees seems extremely small. Similarly, why doesn’t an exceptionally hot summer in, for eg. Europe, when temperatures are above average initiate the same effect?”
I asked warmists the same question – why don’t we have localized thermal runaway where CO2 makes water vapor increase in a positive feedback loop. Never got an answer. They usually already run away when one points out that water vapor, not CO2, is the strongest GHG. They don’t like it at all when one says it.
And what they really really hate is when somebody measures it.
“A clear prediction of the CO2AGW theory is that positive water vapor feedback should occur AND that the radiating top layer of the troposphere that radiates most of the IR to space should rise.
Both predictions can be tested, have been tested, and fail:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-disproof-of-runaway-greenhouse.html?showComment=1332558067400#c2031512486689428024
It is now time for the CO2AGW scientists to accept this failure, come up with a new theory, and make new predictions.
“

what the hell is with the ‘screaming’ ads?!!! Makes it unwatchable guys! Ruins an otherwise enjoyable site
REPLY: We can’t control these sorry, hopefully we’ll be able to use a better streaming medium than USTREAM next time -Anthony

“Fuller , “The debate is about sensitivity.”
Yea. The sensitivity of crooked politicos funding you and your breathen.
Steve Mac’s bit is coming through,though breakng up a bit.Suspect that is Skype. My cats and I are going to have to catch Kenjii on youtube.
One question that I hope somebody can answer.As an old fart,engineering degree in 1977,I was taught that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,just transformed. Is that right,or are my brains cells finally fading?

Steve-
How is the Canadian mining business? (A change of pace)
Have you read Montford’s new book?

Just a suggestion, but if you are facing dead air for an hour, Replying the Burt Rutan video from 11 pm PST (2 am PST) would better than rambling.

Anthony,
Your mike is OPEN… we can hear you typing (coughing, etc.). It was open during the break when you were getting the Joes on the line…
Just an FYI.
This is awesome!!

Great job, Anthony. I’m watching WUWT TV from Germany and I’m sad that we don’t have science people like you here in Germany! Currently there are some guys trying to protect a small area of forest from being cut down to make place for a brown coal mining site near Cologne. Actually not a bad idea since there is not so much forest in the neighborhood, but those guys are given space in the media to spread their nonsence about AGW like “the current drought in the states is cause by AGW and has caused millions of victims”… Unbeliveable! And no one in the media is telling the truth after the interviews… Please keep WUWT up and running! Thank you!

12,000 here
12,000,000 with Al Gore
gives you an idea of just what a minority skepticism is!

The blue line flickering is Skype?
Watching on iPad Safari – no ads.
Switching between BishopHill and WUWT links fixes lost connections.
Really enjoyed Tim Ball’s presentation, but lost cnx for last 5 mins.

NPR’s article about Al’s TV show.
Al Gore: Most Americans Still Agree Climate Change Is Getting Worse
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/15/165221945/al-gore-most-americans-still-agree-climate-change-is-getting-worse

I am thoroughly enjoying the presentations, Anthony. Thank you so much for bringing them to us. Think I’ve learned more today than I have in a good many years.
You and your many talents are amazing!

Really impressive performances. Also noteworthy how moderate and reasoned presentations are, extreme views are obviously only a property of climate alarmism.

Trying to watch this at 2300 ish UTC from Cambridge England. It’s breaking up and generally unreadable. The adverts seem to have full bandwidth though ;-¬
Look forward to seeing the various presentations on Youtube.

julesbollocks says:
November 15, 2012 at 1:51 pm
12,000 here
12,000,000 with Al Gore
gives you an idea of just what a minority skepticism is!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The longest of journeys begins with a single step. The skeptics have only just begun their journey.

Okay, *really* trying to watch as much as I can – *great* stuff, reminds me of the kind of in depth stuff NPR does, except without the blatant arrogant liberal bias 🙂

Just watched Harold and Maurizio – both excellent and informative. BTW, when Anthony lost the picture for Harold, I could still see it.
Boy,that Kenji is a tough critic, though – nothing seems to impress him!

Great show, Anthony and I’m particularly pleased to read this:
REPLY: We can’t control these sorry, hopefully we’ll be able to use a better streaming medium than USTREAM next time -Anthony
I’m really glad that there will be a next time, and I’m amazed at the way you put all this together. You’re right to dump USTREAM, when I went to their home page to complain about the way they raised the volume on the ads, and did not allow people to lower it, I found that they had a live stream to Gore’s channel on the home page itself. Probably how they got so many hits. Everyone going to Ustream would have been registered as a viewer.

for donna –
geoffrey lean left The Independent for The Daily Telegraph in 2009, where he has continued with his CAGW advocacy ever since.

Donna rocks!

seriously folks – never mind the ‘dirty weather’ – what about the dirty IPCC? I knew (kind of instinctively) that the IPCC was likely a bunch of green influenced muppets, based on the type of stuff produced – but I never realised it was THAT bad. The UN has a lot to answer for – for giving this ‘panel’ any credibility at all……….

If “we” could get the glitches/ads cleaned out, and get people to watch it, CAGW would be blown out of the water.
Very impressive.

Re: Donna Laframboise’s piece.
It need a minute or two on the official changes the IPCC made in “Conflicts of Interest”. They acknowleged that Conflicts of Interest need to be address, but they will mostly do that after they publish the next report — two+ years hence.

Anthony’s voice coming through just fine but Evan’s is “warbling”.

To boldly go where no other independent climate blog has gone before . . . .
Congratulations WUWT.
John

I confirm the report of poor transmission by Gareth in Cambridge. I have an excellent connecton at work, so the quality of our link is not an issue. There must be a bottleneck in the middle of the path, or the streaming server itself is a bottleneck. Too many lost packets.
Gareth: the adverts are not “live”; thery are delivered with TCP and only start playing when fully loaded.

Anthony.
Magnificent effort. I’ve only had time to watch a few hours here and there over the time period but found it very well presented and very interesting. (and this comes from someone who generally avoids on-line video presentations and conferences!).
Very well done, very worthwhile and I expect the recorded videos will turn out to be a very valuable resource.

On your Heat Map, last slide of the Watt’s et al paper.
You will need to include some uncertainty analysis in the trend values for each of the regions and in the overall grid.
Good job on the surface station paper. You need pictures for your new Class 1/2, 3, 4, 5.
A picture of a blackened Stevenson screen would be good as well. Ironichow you came full circle on that point.

Very nicely done Anthony and all contributors! THANK YOU for all of your efforts.