Thank you for watching WUWT-TV

Hello Everyone,

I wish to offer my sincere thanks for your assistance and willingness for the help and ideas in putting together a presentation and appear on the WUWT-TV event. Much of this came from reader’s ideas and insight.

We had a few technical glitches, we had a couple of embarrassing moments, and we had some great fun as well. The only criticisms that seemed to be pervasive was that it “wasn’t as well presented as Al Gore’s”.

Nothing could be truer, and nothing could be more illustrative of the disparity between the well funded “haves” and “have nots”. The next time somebody points to the meme “you skeptics are funded by big oil/big coal/ big something” all you need to do is point to this first effort, and that should shut them up because the entire WUWT effort was begged, borrowed, and donated from people “just like you” to borrow that PBS label.

In the process, I learned what to do and what not to do, and how to make the next effort better when we have to work on a limited budget. I think we won on the science content though.

Hilariously, we see still things like this coming from Gore during the event that tout that “big oil and “big coal” connection they imagine: http://realitydrop.org/about.

The video is priceless:

So, lessons learned, but we pulled it off, and I owe all of you a debt of gratitude. I’ll work to get YouTube recordings up next week. For now I need to rest a bit. Posting will be light this weekend.

Again, my sincerest thanks to all who contributed, participated, and watched. A special thanks to WUWT reader John Whitman who made two 300 mile round trip drives, battled a software learning curve, and spent over a week of his time working to bring us the “did you know” and Josh intermission slides. Thanks to Josh too.

Best Regards,
Anthony Watts, and Kenji

P.S. suggestions are welcome for how to use/improve this new medium.

PPS. It seems much of Mr. Gore’s traffic may have been bot driven, see this analysis left in comments:
==============================================================

Stephen Rasey

Submitted on 2012/11/16 at 2:54 pm

For fun, I was considering the proposition that each of the viewers of WUWT-TV and Gore-TV might belong to 1 of 2 populations:

X = population with a mean view time of 1 hr. (Watchers)
Y = population with a mean view time of T minutes. (Bots + thrashers)
Let T = average view time for the Y population.
Let TV = Total Views in 24 hours.
Let CV = Current Views average over 24 hr.

CV = X + Y
TV = 24* (X + Y*60/T)
Solution:
X = CV*(60/(60-T)) – TV*(T/(24*(60-T)))
Y = CV – X

TV(WUWT) = 16,690 (what I remembered seeing. I could be wrong.)
CV(WUWT) = 550 is my guess at an average in a range of 420-670 from personal observation. Until we have something better.

TV(Gore) = 15.7 million (from mfo 02:28 prev. thread) . I cannot confirm that, but Reg. Blank above reports about million at 2.25 hours, about 10% into it.

CV(Gore) = 9000 @ TV=300K, 1.5 hr;
= 11200 @ TV=500K, 1.9 hr.
= 12100 @ TV “close to a million” at 2.25 hr. from Reg. Blank above.
Shortly after this the CV counter was taken down. So we will have to guess this by exploring a range of possible values. An important constraint here is that the three observation points give a mean view time of only 3 minutes (approx.).

Frac_TV_X = Fraction of TV that can come from X population (1 hr mean) views.
Frac_TV_X = X*24/TV

First, WUWT-TV: (TV=16690, CV=550)
If T=0.16, X=550, Y=0.4, Frac_TV_X = 0.790
If T=1, X=548, Y=2, Frac_TV_X= 0.787
If T=10, X=521, Y=29, Frac_TV_X = 0.749
So 74-79% of the TV (total views) are coming from the population views with a mean 1 hr.

Now Gore-TV: (TV = 15.7 million)
If CV = 36000 (3 times highest known value)
If T=0.16; X=34347; Y=1653; Frac_TV_X=0.053
If T=1; X=25523; Y=10477; Frac_TV_X=0.039
If T=2; X=14684; Y=21316; Frac_TV_X=0.022
If T=3; X=3465; Y=32535; Frac_TV_X=0.005
T>4 is not possible.
If CV=24000, T=0.16; X=22315; Y=1685; Frac_TV_X=0.034
If CV=50000, T=0.16; X=48385; Y=1615; Frac_TV_X=0.074
If CV=100000, T=0.16; X=98518; Y=1482; Frac_TV_X=0.151

Note: T=0.16 represents a viewer that is opening the stream and shutting it down in a 10 second loop. With T=0.16, X = watchers, Y = ‘bots.’

Conclusion: X is tightly coupled with the estimate for CV. But the fraction of total views from 1-hr Watchers is illuminating. The Frac_TV_X (= 1hr people views / total views) is highest for high CV and low T. For CV = 36000 (3 time higher than any reported in the first two hours) only 5% of the total views were from “watchers”, 95% from bots. We have to use CV=100,000 (8 times higher than max observed), to reach a point where even 15% of total views could be from a population with a 1 hr mean view. At least 85% of total views were bots cycling every 10 seconds.

About these ads

143 thoughts on “Thank you for watching WUWT-TV

  1. Thank you for providing WUWT-TV :)

    I see from the above video that Big Al is looking for useful idiots to cut and paste for him.

  2. It was interesting to watch how trolls would appear just before powerful segments. Like they knew they had to distract rather than rebut. I had a lot of fun watching them consume themselves. Even more watching that bloviating block-head colose get smaked down repeatedly.

    A very, very fine first effort Mr Watts. You did us all proud yet again. I already miss WUWT-TV terribly.

  3. The sleeker it is, the most detached it is from real life and real people. Remember the story of “Quiz Show”.

    It was an honour to be one of your guests.

  4. (My first reply got lost in the internet fog.)

    I just wanted to also say thanks.

    And, if my first comment did get lost, I want to encourage you to accept/solicit funding from anyone, including “big oil”. There is no disgrace in getting the TRUTH out. All you have to do is disclose any “questionable” funding, and you pull ahead of the CAGWers, including IPCC.

    Great job, and GO FOR IT!

  5. Content, content, content. To an audience hip to the Internet your ‘embarrassing moments’ were SOP. Your content was fabulous. Thank you.

  6. I watched about 4 hours of it, and look forward to watching on youtube parts that I missed. The only problem for me was the loudness of some of the ads, which are beyond your control.

  7. Thanks Anthony, you did well setting this up. (Although the occasional sound dropouts were disconcerting.) I watched the first couple of hours, and a little more the next morning (Ross McKitrick and the start of Lindzen’s segment). Hoping that you’ll soon put online some of the segments I missed due to work.

  8. Anthony you have it wrong: it Is all of us who own you a debt of gratitude. I could only catch bits an pieces of it because my employer expects me to actually do my job, so I really look forward to viewing the presentations in full when they are available on youtube.

    What a fantastic concept pulling this together! Please enjoy your well-earned reset.

  9. For “reset” above please substitute “rest”. Or maybe “reset” is the right word. Whatever …

  10. Funniest moment:

    Complimenting Donna Laframboise on her “mud slinging” abilities. First time you ever made me laugh. :-)

  11. I watched as much of your program as time allowed and look forward to seeing much more. It was very well done with limited resources. Reasonable people can distinguish truth told simply from nonsense spouted in million dollar presentations. And Kenji delightfully demonstrated the rational person’s attitude towards the Gorython: z z z z z z z .

  12. What I saw – first 3+ hours – I enjoyed. What surprised me was that my wife was getting into the audio as she early decorated the Christmas tree (artificial). Maybe we’ve started a new tradition in our family – watching and listening to WUWT-TV while we decorate the Christmas tree.
    Thanks for the memories Anthony!

    Clay

  13. I watched about sixteen hours of it, though some of that included ‘watching’ it on my cell with my eyes closed, laying in bed. Couldn’t sit at the computer any more, but didn’t want to miss some of the great segments. I did notice a few things that you probably know about, but since I haven’t seen anyone else mention them, here goes:
    1. It seemed as though when the presenter tried to change pages, or hovered their mouse over (the lower part of their screen maybe?) that annoying control pop up would come on. The one with the stop and volume buttons. Then, their sound would cut out until it dropped down again. I thought at first that it was on my computer, but several times it happened when my mouse wasn’t moving. So, maybe their control button needs to be approached from a direction that doesn’t trigger the control popup. Did anyone else notice this?
    2. Many of the text parts of the graphs weren’t readable, they were too small, even on the desktop. Maybe there is a minimum size that the presenters could shoot for next time. Since this isn’t a power point being displayed on a big wall screen, but rather the opposite, that needs to be considered.
    Such new and innovative technology always needs tweaks, but the overall program was interesting, thought provoking, and well done. You did a great job, as did everyone who presented and who helped in the background. Kenji, of course, was irresistible. The adverts were amazingly annoying, and if there is a reasonable amount of money that we could donate towards that would limit or remove them next time, please let us know. :-)
    (applauding) WELL DONE!! Now get some sleep!

  14. It is worth reiterating that in order to be REAL – you must certainly appear to be REAL. No amount of slick presentation, smart graphics, glitchless production, etc will make it seem more real than seeing real people doing real things, in real time! I can’t impress upon you the importance of this in terms of making an audience see you for what you are (WUWT I mean) it gives a far more direct and acceptable view to the ordinary person. Honestly, you and everyone involved should be duly proud. This is the kind of stuff that folk can relate too. I even think that such presentation ‘techniques’ (if I can dare call them that) would make difficult scientific principles easier to grasp for ordinary folk. think of good teachers, they are good because they bring their students ‘in’ to their subject and bring realism to the subject matter….the aloof IPCC type scientists rely on the PR machine behind them. You guys (and gals)have your passion and honesty behind you – and that is worth far more than Gores slick efforts!

  15. TrueNorthist says about the WUWT-TV trolls: “Like they knew they had to distract rather than rebut.”

    I will agree. As I wrote in my post today:
    I don’t recall any questions [about my presentation] on the “Social Stream”. But of course there were the usual distracting nonsensical comments by trolls. Examples:
    -“typical denier cherrypick”,
    -“el ninos dont increases the heat content of the entire ocean! read the levitus papers on this”,
    -“Tisdale’s work rests upon the unsupported assertion that La Nina creates heat. No mechanism given qed magic”, and
    -“levitus et al puts all of this away.”

    See:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/

  16. Mr. Watts,
    Many thanks for the nascent WUWT-TV. I hope it will become a constant part of your blogging activities from now on but let me point one thing. You are “a media man” so you have to know the TV rules. In short, you must pay attention to:
    1. background – 100% white glowing monitor screen in the back of you and your 100% BLACK sweater or something like that – had created contrast (tonal range) not easily achievable in professional cameras… ;-)
    2. Mehr licht! Most of your guests were kept in the darkness (global dimming?). Two small table lamps from left and right would suffice. In other words WUWT-TV broadcasts were too dark.
    3. Both you and your guests must keep you heads/mouths at the mikes! Turning heads left and right is tantamount to breaking inviolable TV Commandments!
    And last but not least. Ask Linux IT nerds for help in keeping the tech rig 100% up. You do not have to be skilled at everything. Be a mentor or a Manager, let the tech works being done by someone else. :-) Be on the screen but as an anchor, not a chief engineer. ;-)
    Have a nice, peaceful and relaxing weekend.
    My best regards

  17. I watched for about 6 hours and could not sleep that night my brain was so active I could not shut it down! Thank you Anthony for WUWT… and yes xxcolose did his best with the material he had to work with… which was easily debunked with the rest of us using honesty as a weapon.

  18. @Mark S: Yes it’s refreshing that someone with Donna Laframbois’ credentials chimed in. She holds a degree in women’s studies, and her writing has often supported organizations such as fathers’ rights groups… as well as pointing out that the IPCC AR4 used selective one sided peer review efforts.

  19. Thank you again, Anthony. I look forward to watching the parts I missed when they become available. Regarding that Reality Drop thing, if Dr. Einstein were alive today he would be commenting here with “If I were wrong, one [Tweet] would be enough.”

  20. Anthony, you say thank you for watching … I say, thank you for making it possible for us to watch. I am sure that it was far more work than it appeared from this side of the screen, and from here it looked like a huge pile of work.

    My thanks also to all who participated and put in their time and effort to make it all not just possible, but interesting, connected, and cohesive.

    Once again, I am amazed by the amount of energy that it is possible to harness on a volunteer basis. Against your all-volunteer effort, Al Gore poured millions into his dog-and-pony show. And despite the huge funding disparity, I just googled the outcome. I found that 14 of the top 15 Google results from a search of “Al Gore “dirty weather” ” are for WattsUpWithThat.

    That, for me, is quite amazing. There was no mention of Anthony Watts or WUWT in the search terms, no mention of anything but gore and “dirty weather”, the meme for his Climapalooza. Despite that, almost all of the top links are to WUWT.

    So, Anthony, as usual you have done a sterling and successful job. My sincere felicitation for your 24-hour experiment, it was much appreciated.

    w.

  21. Yes, this event was memorable Anthony and I look forward to the U-tube recordings, especially Burt Rutan’s presentation.

    I liked the studio set-up, it looked busy, the prominent microphone and equipment, middle distance composition was OK, lighting was warm and studio close-up’s were not necessary. The cut to laptop Skype produced a noticeable drop in quality and this was to be expected, however it can be improved, inexpensively, I do this at home.

    1. Try to get presenters to avoid staring down at the screen with illumination provided by the screen,it is low resolution, blue colored and it looks like a B grade horror movie (the visuals not the content :).
    Use two bedside lights with a warm color temperature positioned either side of the presenter with the main illumination source at eye level but diffuse. This will infill shadows, give a more studio quality and improve resolution and skin tone, female presenters appreciate this. To go one step further highlight the top of the head with a separate direct light. Evan Jones managed the head highlight but his face was in shadow.

    2. Use a separate camera/microphone.
    The audio/video quality is better and the presenter will be looking forward in a natural head position(as in looking at the horizon) as if in a standing conversation. Looking away from the camera occasionally to their notes and back to the camera simulates a real life conversation as well. Constantly boring down the camera can be tiresome for the viewer, but, the presenter must look at the camera again to really engage the viewer, not the screen, this is where a separate camera/microphone helps.

    A memorable broadcast,

    Keith.

  22. IN the area of technical problems, I would suggest using videos, played at the main broadcast site for the guest’s presentations rather than a live feed. Not only would this allow the guest to redo all or part of their presentation to improve it, but would reduce the likelihood of on-air glitches.
    Q & A afterwards might be live, but even that probably should be on video. and subject to editing. Even the pros learned early on in the history of TV the dangers of a live presentation, and they only wanted it for the audience response, which isn’t even a factor in your broadcast. It’s also less of a strain on the presenters if they aren’t live, and know they can correct via redos any glitches they might make.

  23. Thank you Anthony. I learned a lot in the short time I could watch. Looking forward to the video and being able to pull up topics of interest.

  24. I did not get a chance to see any of it, and may not for a long time.

    If you had problems, Anthony, hey, it was your First time, and despite the efforts of those who volunteered their technology to help you, it Was Your First Time.

    Algor’s Snake Oil Show has had years to put its’ act together. I suspect in the end, your show will have gained the smarter audience.

  25. Thank you Anthony, It was great.

    I even got my happy-go-lucky husband to watch for several hours without falling asleep. If your information is riveting enough to keep a narcoleptic awake you know you and your guests did very well with the scientific content.

    Congratulations, and BTW the “glitches” were part of the ‘charm’ and made it real instead of a polished ‘performance’

  26. Thanks for the stepping up to host the show. Most of what I watched 6 hours so far on the show was true and had real data to back up claims. I did have one issue with guest on that talked about 2007 only being the lowest ice coverage in artic since satellite data started, 2012 was lowest.

    Hope to watch rest soon if available on YouTube like source with being able to watch each guest interview.

    Thanks again.

  27. No sir thank you for providing the show, hope to see the bits I missed and the bits where the audio dropped out for me when you utube it. Great effort and nice to see real people donating their time and effort to truth and society. Nice to put a face to these people too.

  28. I can only hope that the many of presentations will become an educational material.

    On the other hand I am more worried than I used to be and more worried than the rest of you. Despite all the data and facts clearly pointing out uncertainties with no reason for a hysterical response, the ideology of AGW continues unabated, albeit under different headlines. These people no longer look left or right, they don’t debate, they just follow their pseudo religious zeal and as far as I can see their political influence has not diminished a great deal. The issue of AGW, climate change, climate weirding, weather extremes, dirty weather or whatever name they come up with next needs more that the courage of Anthony or of the scientists who stood up yesterday, some of them potentially risking their careers.

  29. One comment about the set-up. I think the best method was where the speaker said next slide and you, Anthony controlled the slide. My computer handled that presentation the best. With other presentations the slides were out of sync or did not move or the Audio cut-out. One presentation I really wanted to watch – Bob Tisdale’s, was missing 90% of the words. Donna Laframboise’s started out the same no audio with a few sounds here or there so I gave up since I knew you would have the presentations up on U-tube. – Can’t wait.

  30. Thanks for all the long hours and hard work Anthony. It was a smashing success and you had a fantastic line up of presenters. I learned a lot.

    I must say, I was so taken by Maurizio’s presentation. What a great example of what one man can do.

  31. watched from start to finish. i like a no-sleep day every once in a while, so it was no problem.

    loved how “unconcerned” kenjI was the whole time. wish he would teach my neighbour’s adorable dogs a thing or two about how to relax and not bark.

    as someone said, graphics/text need to be much larger/stronger to work, especially for viewing thru the tv.

    some presentations could be pre-recorded; can’t see why not.

    the LOUDNESS of ads was not natural. i commented on this during the broadcast, because the real interference came in two segments in particular – those of marc morano and maurizio morabito. morano was spitting out facts by the millisecond and is a great communicator (even if his politics differ somewhat from mine) and maurizio was providing proof positive of bbc’s REAL CAGW bias. for those without scientific backgrounds, these were highly effective presentations.

    during their presentations, doctored ads for blackmores vitamins, with their gentle soundtrack removed and replaced by screeching gamer-style sound effects, often accompanied by heavy metal music, would interrupt more often, approx every 10 to 15 minutes. commented online here and on joanne nova’s site that i would be phoning blackmores and, amazingly, soon afterwards, the blackmores ads stopped, tho an odd ad which included x-box, kinect, & other related, flashing logos, with the same screeching soundtrack, replaced them.

    in the early presentations, the loud blackmores ad probably only appeared twice during a presentation, and no ads interrupted the pre-recorded docus when u took a break, anthony.

    maybe it would be a good idea to make it an annual event, coinciding with or close to the anniversary of Climategate 1.

    so proud of our aussie contributors, david and joanne. both were superb…and effective. bish, big mac, and everyone else had my complete attention as well.

    biggest thanx to anthony and his family for giving him the space to continue his invaluable work on behalf of the scientific method.

  32. Fantastic job Anthony.

    o We owe you the thanks, not the other way around (as noted upthread)

    o I wouldn’t worry about “slickness”. The people who are persuaded by slickness aren’t going to be persuaded by facts and logic. Iron out the glitches, sure, but after that I think the focus should be on content quality.

    o Training; I know you were probably too pressed for time to put presenters through brief training on their end of the interface, but I think this is important to do. Some people handle presentation difficulties better than others, but for most, their focus needs to be on their presentation, not on learning how to advance slides, etc.

  33. Thank you, Anthony, for putting all this together (and thanks also to those who assisted). I watched as much as I could, but real life interfered and I missed many of your guests. I am really looking forward to your YouTube recordings so I can enjoy each presenter in full.

    One hint, if I may: ask your guests to place the camera at the same level as their head so it doesn’t look as if they are looking down at the mike (which they obviously were).

    IanM

  34. Sorry. Couldn’t get my safe version of Adopey flash player to play the stream. Unless a blank screen was what I was supposed to see.

    I’ll watch the videos on YouTube or Vimeo when they’re uploaded.

  35. Thank you, Anthony, WUWT and ‘dirty’ scientists (I guess). I am learning a lot.
    From Puebla, Mexico,

    Armando

  36. Anthony (or mods): Glenn Beck and The Blaze are fans of yours. He’s been building an online tv network from the ground up. In fact, he had Chris Tangey on the radio today. Beck asked Tangey if he could purchase the rights to the video, and Tangey said Beck could have them for free! My point in all this is, perhaps you could work with Beck/The Blaze next year, I’m guessing he’d give you access to the studios, servers, etc for cheap if not free.

  37. Excellent job well done Anthony and guests. The lack of slickness criticism is not that important, what is important is that the WUWT-TV event occurred and is available for repeated viewing.

    The video segments presented on YouTube will serve well for educating many more people, in particular linking in comments at national newspapers, magazines etc…

  38. Jo Nova has great video personality which leant the show extra sparkle (plus she has truth on her side). Get her again next time! And may next time come soon!

  39. Thank you , thank you, thank you!
    Let’s win this war against this propaganda Gore bull sh*t.
    Thank you, thank you , thank you!

  40. btw: Kenji was cute, but next time, for the sake of intellectual gravitas – get some cats.

    :)

  41. Thanks everyone. I have no complaints – it was a great effort put on by people trying their level best. Certainly as good as the webinars I put on! The trolls were very interesting to watch – obviously trained in the art of diversion and thread-jacking. The remarks became more desperately cloying as no one took the bait. The presentations were of high quality and the enthusiasm was refreshing. It is not David and Goliath anymore. The science is solidifying against CO2 having much influence on our climate, less on the weather, and Mankind’s hand nowhere to be detected. Not how I though it was going to appear 20 years ago.

    We live in interesting times.

  42. Stephen Rasey;
    Shortly after this the CV counter was taken down.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No doubt to thwart the exact analysis you’ve done. I note also that at 18 million views, they would be double what ustream is reporting for the mars rover landing and the iPhone 5 launch:

    http://www.ustream.tv/press

    Now to be fair, mars rover would have to compete with TV. But the iPhone launch? Sorry, but those are hardcore internet users, and the public interest in iPhone 5 absolutely dwarfs the public interest in global warming…. err, climate disruption….. err, climate change…… err, dirty weather… err, whatever the term is this week.

    18 million views on a single day on a network that only averages 2 million per day? That only got 9 million for the iPhone 5 launch? Doesn’t seem credible.

  43. A big thanks to the presenters and yourself for such a great and successful effort!

    Enhancing presentation and process skills is the easy part.

    The legitament content is what counts, and it was in the house the whole time.

  44. I saw more science in 5 minutes of WUWT-TV than I saw in 4 hours of the Gore extravaganza that I watched side by side with Watts…
    and Gore had over 200 people who worked 6 months on his show.

    Watts gets a big thumbs up! Gore gets a big thumbs down!

  45. “Would be great to have a dvd set with the entire thing!”

    Easy enough to do when the videos are available on YouTube. Simply download the videos using Video Downloader HD (it’s free) and then burn to DVD if you like. I have nothing to do with the software provider, by the way; I just happen to use it myself. It’s available here: http://www.afterdawn.com/software/audio_video/online_video_recorders/youtube_downloader_hd.cfm

    The downloaded file will be free of any ads.

  46. the parts that i watched were great. The production values were fine for me. I didn’t watch AlGore this year…but did watch a little the previous time. I remember that it was slick…and “important” sounding. Please…no need to go there.

    i’ll enjoy watching them on youtube…Thank You…and Good Job

  47. @Reg. Blank: If all you have is a change in the total view counter in increments of 0.1M(illion), then I think you need to first show a table of counter vs. time. Show us the raw data. At 700 views/sec, it should take about 2.5 minutes to flip the 0.1M counter. Show the time of the changes.

    What I’m after is any sign of spikiness around the hour mark. Your graphs show remakable flatness in view rate (people entering the stream) over the hour 22:00 to 23:00. Is that real? if so, it is a sign of bots at work. Why should just as many people be tuning in at 22:13 as as 21:58? If it is people who want to tune in, we should see spikes in the view counter in the minutes before the hour and maybe half hour.

  48. Watched and enjoyed.
    I particularly enjoyed watching Dr Evans’ presentation. Short, undeniable and unequivocal.
    It pays to constantly remind people of the actual predictions of Hansen etc and how they are all hogwash. It was good to put faces to names and, as always, it is great to see and hear that there are rational people out there.
    Thank you Anthony et al

  49. Last year Josh did a thing on the last Gorgathon with a polar bear tying the segments together. Maybe he can another but as a side-by-side WUWT-TV vs Gorgaphiles with Kenji tying the segments together?
    (PS Thanks again to you and the presenters … and your family for their support to you.)

  50. @Reg. Blank. Sorry, I didn’t see the Bonus Graph at the bottom with Total Views vs Time. That’s much smoother than I would anticipate for hourly program starts. Why, it’s almost like the person/thing starting the view didn’t care about content nor about being there at the start of the hour.

  51. Nick in Vancouver says:
    November 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
    Watched and enjoyed.
    I particularly enjoyed watching Dr Evans’ presentation. Short, undeniable and unequivocal.

    I thought it was outstanding too. By comparison, Rutan’s presentation was not smooth–too choppy–although his content was fine. Jo Nova should be given more time next go-round.

  52. I see that http://www.realitydrop.org monitors the web for climate-related discussions and uses software to suggest ripostes to contrarians’ comments for warmists to drop into online conversations in real time. It’s like John Cook’s software bot, but more advanced. The concept is slick. Our side should do the same. (Get us a grant!)

  53. I thought what I watched was terrific Anthony; and I agree with Alan Watt (and others) said about us owing you! You, and your guest hosts, put in a massive effort and we are the beneficiaries of that.

    My biggest regret that unlike Pat, I had to sleep and do some chores away from the computer. When Utube has the missed shows, I’ll get to watch.

    I didn’t really notice any ads, except the start up ads. But then, I have a low tolerance for commercials and quickly mute them; ’tis a great thing the one touch mute. For those extended break periods (none were really long), I used my slider and softened sound to a verifiable hum.

    I couldn’t figure out what the trollie polecats were trying to do. Without context, their attempts to stifle WUWT-TV came across as irrational spouts and pouts. (Should I mention that pouts are fish? And that pouts love cold to freezing water? Unlike polecats…).

    Anthony, you were working out the issues with speakers and microphones on the fly and you did a great job.

    Perhaps next time establish a preferred technical approach and do a group test online? If certain pieces are unavailable to a presenter, perhaps we can borrow/beg them from supporters like Heartland?

    The video box in the thread lost the most sound to me. After a frustrating half hour, I switched to Ustream (or whatever) and got all but occasional dropouts.

    Given the stats, I would think that a lot of web crawlers are spanking their bots for wasting so much time at the boredgore gaspcast.

  54. Although I only watched @ 6 hours, it was extremely interesting (then again, you’re preaching to the choir). Sound cut off often. To bring it to the masses, it has to be quite a bit less technical though, with simpler graphs that are more readable. I love the technical stuff, just don’t think people like my wife will last more than a bit-minute listening to it.

  55. At the start of the promotional video for Reality Drop above (which is very slickly done, BTW), this statement is made: “The science is settled. The data is clear. Not a single legitimate scientific body in the world disputes it. The global climate crisis is a reality. It’s happening now. And manmade carbon pollution is responsible.”

    Not exactly. Here’s an excerpt from Monckton’s Rebuttal to a warmist Skeptic magazine article, at http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/moncktonskepticreplylong.pdf

    The Professor goes on to say: “Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change as well.” Three problems with that. It is the logical fallacy of argument from consensus; it is the logical fallacy of the argument from appeal to authority; and it is not true.

    • Members [note—not all—RK] of the Japanese Academy of Sciences have described the true-believers’ position as being no better than a belief in astrology;
    • the Russian Academy under Dr. Illarionov, having heard both sides, rejected the alarmist position as politically motivated;
    • the former director of the Dutch Meteorological Institute has rejected the alarmist view of “global warming”;
    • the Royal Society, having relieved itself of the Marxist president under which its original and embarrassingly absurd statement on “global warming” had been published, has rewritten it from top to bottom to take out nearly all of the extremist nonsense to which the Professor appears uncritically to subscribe; and
    • a Norwegian expert group has recently issued a report saying that proper attention must now be paid to determining the influence of natural variability on recent climatic change.

  56. @Stephen Rasey
    I’ve added a link to an archive of the data here http://grostemps.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/raw-count-data/

    > At 700 views/sec, it should take about 2.5 minutes to flip the 0.1M counter.

    That’s about what I observed. I can’t overstate the possibility that this is an artifact of how Ustream collect or display the view count, or I had some weird internet thing going on, or my computer (which is ntp synchronised) has experienced some kind of peculiar time warp.

  57. At 0.18 the Reality Drop promotional video says, “But big oil and big coal are spending big money to buy media access and spread doubt about climate change.”

    Citation needed. Where are the big oil/coal ads appearing? The only ones I remember were from at least 15 years ago: the Mobile Corp. op-ed-type, sidebar-format, italicized ads. As for access, the only large media outlets that give contrarians a voice are WSJ and Forbes—and its online blog site provides equal access to the other side too. (E.g., Gleick, at one time.) And that access hasn’t been bought, presumably, but freely offered.

  58. I was very glad this went on. I tried to watch but was in a Motel 6 and the lag was really bad–gave up after several hours. However, I did notice one thing of a technical nature. I was first on the stream on this site, then clicked the link to stream from the source thinking it might get better. Soon noticed a big echo and it took me about twenty minutes to realize that both your stream and the source stream were playing together. The link to the source did not open in a new window but opened on top of your page–so that should be be fixed next time too.

    I will catch up when the You tube version comes out. Thanks!

  59. Thanks for your great effort – the domestic feel of the show was a help, not a hindrance – lent verismilitude to the occasion.

    I could only view one hour on this side of the Atlantic – at 24:00 GMT – Donna L – but what was good was to see the people themselves in their proper persona – namely you, Anthony, Donna, and a view glimpses earlier of Omnologos before the links gave out.

    A triumph. Congratulations.

  60. Roger Knights says:
    November 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I see that http://www.realitydrop.org monitors the web for climate-related discussions and uses software to suggest ripostes to contrarians’ comments for warmists to drop into online conversations in real time. It’s like John Cook’s software bot, but more advanced. The concept is slick. Our side should do the same. (Get us a grant!)

    How interesting ! I have an email contact who will send an answer to my gentle skeptic comment, and the answer is far better than this person is capable of.
    I thought he ‘rang a friend’……this is more likely.

  61. I watched about 6 hours in all and it was rivetting Content, content, content. I did notice some slip-up, drop-outs etc, but so what! The contents and presenters were great and that’s what counts! I am looking forward to seeing bits that I missed in the video uploads later. Thanks a great deal.

  62. Promotional video for Reality Drop says:
    ‘The global climate crisis is a reality. It’s happening now. And manmade CARBON pollution is responsible.”
    Aggghhhhh!!! Why? Why do they do this???

    Loved the parts I saw online and looking forward to seeing the rest! Thank you everybody for your hard work, I thought the disparity of funds between you and Gore absolutely showed who has the moral upper hand…incidentally I wonder who had the largest carbon DIOXIDE footprint :o)

    If you could put together a DVD I would gladly buy some as gifts for Christmas…extra funds for next time maybe!

  63. As mentioned way back… a set of DVDs would be a wonderfull record of an historical event. With Christmas approaching the eternal question is what to give grandad. I think you might have a market there Anthony. (no adverts please) :-)

  64. Anthony, please permit me to cross-post a comment I had made at Bishop Hill:

    Wow! What a day!

    Highlights for me were (in order of appearance) Evans & Nova, Montford, Spencer, McIntyre, Ambler, Maurabito and Laframboise … and, of course, Kenji.

    I don’t do early mornings, so unfortunately I missed McKitrick and Lindzen – and others [on Nov 14] and during the day, [Nov 15] (because of other commitments) – whom I would like to have heard. So I look forward to watching the replays on YouTube.

    The technical glitches in this tremendous effort on Anthony’s part provided additional notes of authenticity that – when the history books are written – I believe will do as much to demolish the Mann-made myth of a “big oil funded skeptic campaign” as McIntyre, McKitrick & Montford have done to demolish Mann’s most famous “creation” [h/t J. Gergis], his hockey-stick.

    Many thanks to Anthony, his benefactor, and to all the presenters; and as the old song goes … this could be the start of something big!

    P.S. Helpful Hint from Hilary to Steve McIntyre (if you’re reading this) … next time you do a Skype interview from that same location, you might want to try reflecting some light on the wall behind you and on the ceiling above and behind you. Then you won’t appear as though you inhabit the “dark side” ;-)

  65. PS: Add to the list of legitimate scientific organizations that dissent from climate alarmism the US Association of State Climatologists. (Or so someone on WUWT once claimed.)

    I recall reading that here prominent members of the Chinese and Indian climate-related scientific organizations have stated that the science is NOT settled, to the dismay of mainstream commenters.
    =========

    Here’s a credible link to send to persons who imply that only cranks are disbelievers:

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at

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

    This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.

    I suggest that someone visit Wiki and enter Dr. Evans name on the list–it’s missing.

    Incidentally, I note that the number of names on the list has been cut in half (about) from what it was three years ago. Presumably Connolley and his crew used nit-picking objections about the stature of the people listed and/or the wiki-worthy status of the sources in which their comments were made.

    It would be worthy of an article here on WUWT to compile a list of all the names that have been removed, as a way of demonstrating Wiki’s absurdity, bias, and corruption. Also, it would result in a nearly complete worldwide compilation of the names of prominent dissenting scientists in climate-related fields, which could be posted online and cited in the future. (Does such a list exist already.)

  66. PS to my prior comment (which failed to pop up with the normal “awaiting moderation” notice): Once our side compiles a list of prominent dissenting scientists, someone can insert it into Wikipedia’s article on the topic prefaced by a remark to the effect that “A longer list, which includes short comments of the scientists involved, can be found HERE (link).” Let’s then see what feeble and/or outrageous excuse Connolley’s Crew uses to delete it–which we can then publicize.

  67. Thank You and your excellent Interview-guests…great work. I’ve seen only the Segments with McIntyre, Ball, Bastardi, D’Aleo, Kehr, a part of Ambler and Donna Laframboise, and am looking forward to see the other Experts soon on Youtube.
    Gores Circus was nothing but embarrassing and sometimes just hilarious…
    Thumbs up, Anthony and be careful.
    J.R.

  68. Anthony

    If you could put the whole thing on DVDs I would willing pay an exhorbitant sum of money for it. Could be done by direct download.

  69. What mattered to me was the content, not the tech bobbles. I learned several things, and made a shopping list of ‘Christmas present books’. So much thanks and it was well worth it.

    When the recordings are up, I’ll be watching several of them, too. (Despite my best efforts, I fell asleep at about 4 AM and didn’t wake up until 10 or so, and missed a couple of segments. Dang it….

    Some of your ‘short watch’ folks will be technical ‘restarts’. I had the battery on the laptop suddenly die twice on me, requiring a power-brick / restart / reconnect. (The spouse was wondering why I was cooking dinner with the laptop and headset on ;-)

    I finally got a decent handle on the El Nino / La Nina / ENSO complex from one presentation, got a better insight into how hurricanes are predicted from Joe Bastardi. And from your segment, I think I’ve figured out why the large disconnect happened in 1987-1992 with the change of “mod flags” in GHCN.

    (In the KUSI segment, Petersen said they discovered a ‘cooling bias’ in the MMTS that had to be ‘adjusted’. In your segment you pointed out that the MMTS was just more accurate and it was the Stevensen Screens that tended to darken and peal paint with age and warm. Thus the ‘adjust all history cooler’ of GHCN to ‘adjust’ for the ‘cooling bias’ of the MMTS is really locking in a long slow warm error from paint fading and peeling… They ought to have adjusted nothing and just let a step change of ‘correction’ enter the data with the MMTS offset being a footnote about paint…)

    Also got to ‘get to know some folks’ face to face, sort of. Jo Nova is a charmer. Burt Rutan is a very creative thinker not easily mislead. (Loved the slanted bookcase in the background… eliminates need for bookends…) Joe Bastardi is so in love with his work and energetic. Things you don’t get from words on a screen (or page).

    Oh, and Kenji… Just loved his cameos.

    So don’t worry about the occasional need to drop video to get clear sound, or juggle some slides back and forth. It did right the things that mattered. You can always get a canned video done later if desired. Seeing real live people in real time was just a whole lot more ‘personal’. Had it all been slick as can be, that personal contact element would have been lost.

  70. Reality Drop- Almost fell out of my chair laughing. “More from Skeptical Science”…”This from UCS” …Same BS. Medieval warm period was regional, 2010 hottest year ever (don’t mention records started at 1850), arctic has melted before but this time it is mans fault, and my personal favorite…”Carbon dioxide is like a control knob on the earths thermostat”. This was part of the explanation of why CO2 is more important in the atmosphere then water vapor.

    This is like watching “Airplane” for the 100th time.

  71. Well done to Anthony and the WUWT crew. I saw some great presentations, especially enjoying the one by Lindzen and the Kalte Sonne author. IMO a two hour presentation once a month with the aggregation post edited and run as the 24 hr special annually seems to be the way to go in order to pace yourself and keep WUWT TV upfront in the minds of the public.

  72. A wonderful first effort. Why not do it again in six months time without any waitng for Gore’s next effort. I’m sure you could get all the funding you require from your supporters for a superb, professionaly produced presentation, put together by experts in the field. Donations towards the project could start now. This is certainly a powerful tool for getting the truth across to a mass audience that generally does not know of the existence of WUWT or other sceptic sites.

  73. I was only able to watch bits now and then, (and reception was not good) but was hugely impressed with what I saw. Congratulations. The Reality Drop video I find disturbing. Well meaning and enquiring minds (especially perhaps children) will pick up the quotes and pass them on in true belief. This is further indoctrination.

  74. Embarrassing? No … authentic, fascinating, earnest. The info packed hours were short enough without the glitches, so yes, sacrifice a little “authenticity” for more content. Some things needed more than an hour, some needed more interaction with questions. These are good things to need. I just watched the first 3 hours of that dirty Gore thing, and had to FF through significant fractions of each hour to get to what was supposed to be the “content”, which amounted to shallow talking points, mostly with activists about what everybody needs to do. I didn’t agree with everything the WUWT presenters had to say, and had questions about some of it. Isn’t science fun!

  75. Professionalism would only have reduced the value of the WUWT-TV. This can be seen in many comments above. The energy of a live music concert is so much more than a recording of it, as with most live events.

    In 30 years I have never taken the whole day off work just to watch TV, not even for the World Cup, but I did for WUWT-TV and it was worth it!

    A lie may go around the world in the time it takes for truth to get it’s boots on, but the energy and power of truth is incomparable, and is often a cause for real change. The list of those who made presentations was like a sharp focusing of truth, a real working together for a common purpose in harmony, and no one cared about the time zones or technology hiccups, the nervousness and illness, it just had to be done and it was!
    Brilliant!

    The WUWT-TV format should be protected and valued. If there are future days of WUWT-TV then, apart from minor technical enhancements, the format should remain similar. Let it even be recognised as a WUWT-TV style.

    If there is another WUWT-TV, I propose that it is parallel with the Gore nonsense again next year, and that it is kept live by having at least two studios, and perhaps three, covering the main time zones.

  76. Due to personal reasons, I wasn’t able to watch more than a couple of hours live. But what I saw was both very enjoyable and very informative. Thank you for the massive efforts pulling this together. I hope the presentations will be available as Youtube videos, linked to from a page providing an overview of the event, plus highlight what you consider the most significant material. Then I shall be able to do some catch up.

    Many years ago, Norwegian TV used to show ‘pause fishes’ (small aquarium) between the programs. You had ‘sleeping Kenji, member of UCS’ serving the exact same purpose, and that part I really enjoyed :-)

    Well done, and thank you again!

  77. Thanks again to you and all your helpers,
    to all the people that appeared on the program as well!

    I look forward to seeing some of the segments I missed on youtube.
    The cast was impressive, pretty much a who is who on the unconvinced scientists & sceptic side.
    I hope you can persuade the missing notables to show up on your next show and perhaps get someone from the high positive feedback camp to present their case and/or participate in a panel discussion.
    You did a great job as presenter/moderator (impressive stamina, Gore-TV had a new presenter every hour when I looked). Switching from Gore-TVs very professional production and their emotional propaganda on the “big oil funded lying, cheating evil denial machine” back to WUWW-TV was hilarious at times. If you are well funded you hide it well.
    With the exception of John Coleman (he can teach you a few things :-) ) the lineup I watched looked like academic presentations. No fancy animations, no fancy music, no flashy “MTV-production” adapted to viewers with attention span disorder, no high on emotional appeal image/message melodramatic propaganda.
    Just facts, theories and arguments, the input that help you decide what you think is right.
    Just what I want.

    Look forward to your next production.

  78. Time zone, old age and general deterioration meant I couldn’t catch as much I wanted. The bits I saw, as mentioned by others, included some great stuff but technology drop-outs hindered the flow. Simple things that will, no doubt, disappear with time.

    I like Tallbloke’s idea of a regular spot on a monthly basis, maybe focussing on one or two key points that would allow a deeper investigation of those points. Any chance of a ‘conference call’ type interaction with the scientists? Risky, I realise, for obvious reasons but it would offer the warmists a chance to fight their corner in open debate. Going from their avoidance of such openness, in the past, it might be worth offering them the chance. Refusal would be telling?

    Anywho, my best wishes for future events.

  79. Stephen Rasey says:
    November 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    …. Your graphs show remakable flatness in view rate (people entering the stream) over the hour 22:00 to 23:00. Is that real? if so, it is a sign of bots at work. Why should just as many people be tuning in at 22:13 as as 21:58? If it is people who want to tune in, we should see spikes in the view counter in the minutes before the hour and maybe half hour.
    ________________________________________
    That sounds about right. There should be clusters around the hour and 1/2 hour marks.

    As another commenter said removing the viewer counts may have been to keep you from seeing the remarkable flatness of the curve during the entire 24 hour period. It also seems to me that it happened shortly after your comment in real time that you were keeping track.

    Smells like week old fish. We already know these folks play dirty and there are billions or more at stake.

  80. Roger Knights says:
    November 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I see that http://www.realitydrop.org monitors the web for climate-related discussions and uses software to suggest ripostes to contrarians’ comments for warmists to drop into online conversations in real time. It’s like John Cook’s software bot, but more advanced. The concept is slick. Our side should do the same. (Get us a grant!)
    ____________________________________
    No, this is an underhanded trick of the snake-oil salesman. WUWT has a big enough readership we do not have to resort to “protesters for hire”. (I saw on the net recently it is $14/hr, they are getting cheap. In the early 1980’s it was $10, an hour)

  81. Congratulations – excellent stuff anf great reference material. Unlike others I like the fact that it was clear that individuals presented from home or office as opposed to something slick like normal TV. Also the ads were relevant to me (Dubai and Spain Portugal), so the ad company did a good job too

  82. “TV(Gore) = 15.7 million (from mfo 02:28 prev. thread) . I cannot confirm that, but Reg. Blank above reports about million at 2.25 hours, about 10% into it.”
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    I can’t apologize enough Anthony for not providing a link and failing to confirm the figure.
    The link is:

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/what-if-climate-change-doubters-held-a-debate-and-nobody-came#comments-1120180

    Personally I’m very skeptical of it as no evidence of the figure was provided by the writer. The first comment though is very interesting:

    “You do realize one is a count of how many times the page has been loaded or refreshed and the other is a “current” viewer tally? I have watched parts of both and at the beginning Gore’s broadcast showed both total viewers and current viewers but at some point the removed the current viewers display.While both had the current viewers tally displayed the WUWT channel consistently had ~75% of the viewership of the Gore presentation. This post is utterly inaccurate and pointless and unless you really are just trying to misinform it should be reworked or removed.”

    From the little I saw of the Gory weather = Gory climate nonsense I’m surprised anyone could watch it for more than a minute. WUWT TV was brilliant considering how difficult it is to do what you achieved, a live TV program with worldwide interviews. Even the 24 hour live news channels have dozens of problems every day.

    I suspect that some of the interviews you did, when available on YouTube, could easily go viral. A link to your YouTube on the side bar would be a great help.

  83. I woke up early and started streaming on my iPhone as I made my morning coffe. Then I had it streaming several times throughout the day. I really enjoyed the show. Congratulations on pulling it off!

    I liked it wasn’t super polished and slick like Algore’s superfund(ed) mess.

  84. Thanks Anthony,
    You’re a gracious host, and I enjoyed several segments of programing including the last hour Watts et al power point presentation.

  85. Great work Anthony. It will be interesting to see the fate of your surface station work. Enjoyed all of the presentations. except Mosher’s. I am perplexed why he continues to call himself a “lukewarmer”, which I view as a cowardly position. Let’s stipulate everything Mosher says about CO2, then what you are left with (and he agrees), is sensitivity/feedbacks. So, for a 2x of CO2 we anticipate anywhere from 1-6 degrees C. I suppose a Lukewarmer would predict 3.5 degrees C. Let us see Mosher really defend this number. I would enjoy listening to his reasoned response defending the lukewarmer position.

  86. Loved it particular john kehr segment,when you look at it rhe way he has, the whoes alarmism is just that alarmism…. for profit.Well done can’t wait for the next WUWT broadcast .

  87. The “Reality Drop” thing will result in people cutting and pasting comments onto sites such as this one. (They “win points” by doing so.) It should be easy enough to indentify such cutting and pasting, as no original writing is involved. Perhaps it would be wise to lable them as being “Reality Drop Cut and Paste #6,” or some such thing. It will demonstrate that the person who is contributing the comment is not thinking for themselves, but is merely a parrot.

    I have often been corrected on this site, and at times the people correcting me have been less than polite. However I never mind it, because it is through such exchanges that my mind grows. Hopefully my replies have the same effect.

    However to “Cut and Paste” is not to respond point by point to a person. It is to give the same answer over and over, ignoring the nuances. Rather than an exchange of ideas it is a wall that blocks the free exchange of ideas.

  88. The sound quality was low for the guests and it was a bit disorganized. And I loved every minute I got to watch. Unfortunately I was only able to catch maybe 45 mins total. Can’t wait for YouTube.

    A big thanks to Anthony, the guests, and the community!

  89. (In the KUSI segment, Petersen said they discovered a ‘cooling bias’ in the MMTS that had to be ‘adjusted’. In your segment you pointed out that the MMTS was just more accurate and it was the Stevensen Screens that tended to darken and peal paint with age and warm. Thus the ‘adjust all history cooler’ of GHCN to ‘…
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    KUSI?
    MMTS?
    GHCN?

    What would be really useful for a lay person like myself would be a glossary of acronyms and commonly used terms in climate science. Does one exist? Or…

    REPLY: http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/glossary/

  90. The wonderful thing for me was all the names turned into faces, into real persons and characters. If some of them where not that slick in presenting themselves, it showed the authenticity the more. The best TV-format I can think of. The signal should be clear enough from the noise, ok, but that is all that is needed. That is just a technicality that will improve anyhow.

  91. Some interesting comments throughout –

    A couple of my own – Live television (streaming video) is wayyyyy different than patching together pre-recorded edited and rehearsed video segments. Anthony did a great first effort using patchwork video equipment and letting the guests do THEIR thing THEIR way, and stitching together the overall result with his questions and comments.

    Anthony wasn’t afraid of mis-steps or technical issues, but moved ahead. On the other hand a well financed, slick presentation is what the masses consume – and they are Al’s bread and butter. (or circuses if you prefer)

    Take the learnings Anthony, but an excellent first effort and pat on the back.

    Mike Bentley

  92. Anthony, may I add my congratulations to those of everyone else. You undertook a project which was very ambitious and you pulled it off. You deserve a well-earned rest. IMO the work which you are doing is hugely important for the future of mankind. BTW thanks to your other half. She must be a very tolerant and understanding lady. I hope she appreciates the significance of what you are doing and is suitably proud.

    I caught 3-4 hours and look forward to the Youtube recordings of the rest. For me, the strength of the presentations lay in the “matter of fact” reasonableness of your contributors, the almost complete absence of hype. I found that I learned something new even from those contributors whose books/articles I have read. I was particularly interested in the session with Dr Sebastian Luning as I previously knew little of his work. I will certainly be getting Die Kalte Sonne when it appears in English translation.

  93. Mark and two Cats says:
    November 16, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    “btw: Kenji was cute, but next time, for the sake of intellectual gravitas – get some cats.
    :)”

    But, for professionalism, they would need to cats which/(who) are members of The Union of Concerned Scientists.

  94. I thought you did a great job. The content was very informative and fact based on WUWT. Al Gore’s was disjointed, based mainly on feelings rather than any science.
    Good job Mr. W.

  95. Watched ~ 3 hours and it was really impressive! Looking forward to seeing it all on U-tube.
    Plenty of big THANKS to You all – especially Anthony!

    Brgds from Sweden
    /TJ

  96. I notice that a few posters are stating “WUWT should do…”
    “A comprehensive, world-wide list of… ” would be helpful on WUWT.

    I think we all are aware the Anthony works his socks off for this site. My guess is that if one or two of the suggestions were followed by volunteering to undertake the task Anthony might be pleased and be unlikely to decline such offers of help!

  97. A note about my viewing experience:

    I used a laptop and a smart TV to watch WUWT-TV in parallel, connected to the same wireless router.

    The laptop showed all the adverts in Swedish, but none of these came up on the TV.
    However, on the TV the link got dropped on average every 40 minutes, but sometimes every 5 minutes, so it was necessary to get back in often. Sometimes the program came back without the irritating advert about web presentations.

    For me to watch on the big screen meant I had to connect many times, not just at the beginning of a program. It may be that others had the same experience.

  98. Steven Richards: If you could put the whole thing on DVDs I would willing pay an exhorbitant sum of money for it. Could be done by direct download.

    I second that. Also, make a movie of the highlights and submit it for an Oscar. Submit it for an Emmy as is.

    Lastly, a reference list would be a good addition, with or without an index and exact citations. Possibly your readers, me included, would be able to find some time to contribute.

  99. Excellent effort, managed to watch/listen to about 10 hrs and will certainly watch what I missed on U-tube. Had a few of the technical issues mentioned by others but was watching on Firefox with popups blocked and didn’t see a single ad. There were a few blank screens during the intermission/intro periods which I assume were blocked ads.

    Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to see such a great summary.
    Terry

  100. Tisdale’s basic science presentation on ENSO was a highlight for me. I wish a solar scientist had been on board to present solar dynamics. Why solar? Because climate change theories (CO2, solar, etc) are often presented to the public without first presenting basic planetary physics and gold standard measurments. In order to engage in the discussion of climate change theories, we should be well-versed in basic oceanic, weather, solar, and rotation-driven atmospheric pressure systems science.

  101. Rather than accuse Gore-TV of dishonesty, I would assume that a considerable number of Gore-TV hits will be attributable to channel hopping, while looking for something interesting to watch. When I visit the USA and try and watch TV that’s all I find myself doing until I give up.

    In contrast the majority of WUWT-TV viewers will be those who chose to view on purpose.

    I run a Blog-TV (similar in concept to U-Stream) show, the relative amateurishness is definitely part of the appeal in return for a more personal approach. Even so I run 2 cameras, 3 mics, with 2 macs, I can broadcast skype, screenshots or videos I am watching, you can do some cool stuff as a one man show, but the viewer often has to be patient since it is hard to talk, type and manage the broadcast all at once. Even so, right now, my setup is only managing 240×180 due to a poor upload connection. This technical competence yet imperfection is the norm for online shows. I stopped by for at couple of hours, and from what I saw Anthony did an excellent job, and with a reasonable quality feed.

    In online broadcasting terms, 500 viewers for a first show is a definite hit, my show is overwhelmed with 30. Check the front page of blogtv.com to see how many viewers the most popular show on the site has (currently 500)

    keep up the great work,

  102. Anthony,

    Just a further thought that was passing through my mind as I watched WUWT-TV …

    I wonder if you have thought about approaching the folks at PJTV with a view towards a partnership on future programs. This might take some of the technical load off your shoulders, as they seem to have facilities in place for broadcasting programs with speakers in different locations (well, at least that’s the view from here, so to speak!) Then you would be able to focus all your efforts on interviewing and content – without sacrificing the authenticity which added so much value to your programming.

  103. Anthony (and all those who supported this superb effort),
    great work for a great cause, the protection and advancement of science. I look forward to the day that this sort of scientific honesty gets shown in schools.

  104. @jeremyp99:

    KUSI is a San Diego TV station that had an hour (or two? time flies when having fun ;-) TV episode in the middle of the presentation. Anyone who watched the show on WUWT-TV or looked at the schedule would have seen KUSI.

    MMTS was the type of thermometer under discussion (both in that segment and in the A.Watts presentation on thermometers at the end). As Anthony holds one up in his talk, it ought to be clear what they are to folks who saw that segment. For those who didn’t, they are a smallish (large coffee can) sized thermometer housing with electronic thermometer.

    GHCN Global Historical Climate Network. The collection of real land thermometer readings AFTER being selected and molested adjusted by NOAA / NCDC. The core set of land data used by ALL of the three “independent” (read: mutually coordinating sharing data and processing methods and code) temperate sets of NCDC (National Climatic Data Center or some such), GISS vis GIStemp (Goddard Institute that used to do Space and now does pSudo Science) and Hadley in the UK that can’t find their data anymore and lost their email but can recreated it from GHCN since it’s almost the same thing… or so they said…..

    Hope that helps… and as you can see, it compressed 3 paragraphs (almost a page) into three acronyms…

  105. Jimbo says:
    November 17, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    As for Al Gore and his family they became rich due to their former ties to Occidental Petroleum

    It’s worse that that! Oxy Pete gained so much stock price BECAUSE it bought Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve from the Federal Government at a great discount….

    I watched while it happened (as I’m interested in such stock moving events).

    Now one might wonder WHY the Feds would sell a few hundred boat loads of oil at a discount to a well connected Politician via an oil company he just happened to sign on with at the right time…. but I’m SURE it was all above board and all…

    (IMHO the Gore Family has been making money the old fashioned way for generations… using the Government to finance their wealth building… Crony Capitalism, best when kept in the family and funded by taxpayers…)

Comments are closed.