My presentation at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

From July 13th 2013 in Houston. I was invited to give a presentation, and I adapted Dr. Matt Ridley’s excellent essay: A Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests and added supporting graphs and commentary along with my own work and findings. The video follows.

The video is 53 minutes long including Q&A.

I’m sure some people won’t like what I have to say, and/or will take issue with it. For those that will immediately pounce on the location, Houston, to suggest “big oil” was involved, I’ll provide full disclosure. There was mostly an aerospace interest due to Houston’s role in the space program, there was not a hint of the oil industry there.

I received airfare compensation, meals, and lodging, plus $250 for my three days of time (two of which were travel) for speaking. Compare that to what Al Gore gets.

I welcome suggestions readers might have for improvements to the presentation.

Other related videos include:

About these ads

194 thoughts on “My presentation at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

  1. Is there any part of climatology that DOESN’T have Catastrophic Failures of Quality Control?

    Seems to be something that climos aren’t much concerned about….But bad data —> bad science.

  2. Many thanks to Anthony for this worldclass talk.

    I sometimes have the feeling, that our fight against this CAGW-scam might be in vain. There is a strong catholic church despite losing one fight about truth after the other. Homoepathy is stronger than ever, at least in germany, and people believing in it, don’t care at all, if there is any scientific disproval or not! This might sound a bit pessimistic, but I won’t give up arguing.

  3. Wow! Anthony…HOME RUN with regard to calm, sensible, referenced, and well put together
    presentation. And NO don’t apologize in the least for pointing out the “end game” (i.e., the economic consequences of “shutting down” the current oil/gas/coal run systems!!!)

  4. Anthony,
    Thanks for posting this video and thank you for your efforts on behalf of honest science. The world truly owes a debt of gratitude for WUWT!

  5. Anthony, very interesting talk. Nicely tailored to the MDs.
    Expand your communications reach, and that of cogent correspondents to your blog (like WE) even if we have fundamental disagreement on other energy matters.
    Easy admonition, harder in reality…but vital. Your recently posted Paucheri’s misrepresentation of his own SREX findings is a good example that this is just now a PR war. (Extremes were among the last refuges for climate scoundrels until the SREX findings published saying they were not). Your recently posted expose (aided by WE) of U. Arizona climate change study along AFH 39 (despite devastation by two famous forest fires) is another.

    This used to be a ‘battle’ about the scientific data. That is over. Skeptics have won based on facts like your biased US stations. Now it is a political PR battle to preserve a meme justifying political actions. You have one of the very powerful platforms opposite Obumer. Lets all figure out how to usefully extend your platform to help conclude this ‘war’.

  6. Anthony,
    Excellent presentation, I enjoyed it immensely as did my daughter who is starting college this year. Thanks!
    v/r,
    David Riser

  7. Having spent all (or most) of my life as profesional salesman, I am not scientifically educated.
    However, I was able to follow your presentation very easily.
    The inescapable conclusion (in my opinion) is that regardless of any data or measurements of any kind, the band waggon will continue to roll and the cliff over which it will eventually fall, seems further away than ever.
    Latching on to CO2 pollution (Obama’s term, I think) will be very difficult to counter.

  8. Well done. A calm, rational approach to the climate “problem”. Or, as Zero would put it, “a meeting of the Flat Earth Society”.

  9. What an excellent presentation, Anthony. I really enjoyed it thoroughly – easy to understand and presented very well.
    I am intrigued though by your mention of the change of the temperature screens in 1979, from being whitewashed to being painted. I believe you mentioned that the tests you ran showed that this meant a 1 degree increase in heat from whitewash to paint, and that it was in 1979 that global warming took off as a measurable “fact.” I wanted to hear more about this area.

  10. Still watching and enjoying the presentation.

    $2,500 dollars for a battery after two years sounds expensive. 10¢ per mile in battery costs alone?

  11. An excellent presentation Anthony. As far as any suggested improvements, the section (7) on adaptation might have been a bit short but heck, detailed coverage of each section along could take up considerably more time that the entire presentation.

  12. Well done Anthony. I vowed the whole presentation in New Zealand, just 3 hours after your posting. Another example of how communication is happening so fast these days. And not only that. I am now communicating back to you! I am sure you have been told many many times how important your blog is. it is indeed of international significance. God bless and keep up the good work.

  13. Excellent presentation. Your posts accelerated my transition from alarmist to skeptic.
    Re Soot melting snow
    From a Google books search for: Soot snow melt Franklin
    The Scientific Class-book, Or a Familiar Introduction to the Principles of Physical Science: For the use of Schools and Academies, Part 1, Walter Rogers Johnson, E.C. Biddle, 1836

    P 331 #159 . . .If pieces of white cloth and other pieces of black cloth be laid, in similar circumstances on the surface of snow, it would soon become melted beneath the black cloth, but remain perfectly solid under the white.. In some of the mountainous parts of Europe, the farmers are accustomed to spread black earth or soot over the snow, in the sprint, to hasten its dissolution, and enable them to anticipate the period of tillage.” . . .
    “What advantage is taken in Europe of Franklin’s discovery respecting the melting of snow beneath black surfaces?”

    .

  14. A fine presentation that is clear and thoughtful. If only you would make a rebutal for theatrical release titled “Some TRULY Inconvenient Facts, (or how I learned to stop worrying about the weather and love life)”

  15. Great stuff! I like the intro, that solar stuff / electric car / early Warmist activism disarms a lot of potentially hostile people.

    Doomed Planet
    Anthony Watts interviewed
    by Tom Minchin
    “……….”I started out actually just being a climate alarmist. I got involved with saving the planet by helping other weather forecasters do the same thing through planting trees. Then when I met the State climatologist in California, his data changed my mind and now I’m a skeptic.”…………..”

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/anthony-watts-interviewed

  16. AW says: “For those that will immediately pounce on the location, Houston, to suggest “big oil” was involved, I’ll provide full disclosure.”
    ===============
    Heh. You’re too nice to these, ahem, people. :)

  17. Excellent presentation. Thanks for all you have done to counter the political steam roller that uses CAGW – no wait-climate change- no wait- carbon pollution to forward their agenda.

    Based on the applause just at your mention of WUWT and the comments from this group of doctors, perhaps there is some hope that the message is getting through.

    Sorry about that world famous Houston humidity though. Perhaps the doctors could fix you up with climate adaptable hearing aids or better yet come back in the fall.

    PB

  18. Excellent presentation. I had to chuckle that Murphy’s Law never seems to take a break, kind of like magical CO2. ;)

    Anthony, I have a thought you might want to consider. Could WUWT provide a repository for graphs, images, videos, etc. related to climate skepticism that anyone could contribute to. I’m sure there are several individuals that have built presentations like you did here. I think it would be a great resource to have a catalog of these to reference whenever we are having discussions with other people. For example, having Dr. Soon’s charts would be a great resource. The reference pages are great as far as they go, but this would be a nice extension.

  19. Very nice presentation Anthony. May I ask if you will include the sun’s current behavior in any of your presentations in the near future especially with the sun possibly reversing polarity and lack of sunspots? And perhaps what effect the sun has on earth temperatures?

  20. Thanks Anthony, on a lighter note perhaps, I’m afraid the problems with hearing aid batteries don’t improve but the effects may do. I’m retired and am fortunate enough to be able to play a lot of golf. You’d be amazed (perhaps you wouldn’t really) how often the battery starts beeping to warn of it’s impending demise when one is crouched over a crucial 3 foot putt. For those that don’t know about these things the battery beeps slowly at first but becomes more and more “demanding” as it nears death.
    Do you back off the putt and put your aid in your pocket or do you, as I generally do, carry on and miss the putt anyway as the battery reaches a crescendo?

  21. @Joe Crawford says: “… the section (7) on adaptation might have been a bit short …”

    I love thinking about adaptation and would love to hear Anthony talk more about it. This presentation was mostly about science though so I think it was appropriate not to bring up the policy aspects of adaptation, which then makes it a shorter discussion. The point that we are adapting and will continue to adapt pretty much stands on it’s own but maybe tie in the fertilization effect to really drive it home? I.E. we will change crops and use the extra CO2 to our advantage.

  22. Very, very good and fair presentation Anthony. h/t. Seems all of the non-climatologist scientists and doctors there grasped the data correctly.

  23. Still watching…….great presentation.

    Suggestion: during the showing of the graph showing the temperature rise since 1850 you might suggest that some warming was expected as we came out of the Little Ice Age. Also mention the 1910 to 1940 temperature rise.

  24. I recall hearing that the little ice age was bad perhaps more on the negative impact to agriculture than just temperature, specifically wheat, which could be ruined by wind or late season rain. So even if the definition of extreme weather in the LIA is different from today (flight cancellations), perhaps more extreme weather events may be an indicator of cooling instead of warming?

  25. Thanks Anthony.
    For me, one of the key points in your presentation is the logarithmic effect of CO2
    Your salt analogy is interesting.
    The analogy I have found very useful and easy to understand is the painted window analogy.
    While painting a window to reduce incoming light, the first coat of paint will cut out 90% of all the light. Subsequent coats will only marginally increase the effectiveness.

  26. Another example that truth is pretty inexpensive (Anthony’s very modest speaking fee) for those willing to search for it and think.

    Our society is in a tailspin when we award outlandish speaking fees for Warmistas that are only in the business of brainwashing people with propaganda.

    On the other hand, well done, Anthony. Great presentation! Post it on YouTube and let’s all help it go viral.

  27. Excellent presentation! Thank you for sharing this. It should be required viewing for all high school and college students. I think one important addition would be the tight relationship between the temperature anomaly and sunspot cycles, as well as the longer term solar cycles.

  28. pesadia says:
    August 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    You wrote: Having spent all (or most) of my life as profesional salesman, I am not scientifically educated.

    Here’s a definition you may use to start your scientific education: Science deals with facts that are documentable and reproducible.

  29. On Arctic Sea Ice decline.
    This is one of the main talking points of those who support (C)AGW, the ‘canary in the coal mine’ and (might be) worthy of some extra attention.
    Why not question the relationship between Arctic Sea Ice decline and CO2-Global Warming?
    Is there a case to be made to contribute this to a natural cycle?

    I found this (If correct) an interesting graph:

    Showing that Arctic Sea Ice was actually lower before 1975.
    Anecdotal data also suggests that periods of declining sea ice might not be that unusual.

    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
    Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. Washington Post (Associated Press) 1922

    Arctic Climate’s alarming change
    A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic and if the Antarctic ice cap and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions and people living in lowlands along the shores would be inundated said Dr. Hans Ahlmann noted Swedish geophysisist to-day at the University of California’s Geophysical Institute.
    Dr. Ahlmann added that temperatures in the Arctic have increased by 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. An ‘enormous’ rise from the scientific standpoint. Waters in the Spitsbergen area, in the same period, have risen from three to five degrees in temperature, and one to one and a half millimetres yearly in level. ‘The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis.’ said Dr. Ahlmann. He pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along the western Spitsbergen lasted three months. Now it lasts eight months.
    Townsville Daily Bulletin Saturday 31 May 1947

  30. Excellent watch..!
    Very well done and the ability for my kids to grasp the concepts presented was great to watch. Now its not just dad and what i have been saying its others in the field as well..

  31. Can you stick this as top-post for a few days? It deseves it. I would like to point a few persons to it and right on top would be better, then they won’t even have to dig down for it. Please.

  32. One tiny correction: The chart which you attributed to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute actually bears the imprint of the similarly-named, warmist Woods Hole Research Center, a confusion which I believe was the intent of the latter.

  33. The presentation was excellent! However one graph was not quite right. At the 22.00 minute mark, you showed a graph by David Rose that showed the flat line from August 1997 to August 2012 and then said this was 16 years as it was written on the graphic. It is only 15 years (and perhaps a month). I would have said something like the following:
    The graphic says 16 years however it is only 15 years, unless David Rose was thinking in terms of from January 1997 to December 2012. However since that article appeared, three data sets have surpassed 16 years with a slope that is at least a little negative.

    For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 16 years, 4 months. (goes to June)
    For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since April 1997 or 16 years, 3 months. (goes to June)
    For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 8 months, or 200 months! (goes to July) RSS is 200/204 or 98% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.2/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.2/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

  34. wayne says August 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Can you stick this as top-post for a few days? It deseves it. I would like to point a few persons to it and right on top would be better, then they won’t even have to dig down for it. Please.

    Seconding Wayne’s motion.

    .

  35. @ Martin A says:
    “$2,500 dollars for a battery after two years sounds expensive. 10¢ per mile in battery costs alone?”

    This is common in battery powered cars, which is why in the UK a recent practice is to lease the electric car and rent the batteries, so when they need replacing it’s not your problem, though this no doubt falls under some subsidy/tax relief for the car manufacturers and then the government socialises the actual high costs amongst other tax payers…

  36. Why would you use relative humidity trends to address whether there’s an increase in total water vapor?

  37. Very well done, Anthony – solid, rigorous science yet laypeople and schoolkids will follow it easily, the people we really want to get the message out to. Seconding Rocky Road, I’d say this presentation should not only go on youtube but be shown in every schoolroom to every grade, at every corporate board meeting, at every service club meeting and in every church and synagogue – and in the Oval Office! I’d send copies to der Fuehrer, Obersturmfuehrers Kerry, Moniz and Jewell, and most of all to Schutzstaffelgruppenfuehrer McCarthy . . .

    And let’s don’t forget the attendees at Gauleiter Boxer’s “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now” Senate committee meeting . . ..

  38. I’ve been listening to the presentation and watching on and off, so far the sequencing looks really good, especially the time you spend at the beginning leading up to the creation of WUWT, that helps establish your level of interest and detail so that everything that follows can’t be readily dismissed.

    A few notes from the latter half:

    24:21 6. Climate sensitivity.
    I haven’t noticed a definition. If there isn’t one up to this point there needs to be one here, just saying it’s the temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is fine, people who notice the log relationship that implies can wait for your explanation, people who don’t notice will need you explanation. While people will figure it out in the next two graphs, a brief mention will help keep people focused on the presentation.

    2515: Big flaw here (to me, at least), though probably not to the typical audience. The graph credits the source as the “Woods Hole Research Center”, the text says “Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.” The former is is a bunch of warmist post normal science types, WHOI is a research center with a long record of accomplishment worthy of respect.

    39:04 Pet peeve – Only use backslashes for Windows path names and Unix character escapes.
    Both graphic and text say 1\2 or 3\4\5, please make them say 1/2 or 3/4/5.

    41:18 Typo, ISN”T should be ISN’T. Ah, you typed a capital apostrophe. Perhaps you could bold that text instead of SHOUTING.

    For more Woods, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/when-you-dont-like-the-poll-numbers-make-up-your-own-poll/#comment-406771

  39. _Jim says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    wayne says August 17, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Can you stick this as top-post for a few days? It deseves it. I would like to point a few persons to it and right on top would be better, then they won’t even have to dig down for it. Please.

    Seconding Wayne’s motion.

    Link directly to the posting, not to the front page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/17/my-presentation-at-doctors-for-disaster-preparedness/

    Then it doesn’t matter if it’s “sticky” or not.

  40. Saren says:
    August 17, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    “I love thinking about adaptation and would love to hear Anthony talk more about it. ”

    An interesting bit of adaptation, not necessarily to sea level rise but to a lack of land:
    Singapore’s area has grown by 20% since the 1960ies.
    They buy sand from Indonesia and Malaysia. Allegedly sometimes illegally.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/singapore/7221987/Singapore-accused-of-launching-Sand-Wars.html

    http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/02/14/sand-war-singapore-vs-neighbours/

    I think they should get the sand for free though, as a compensation for the pollution of their air when the forests in Indonesia and/or Malaysia burn…

  41. Oh maybe that black carbon from burning actually causes warming. I just like the idea of compensation for cooling – I think Canada would have a case against China for adding to our cooling :)

    Anyway that is really interesting I had no idea that was going on. As Anthony mentioned in his presentation we do seem able to cope with rising sea levels fairly well.

  42. Excellent, Anthony. I especially liked the bit about CO2 not being smart. How does it know which cities to beam its little heat rays upon, and which to ignore?

    The doctors got a chuckle out of that, too. They know quite a bit about CO2.

  43. “…we are adapting and will continue to adapt..”

    Moreover, even the planet is adapting – clouds, thunderstorms, other negative forcings.

  44. I think more needs to be said about the NOAA methods of mixing good and bad weather station sites. Is that process public or black box? And why not add a few slides on ice cores and satellite temperature data? One other slide listing all the places warming has supposedly been hidden out of regular view would help too, like deep ocean and under Antarctic ice shelf, etc.

  45. Werner Brozek says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 8 months, or 200 months! (goes to July) RSS is 200/204 or 98% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    I think you can add another month. If you use 1996.84 I think that takes you back to November 1996 and I still get a flat trend. Although, I’m not absolutely positive how woodfortrees does this conversion.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.84/to/plot/rss/from:1996.84/trend

  46. Richard M says:
    August 17, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    I think you can add another month. If you use 1996.84 I think that takes you back to November 1996 and I still get a flat trend. Although, I’m not absolutely positive how woodfortrees does this conversion.

    Note: For those who hate nitpickyness, just go to the next entry.

    The way WFT works is by going to the next whole month from any number you put in. 10 months is 0.83333 of a year. So if you put in 1996.84, you get 200 months or from December 1996, just as if you would have put in 1996.9. However if you put in 1996.83, you get 201 months. You can easily verify this for yourself by clicking “Raw data” and seeing how many months are shown and also by checking the starting month. So while 1996.84 may appear to be 201 months, it is only 200 months. But that does not mean you are necessarily wrong about the extra month. The negative slope for 200 months is -0.000 24, but the positive slope for 201 months is +0.000 086. According to my calculations, the 0 point would have been hit around November 8. Of course this assumes a smooth transition from November 1 to December 1 which I have no way of verifying. Without having a clue what August will bring, I can justify claiming that the flat slope extends for 200.75 months. The 0 point is at 0.240 and the July anomaly was 0.222. So if August should stay at 0.222, then we would have at least 201.75 months of no warming. But something lower than 0.222 could easily give 202 months. We will have to wait and see.

  47. Might I sugggest that Anthony place a permalink in the tool bar for his presentations? It would give many of us who share this kind of info a quick place to look for it and link to.

    Bill

  48. It was worth spending 53 minutes on your video because I learned some things I did not know. You are a good presenter but you are still a jerk for what you said about my work. J. Scott Armstrong has good advice for you. The one fact that I found most interesting in your presentation is that water vapor in air has been slowly going down since 1948. This is exactly the opposite of what IPCC says because according to them it should be increasing to implement that positive water vapor feedback they keep babbling about. You may recall that It is this positive water vapor feedback that is required to reach doubling sensitivities of two or three degrees that we are threatened with. Pure Arrhenius warming is only 1.1 degrees Celsius, not enough to frighten anyone. But water vapor feedback is not positive but negative according to Ferenc Miskolczi and decreasing water vapor in the atmosphere proves it. Next, volcanic eruptions. You have that all wrong. There is no such thing as volcanic cooling. The bulk of the eruption ends up in the stratosphere which it first warms. Cooling follows a year or two later but it stays there and never gets to the ground level. Aerosol cooling they talk about is hugely overrated. Such volcanic cooling as has been identified has nothing to do with volcanism but is simply a case of normal La Nina cooling, misidentified. The two volcanoes you show are Pinatubo and El Chichon. The “Pinatubo cooling” found on temperature curves is nothing of the sort – it just happens to be an ordinary La Nina in the right place where a volcanic cooling was expected. That is because Pinatubo went off exactly at the peak of an El Nino which was then immediately followed by La Nina cooling. See Figure 9 in my book. El Chichon is exactly the opposite – it went off at the bottom of a La Nina valley and was immediately followed by the 1983 El Nino. There just isn’t any La Nina in the right place to use as a stand-in for its volcanic cooling and volcanologists have been scratching their heads about it ever since. You would know all this if you had bothered to read my book. If you check your temperature curve you will find that the giant Krakatao has a miserably small cooling despite anecdotal reports about it because it falls into an intermediate space between an EL Nino and a La Nina. The anecdotes refer to a celestial display, not temperature. And the greatest eruption of the twentieth century, Katmai, has no cooling whatsoever associated with it because it erupted when an El Nino was just beginning to form. Now let’s look at the Arctic. It may not surprise you that it cannot possibly be caused by greenhouse warming. Arctic warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, after 2000 years of slow, linear cooling. It paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. Greenhouse warming is ruled out by the laws of physics because there was no measurable increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the time. Its probable cause is a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. That is why the Arctic is the only place in the world that is still warming. The rest of the world is going through a so-called “pause” of warming that nobody seems to understand. That is because they are either stupid or ignorant or both. This lack of warming has now lasted for 15 years. The IPCC was established in 1988 and ten years later, in 1998, warming stopped. This stoppage has now lasted for fifteen years, five years longer than the period when they could observe warming first hand. The pause should accordingly be the new normal since its length exceeds that of the previous short period of warming in action. The cause of the pause is no mystery, for it follows directly from Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse theory. He published it in 2007 but was shouted down in the blogosphere and ignored by “real” climate scientists. But in seven years no peer reviewed objections were published, no doubt not for lack of trying. In 2010 he found a way to prove his theory using existing data. NOAA has a database of weather balloon observations going back to 1948. Miskolczi used it to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere over time and found that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air had no influence whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Right off the bat, any and all predictions of warming based on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide are invalid. Since they were often used to justify passing emission control laws these laws were passed under false premises and should be voided. This also makes the theory of anthropogenic global warming a pseudo-science that should be cast off into the waste basket of history.

    [Good comments, thank you. Where do you want to interject paragraphs returns? Mod]

  49. One suggestion.

    Don’t just read the words from the chart. The audience is capable of reading. And you are much much better speaking more spontaneously

  50. Dear Anthony,

    If you choose to snip this entire comment, that’s just fine. I will completely understand. It is going to be a long one. You asked for suggestions and………. for what they’re worth from this non-scientist, anti-CAGW, person (I watched the video twice, btw),

    HERE THEY ARE! #[:)]

    Appearance and Speaking Style

    Perfect. Don’t change a thing. You are the ultimate media professional, pleasant, competent, articulate, and well-groomed (sure nice you don’t wear a beard — that ALWAYS makes me wonder, “Why?” even if only vaguely…. “Is he suffering from depression? Insecure? Chip on his shoulder?” I’ve never seen a man who looked better in a beard than clean shaven (or with a tasteful moustache – ahem). Good volume and ad libbed responses to audience reactions. Engaging sense of humor — MORE sarcasm and mocking humor could be used; you do this with finesse. You are a natural comedian; loved the “Watt’s up, docs?” Your laughing at your own joke was highly appealing and no doubt made your audience even more ready and able to listen to your message than it already was.

    New Title

    Can Humans Control the Earth’s Weather? Ten Tests

    [00:30] Re: “What We’ll Cover”

    [Edited version – some for clarity or accuracy, some for style]

    1. Observed Temperature Trend
    2. Amplification and Feedback Error
    3. Aerosols
    4. Arctic Sea Ice
    5. Climate Models Fail
    6. [OMIT — Climate Sensitivity is an unhelpful concept — CO2 lags temp.]
    6. (7.) Adaptation to Climate
    7. (8.) Future Generations
    8. (9.) Human CO2 Emissions
    9. (10.) Integrity of Surface Temperature Record [Note: Make the bulk of this part of a separate presentation; it would make a great one.]

    [01:18] About Me

    Great! Just the right amount and it was all relevant and not mere narcissistic grandstanding.
    Nice pace. ADD: your business name and its website (in yellow) AND wattsupwiththat.com (in yellow). Loved re: the electric car, “When it was working… it was great!” LOL.

    Re: Arbor Day — DELETE “… and so I flew out to Lincoln, Nebraska…” and summarize entire story to: “As a result of my efforts, a quarter of a million trees were planted each year for ADD: ___ years.”

    Temp trend graphs all good — nice use of laser pointer, helpful.

    So many amazing things about your life have prepared you to be the ultimate Truth in Science Warrior — teacher pushing you into public speaking… student job where Stevenson Screen showed up… you know many more, I’m sure; “… everything in our past is God’s perfect preparation for the future that only He can see.” [Corrie ten Boom in The Hiding Place]

    Ten Tests

    [13:30] 1. Observed Temperature Trend So Far

    ADD (perhaps) “… [cooling in the ’70’s] and in the1950’s.”

    [14:45] Re: “anomaly” ADD a slide showing on one side “Anomaly Graph” next to “Actual Temp. Data Graph” to make a blatant comparison of two types of graphs

    2. Amplification and Feedback Error

    — After any initial slide asks as a question: “… Perform as Advertised?” (or other question) Change later slides to read: “Did NOT Perform as Advertised.” (or to other statement)

    – Don’t even mention CAGW conjecture; that only dignifies it.
    -OMIT part about no temp. gauges at the poles, etc,… more distracting and potentially confusing than helpful
    — KEY to emphasize: Polar temperatures are amplified whether earth is cooling or warming.

    [16:55] ADD: Explicitly say: “Note, we are only talking about a difference of 1 to 3 degrees Celcius here.” (The graph makes the temp. spread look large, thus very significant.)

    3. Aerosols

    [17:55] Re: “They claim … had to do with the fact that WAS BECAUSE OF

    “… their excuse lately … .” — GOOD
    — NO big volcanic eruptions — GOOD

    ADD: “AND human aerosol emissions are negligible.”

    [18:57] Revise to say: “Aerosols alone can’t explain the failure of the models to predict [what really happened].”

    [19:05] Revised: “Clouds, made by the Earth, are a more plausible explanation.”

    4. Arctic Sea Ice

    [19:48] “… worse than expected… .” — It’s not worse, it is simply NOT A PROBLEM per se.

    [19:59] “Arctic sea ice is in decline has declined.” [“in decline” sounds like a steady trend]

    [20:15] OMIT bit about “we don’t know if it’s a bi-polar dichotomy; we just don’t know… .”
    Just EMPHASIZE the big fact: “The Antarctic is increasing and it has __ times more ice area than the Arctic.”

    [21:12] OMIT soot, coal melt theory discussion — produces more confusion in audience, “Hmm, there was a LOT of soot in 1700’s England… hm, … . ” Just keep to your power points (remember this is a PUBLIC RELATIONS battle, too — a confused mind will shut down and not as readily hear what other facts you are presenting if you give them too much to process easily or the message on that point is slightly ambiguous — your audience is the general public, not just brainy M.D.’s). Also, coal is a good thing for the U.S. economy right now; until thorium reactors are on line (and they are a GOOD idea), clean coal is a good thing (and that industry needs all the help it can get with the Obamanation’s EPA breathing down their necks, i.e., don’t inadvertently help Obama, here).

    5. Climate Model Fail “the Pause” [no help with the CAGW “pause” propaganda] [22:05]

    [23:05] Re: Spencer Graph, revise to read: “have failed.” (are failing is too weak)

    [Generally, no questions, “Is this correct? Can we know that?” Instead, simply declare the truth.]

    [23:30] FUN comedy from “Nature” clowns’ quote, “… we don’t know why… .” LOL.

    [23:40] Replace: “they don’t fully understand just yet”
    WITH “based solely on conjecture and speculation.”

    [23:52] “Natural factors overwhelm man-made human factors.”

    — ADD “Further, nothing unprecedented is happening (v. a v. Holocene, Roman, and Medieval periods); human CO2 did not increase, but temperatures did. [must keep emphasizing the “human CO2″ factor which is the key; no one denies global warming per se]

    6. OMIT Climate Sensitivity — there is NO evidence CO2 (much less human CO2) causes temperatures to rise; there IS EVIDENCE (per Salby and the Swedish scientist who replicated Salby’s results) temp. rise causes CO2 to rise, delayed by a quarter cycle.

    That is, don’t concede the CAGW conjecture by “assuming [ad argumentum]” it “MIGHT” be a real mechanism. It only confuses your audience or, worse, gives the CAGWers aid in their chicanery.

    OMIT Pat Michaels’ Sensitivity Graph — it is UN-helpful in an oral presentation.

    [25:00] OMIT “… a lot of people are going to that number [2 or 2.2] now” – NO, NO, NO! No real scientists are agreeing there is ANY proven CO2 forcing at this time.

    [25:22] Graph showing media’s typical CO2 and temp. one-on-one relationship mantra is NOT helpful — OMIT — There IS a close correlation between CO2 and temp, it’s just that CO2 lags temp..

    [25:42] Soup Analogy — excellent way to describe logarithmic property of CO2, BUT, salt is very powerful, gram for gram, the analogy implies that CO2 is likewise very powerful in small amounts. Yes, the CO2 has the declining effectiveness you describe, BUT, its overall effect is NEGLIGIBLE (don’t mention this at all — not the paint on window, nothing; it only reinforces the CAGW speculation that CO2 drives temperature).

    6. (7.)Adaptation

    [28:10] “… is probably far easier and makes more sense than highly uncertain attempts to avert it.”

    — ADD facts about people moving to hotter areas of U.S. and adapting just fine to higher temps. (e.g., from New York to Florida)

    7. (8.) Climate and Future Generations

    — (after mentioning wealth factor) ADD: 2) future generations will also have more knowledge and advanced technology [might want to add in the example of everyone assuming the world would soon run out of copper and then………….. SILICON…. no shortage of sand!].

    8. (9.) Human CO2 Emissions

    [30:12] ADD: There is NO proven problem; Nature emits 96% of the CO2, there is no evidence humans’ 4% does ANYTHING, much less anything significant to earth’s temperature.

    — Re: “Fossil fuels are not going away… ” — REWORD so that you don’t imply that they ought to go away soon — they are doing a great job for the U. S. economy (we must remain adamant on this in the face of the pressure on that industry from the EPA) and that’s fine. Good point that when they do run out, IT WILL BE GRADUALLY, as their price in a free market goes up, replacements will arise.

    [31:22] Re: “If climate change is an issue, and let’s assume it is… .” [this may have been a wise thing to say 5 years ago, not NOW, CAGW is SO OVER, now, don’t concede and, thus, help perpetuate it].

    9. (10.) Integrity of Surface Temperature Record

    [31:45] MAKE THIS A SEPARATE PRESENTATION (it deserves it; much excellent detail to tell)

    — Just list the various example U.S. sites and their BASICS (not their whole interesting, but too long for this speech, story); but, DO include the Baltimore, MD 13 new records hilarity, great humor, there!
    — KEEP in the “Results: USHCN… “graphs

    [40:00] NICE use of laser pointer re: NOAA’s homogenizing flim-flam (to .3).

    ****************************************************
    Well, that’s it! My suggestions. GREAT JOB, ANTHONY!

    YOU ARE A TRUE HERO, America owes you so much.

    Thank you.

    Yours most sincerely,

    Janice

  51. We still don’t have any good pictures of Big Foot and UFO’s??

    Obviously Big Foot flies the UFO’s and is simply smarter than we are and can either inject a false signal in the camera or simply not be where the camera is recording.

    Problem solved!! 8>)

  52. I shouldn’t be surprised based on the the tone and quality of your postings Mr Watts, but seeing you (if not in person) engaging an audience in a live setting was really refreshing. Your presentation, voice, tone, and overall delivery show a side of yourself unknown to me. It is good to know how we’ll you comport yourself online and live which leads me to a further appreciation of your efforts. Thank you, with deepest gratitude.

  53. I did not know about your background as an environmentalist or the extent of your experience in broadcast media……….we share many things.

    Your presentation, telling it from knowledge in your head while using legit video/graphs is about as authentic as it gets.

    There are some things that separate you from an Al Gore presentation.

    1. You are using legit data and
    2. You walk the walk as well as talk the talk

    Toughest thing for people viewing information on the internet today is what to do after getting access to the incredible, convincing sounding sources………….do they discard what they see as garbage or store it as knowledge in their brains?

  54. Am I the only one having problems to watch the video?
    Ive tried for two days shifting between Crome Explorer Mozilla but get “time session running out” with all options and I cant find the video on You Tube..

  55. @antiactivist

    I use Mozilla Firefox and don’t experience any problems. To find the Youtube-Video use the context-menu(right click) on the video in firefox. I don’t know whether this works in Chrome as well?

  56. Dear Anthony
    This is an excellent presentation you also gave credit to other people’s work that you used in your talk, which is very commendable of you.
    You invited comments and criticism of your presentation and for a change I have nothing to add :-)

  57. Bill H says:
    August 17, 2013 at 8:25 pm
    Might I sugggest that Anthony place a permalink in the tool bar for his presentations? It would give many of us who share this kind of info a quick place to look for it and link to.

    Bill

    Bill beat me to it. I was going to suggest that if room could be found on the toolbar, a place for all videos that you endorse would be a worthwhile addition to the site.

  58. One of the major problems encounter of when discussing the effect of CO2 on temperature is the math concept of logarithmic relations. Most people simply do not understand the differences between linear, exponential, and logarithmic functions. Forget that, most do not even know what a function is.

    Before you know it, while you’re explaining log functions, the eyes of the audience glaze over when they start wondering when they can go home and have a beer or watch America has talent.

    Sad really. What skeptics need are some good marketers.

  59. Moana Loa may be an inactive volcano but there will still be CO2 migration from the surrounding ground. I bet the CO2 concentration in your lecture theatre was up to over 5000ppmv after your talk.

  60. Yet our President would characterize this as a meeting of the flat earth society.

  61. Having read this blog for years and also seen the occasional broadcasts, I know your speaking style, but this is an excellent example. You come across as a sensible and rational human being. By contrast, so many environmentalists seem to specialise in bluster and abuse of anybody who is not a fully signed up believer. Very easy to follow and informative.

  62. “Hi Anthony- A very valuable and informative presentation. I hope you do more of these!
    Roger Sr”

    I wonder how many other presenters on this topic over the years have received such a kind and friendly nod from Roger Sr. That should be a source of great satisfaction and pride for you.

    Congratulations!

  63. What an excellent talk Anthony. You were clear, concise and convincing. It’s great to see someone with such a grip of the situation being able to articulate it so simply. *claps*

  64. I would, perhaps, add that a single temperature metric tells you nothing meaningful about “global climate”. Show them Yad06.

  65. You have such an easy sense of humor. Your easy manner and the lack of pretentiousness let the facts shine like a Spring day.

  66. Janis you suggest making the same errors CAGWers do, which is to make statements as if they have been rigorously studied when in fact they have not been so studied under standard research methodology. Your suggestions begin to make the presentation look like an agenda.

    And beards, mustaches, short hair, long hair, no hair, what does that have to do with the price of tomatoes?

  67. Brian H August 18, 2013 at 12:48 am says: “…Excellent comments, please respond to Mod. to insert para separations….”
    I am perfectly willing, made a PDF file for that, but where does it go?

  68. Thanks Anthony for a superb, enjoyable … memorable! …presentation.

    I’ve been using your site for years and this was extremely helpful in tying all the major findings together in a great Video.

    A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.
    John C. Maxwell

    Thanks to you and your work many have been shown the way to truth.

  69. Anthony, Wonderful presentation and thank you for your comment to promote Thorium nuclear power!

  70. Finally, I stole a few minutes to watch the video. Your presentation is brilliant, brilliant, and brilliant. It will go viral. Prepare for blowback. God Bless You.

  71. Totally awesome lecture. Even though I follow WUWT there was much that was new to me. Just one minor quibble. You implied that we did not have electric telegraph 150 years ago:

    On August 16, 1858 (155 years ago) the first transatlantic electric telegraph message was sent and here is what it said:
    “Europe and America are united by telegraphy. Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace and good will toward men.” Queen Victoria then sent a telegram of congratulation to President James Buchanan at his summer residence in the Bedford Springs Hotel in Pennsylvania and expressed a hope that it would prove “an additional link between the nations whose friendship is founded on their common interest and reciprocal esteem.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable#First_contact

    REPLY: I was alluding to widespread use as a mechansism for news dissemination, early use was mostly for railroad business. – Anthony

  72. Your emphasis on siting issues and the surface temperature record is extremely important. It gives people something to sink their teeth into and it reveals a foundational problem with claims of global warming. Teachers should send kids and parents out looking for weather stations. Most important to me, you carve in stone the total lack of attention shown empirical matters by those who control temperature measurements. (When is BEST going to pony up and do the statistics on your five-fold classification of weather stations? What is their problem? Why do they show a total lack of attention to empirical matters?)

  73. Anthony, make this post a sticky at the top. Keep it there for a considerable amount of time. You have great popular appeal.

  74. Excellent presentation.

    It’s great that you avoided criticizing individuals and organisms and that you never alluded to fraud. You stuck to science.

    So are you going to tell us one day what role you played in the AR5 leak ?

    François

  75. Speaking to the ten points of doubt about global warming – specifically the urban heat island, I think its effects are way underestimated. In my case, I live on the edge of a MN city of 100,000 population. Often at 10 pm at night, the temperature in the middle of the city is a full 8 degrees warmer than it is is on either side of the city , just a couple miles out of town and away from the bricks and blacktop. FYI, our rural airport shows no increase in temperature comparing the most recent 25 years to the 25 years starting in 1900, (obviously not an airport in 1900). In fact it was 2 tenths of a degree colder in the most recent 25 years. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM!!!!???!!! Ain’t one. John late Daly found the same – rural weather stations see no warming.

  76. In your graph of absolute global surface temperature ( as apposed to anomaly) you start the graph at the bottom at zero, however there are an additional 273 degrees below that that you did not show ( or 460 if it was Fahrenheit ). Showing those extra degrees would be more dramatic as well as more scientific, as 0 is an arbitrary selection to use, unless it was 0 K.

  77. Re: (When is BEST going to pony up and do the statistics on your five-fold classification of weather stations? What is their problem? Why do they show a total lack of attention to empirical matters?)

    What if they already did that work, and decided the results would only confuse people?

  78. KevinM says:
    August 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    “What if they already did that work, and decided the results would only confuse people?”

    That would make them typical Alarmists; that is, they would demonstrate a degree of elitism and arrogance that can only be described as paternalistic. No paternalist can honestly engage in scientific method, open debate, or democracy.

  79. “I received airfare compensation, meals, and lodging, plus $250 for my three days of time (two of which were travel) for speaking. Compare that to what Al Gore gets.”

    If he gets paid so much more than you, doesn’t that prove he’s right?

  80. @Janice Moore –
    I would second some of your comments on specifics, Janice, but withal Anthony’s presentation is terrific, and I would rather feel that I was speaking from a position of weakness if I were to offer any more criticisms.

    They key, once again, is to get this presentation into mass circulation. We skeptics can sit here and pat ourselves and Anthony on the back ad infinitum, but the word has to be gotten out to all the uninformed sheeple that hear only the MSM and BloodyMess versions of events.

    We should also relentlessly bombard the MSM and the administration’s functionaries, from Obersturmfuehrer Gina McCarthy and Torquemada-off-with-all-those-heretics-at-Interior Sally Jewell, all the way up to der Fuehrer himself – and to those two gauleiters, Boxer and Feinstein who are so eager to shove carbon taxes down our throats.

  81. Anthony,
    Why not make this into a CD and send it to all US Congressmen.

    REPLY: Congressmen and women don’t generally open or even read mail from their constituents. They leave that to staffers. Mail from people outside their district generally gets the circular file. – Anthony

  82. Chad Wozniak says:
    August 18, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    @Janice Moore –
    They key, once again, is to get this presentation into mass circulation.

    Youtube, anyone?

  83. A media blitz is again just like the AGWers bag of tricks and that got old didn’t it. If the data is worth a damn, it will speak for itself. And should. A calm approach that speaks of unanswered questions rises above the snake oil sales by leaps and bounds and in the end will be heard after the snake oil sales people get run out of town under their own unfullfilled promises. I wouldn’t change a thing.

  84. Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
    August 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    Hi Anthony- A very valuable and informative presentation. I hope you do more of these!
    Roger Sr
    ===============================================================
    If he does, I hope he gets paid more !!

  85. RoHa says:
    August 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    “I received airfare compensation, meals, and lodging, plus $250 for my three days of time (two of which were travel) for speaking. Compare that to what Al Gore gets.”

    If he gets paid so much more than you, doesn’t that prove he’s right?

    Truth is free–You’ll note Anthony hasn’t charged anybody here a single cent to watch this.

    Compare THAT to the cost of what Al Gore demands.

    I’d have to be paid about what Gore makes per speech to sit through one of his “dissastertations”.
    Same goes for an Obama speech.

    I’m a victim of PTSD–from lofty yet demonic purveyors of “Inconvenient Truths” and “Affordable Care Acts”.

  86. Anthony Congratulations. Excellent presentation.Surely there must be some way to get it before Obama’s minions,the congress and the general public via at least one of the MSM outlets.

  87. Calm well spoken with not one ad hominem or sarcastic attack. Well – maybe at the end where “we are using chemo to attack a cold. ” The warmists are unable to give a presentation such as this as they do not have any science behind them. Thanks

  88. “Taking chemotherapy for a cold.” That says it all.
    However, since the government and those it subsidizes are all in the profit from chemotherapy business, it is going to be a long, hard fight.

  89. 4TimesAYear says:
    August 17, 2013 at 11:51 am

    Could that soot also be from volcanic ash?

    No. Volcanic ash is principally very fine glass fragments, with some powdered rock, and occasionally a small amount of soot from burned vegetation. It might have a similar affect on snow though.

  90. RE: Temperature Station siting. I can’t help but think some of the poor siting is by design.

    REPLY: never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony

  91. Fabulous presentation, Anthony. Any chance you could post somewhere the collection of charts / graphs used for your talk? They are excellent. Keep up the good work.

  92. A very interesting question at the end regarding how to counterattack whatever the latest iteration of the latest “disaster” heading – Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Carbon Pollution/Extreme Weather/Whatever Next. Its like those whack-a-mole games at the carnival. I guess we should all equip ourselves with a NERF bat and swat the latest mole whenever it pops up. I doubt it will fix the problem but it will feel good to whack the mole.

  93. Yes I agree with all of the above positive comments Anthony. I disagree with the person who says not to read the slide text. Its difficult to listen and read at the same time. Reading reinforces the point. Well done. It needs even wider distribution. Cheers.

  94. A caveat in the discussion of declining CO2 emissions and energy use in the U.S. in recent years is the rise in U.S. coal exports. Just as ice gain/loss should be viewed globally for global warming context, so should coal burning.

    Quarter/ Exports million st. tons/ Year Ago % Change
    Jan-13 31.835 11%
    Oct-12 28.006 1%
    Jul-12 31.563 22%
    Apr-12 37.534 39%
    Jan-12 28.642 8%
    Oct-11 27.679 33%
    Jul-11 25.976 23%
    Apr-11 26.987 23%
    Jan-11 26.617 49%
    Oct-10 20.87 18%
    Jul-10 21.074 39%
    Apr-10 21.965 70%
    Jan-10 17.807 34%
    Oct-09 17.653 -21%
    Jul-09 15.159 -25%
    Apr-09 12.951 -44%
    Jan-09 13.335 -16%
    Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration: “Quarterly Coal Report.”

  95. Anthony , your presentation is excellent and you know I don’t give that kind of a valuation to many. Most of the time I am arguing with individulas..

    I agree with you on each and every single point you made which refutes AGW theory, so we are on the same page as far as calling AGW theory incorrect.

    The question is what really does cause the climate to change and as you know I maintain it is solar activity and the secondary effects associated with solar activity.

    The CATCH is the degree of magnitude change of solar activity and duration of time change in solar activity has to reach a certain critical level in order to overcome random earthly climatic changes such as volcanic activity ,enso etc.etc.(which will mask minor solar changes), and the inherent negative feedbacks in the climatic system.

    Also climatic thresholds are out there which can be reached if the change in solar activity is strong enough and long enough in duration through primary and secondary effects. Remember the climate system is non linear,different outcomes with the same forcings can happen, but thresholds are also out there. This is why only a general climatic forecast in my opinion can be made.

    I maintain the solar activity we had from the end of the Dalton Minimum through 2005 brought us out of the Dalton Minimum, to the general rise in temperatures up through early this century. Since 2005 however the prolonged solar minimum started and this is going to reverse the current upward trend.

    Anthony, let me take this further ,all of the points you make about AGW theory not being correct and the temperature rise being even less then suggested ,due to inaccurate temperature recordings along with the urban heat island effect ,despite a very active sun post Dalton-2005 give credence to the fact that now an inactive sun is going to be even more likely to cause cooling.

    Past history shows if you take past prolonged solar minimums, and past active solar periods and correlate them to the corresponding temperature trend change (not absolute temp. readings neccessarily) that there is a pretty strong correlation.

    Anthony ,I LIKE , the way you are going about this as far as showing how unfounded the AGW theory is.

    Anthony, I predict this current prolonged solar minimum will result in the AGW theory being obsolete before this decade ends..

    Solar readings I maintain will bring about a more definitive cooling trend going forward following several years of sub solar activity in general . Which started during year 2005 in earnest.

    solar flux sub 72 but sub 90 should start the downward impact,sustained.

    solar wind sub 300 km/sec but sub 350 km/sec should start the process sustained

    solar irradiance off .015 or greater

    solar extreme UV light off upwards of 50%

    solar ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time

    Note: a weakening earth magnetic field will serve to compound all solar effects.

  96. Thanks for putting up the Doc Essex talk. SUMMARY:Climate models are crap – mathematical flagellation (to be polite).

  97. Anthony ,you are so very thoughtful,and detailed in how you approach this subject. This is what is needed for the field of climatalogy more of your approach.

    I think you take into consideration all that is said(from people like myself) about why the climate changes ,but will never commit to anything unless it meets all of your rigorus stipulations beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    This is the approach I like. I think two appraoches are needed, guys like myself and many others that come up with alternative reasons for why the climate changes, and how it might change, and then guys like yourself that evaluate and wait and see based through detail evidence, such as you have done with AGW.
    I would like to have you someday give a video presentation on the pros and cons of solar changes versus the climate based on information you yourself have obtained from various sources, including my take if I may so.Thanks.

    I am interested in what you have to say.

  98. Mr. Watts,
    Your presentation may have been useful in 2012, but doesn’t touch today’s pressing climate issue, “Carbon Pollution”.

    I’d put a sarc tag here, but “Carbon Pollution” really is the latest Climate Speak.
    It’s all our fault and we must be made to pay (and pay.)

  99. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 19, 2013 at 11:50 am

    “The question is what really does cause the climate to change and as you know I maintain it is solar activity and the secondary effects associated with solar activity.”
    _________________________________

    Greeting Mr. Del Prete,
    Can you present any data linking solar activity to any observed change in climate?

  100. Anthony, please don’t read your slides in the future. That’s an insult to your audience – and bores the bejesus out of them. Figure out what the foot stomper is for each slide, the take away message, and talk to that.

    Andy Wehrle
    Stafford, Va

  101. Probably one of the best presentations on the topic I’ve seen yet.

    My change to skepticism was similar. I tried to look at the data. A skeptic had asked me to show proof with actual data. So I downloaded the data for a certain city and found that I had trouble even reading the data into my software (I’m a programmer). I found that most temperature data records in any given city were really shoddy. After I couldn’t even get out of the gate so to speak, I slowly became a skeptic.

  102. Anthony, like a hundred others up list, I found your talk on video exceptional in its organization, clarity, and content. The broadcaster in you really came out. You know how to tell a story and keep someone’s attention.

    I urge you to add a link to this blog post and video to your About: Anthony Watts page. Much of the video has the subtext of how a Purdue trained meteorologist accepted much of James Hansen’s 1988 warning, but then that meteorologist started looking at the data, the measurements, the analysis. That meteorologist chose to believe his eyes more than his ears.

    The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, …. (From the About Anthony Watts page)

    In the video (@7:00), you say that you went to Purdue University, and worked as a research assistant the in meteorology department. Anthony, that alone make you more of a “climate scientist” than a lot of today’s computer modelers that never field collected a proxy. You literally got your hands dirty with Stephenson Screens and data collection. You have been more responsible for the QC of USHCN data than most Ph.D’s. The weather has been your business for 30+ years. You are a first class climate scientist, degreed or not. “While I’m not a degreed climate scientist…” — you are too modest. A sentence about Purdue meteorology research is worth adding to your “About me” page.

  103. I took the liberty to create a timestamed index to the video with a few notes to content.
    00:00 Introduction
    01:19 About me.
    01:53 I’m a green guy, solar power, elec. Car., Calif. Elect rates.
    02:53 Listening to Hansen. “It moved me.” “I became an activist.”
    04:40 What changed me? Jim Goodrich. There was something else going on.
    05:45 “Light bulb moment” 1996 graph. CO2 is “not an intelligent molecule.”
    07:00 “Studied at Purdue” meteorology dept research assistant.
    09:00 Stevenson Screen painting experiment. (2007)
    10:00 Inspect official USHCH stations: Oddities. 11:00 Marysville, CA
    11:45 “This is where they are measuring climate?!?” Officially?!? Really!?!
    12:45 The Ten Tests:
    13:15 1. The Temperature So Far. Is it alarming? M. Ridley information.
    14:55 Steve Goreham graph. “The Thin Red Line”. Warming Change is small compared to daily and seasonally temp change from Chicago, IL.
    15:45 2. Amplification and Feedbacks. Do they perform as advertised. Doran et al 2002. Surface Temp by Latitude, 3 episodes. Water vapor feedback. 17:30 IPCC graph, portion due to feedbacks. Water vapor by radiosonds.
    17:50 3. The role of aerosols. Have they stunted Global Warming? Graph of Climate models and observations. No big Volcanic eruptions in past decade. Aerosols are insufficient excuse.
    19:07 4. Arctic Sea Ice Decline. NH Sea Ice Anomally. Established a new stable plateau with higher variability? 19:55 Antarctic Ice is growing. 20:20: Soot a factor in the melt?

    21:55 5. Failure of the Models to Predict “the Pause”. Rose graph 2012. IPCC AR5 draft leak divergence. 22:50 Spencer “EPIC FAIL”. 23:10: Nature editorial. Models and reality don’t match.
    23:45 Year 0 to 2000 temps. Natural factors can change temps. Nothing unprecedented today.
    24:15 6. Climate Sensitivity. Pat Michaels, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity graph. Distribution Curve, between 1 and 2.2. 25:15 Woods Hole: Correlation of CO2 to Temps. 25:45 Soup = Atmosphere, CO2 = Salt.
    26:25: Log CO2 Warming Illustrated. (IPCC equation graph) Modtran calc.
    27:25 replace hearing aid battery

    28:00 7. Adaption to Changing Climate. Graph of death rates over last century. We’ve adapted. 28:50 Boston Harbor.
    29:28 8. Climate and Future Generations. Chart of energy sources.
    30:10 9. Reducing Emissions. CO2 already going down. Not Solar, Not Wind. It is Shale Gas revolution. From 1948 to today, 30:50. Renewables 9.3% to 9.4% because nuclear increased. Thorium reactor program.

    31:35 10. The Integrity of the Surface Temperature Record. (see also 07:00-12:45) Waterville, WA.
    32:10 Urbana, OH sewage treatment plant with refrigeration unit.
    33:05 Ontario, OR FLIR photo at sewage treatment plant. Paper forms, thermometers where people can fill them out.
    34:10 Perry, OK fire station. FLIR.
    34:25 Wickenburg, AZ. Brick wall heat sink.
    34:45 Baltimore, MD NWS forecast office roof. 13 new records, none in neighboring. All stations shown have since been closed.
    35:35 Bainbridge, GA. Wilbur, WA, Detroit Lakes, MN. Stevenson screen moved closer to building to avoid mercury hazmat situation.
    36:35 Tucon, AZ, Univ. of AZ Atmospheric Science Dept. Worst example in database.
    37:28 Hanksville, UT. Comical. Over historical tombstone to keep from tripping over it in the dark.
    38:20 Graph of USHCN siting Classes. Trend from the 5 classes.
    39:50 Graph “All Rates Stations in the CONUS” published last year.

    40:40 In Summary
    1. Temperature Trend – NOT ALARMING
    2. Ampl and Feedback – NOT EVIDENT
    3. Role of Aerosols – ISNT SIGNIFICANT
    4. Arctic Sea Ice – ISN’T GLOBAL, MAY BE SOOT.
    5. Failure of Models to Predict “the Pause” – CONFIRMED.
    6. Climate Sensitivity – IS LIKELY LOW.
    7. Adaption to Climate Change – IS POSSIBLE
    8. Future Generations – MAY NOT NEED OUR HELP
    9. Reducing Emissions – ISN’T BEING DONE GLOBALLY
    10. Integrity of the Surface Temp Record
    — CREATES ALMOST A DOUBLING OF THE TEMPERATURE TREND. An artificial temp rise.
    41:35 Parting Thoughts.
    “At the moment is seems the cure is worse than the disease.
    We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.

    42:15 Questions:
    Re: Matt Ridley, WSJ, July 6, column: Models are wrong. Thermometers set at airports. Cities have grown. UHI bias. Watts: Korea study: UHI most of warming. Critics didn’t go there to measure UHI. It was all statistical.
    45:06 Q: CAGW proponents are changing their arguments. How do you deal with it? A: GW, CC, Climate Disruptions, Extreme Weather, Poisoned Weather. Models aren’t working. Make us afraid of weather. Timeline of technology. News moved slowly. Then trains. Then radio, then TV in early 50s. Live News. Internet. People could contribute with cell phones photographing weather. A tornado in a cornfield in Kansas is now on CNN. We are seeing small tornados more easily.
    48:55 Q: Mauna Loa CO2 measurement on Volcano? A: I believe them. Measurement in a well mixed environment, remote ocean, and wind off ocean.
    50:45 Q: Horse and buggy society? But Animal Rights groups will object.
    51:50 Q: Franklin Institute did soot on snow experiment.
    52:25: Q:Adaptation is happening. We’ve adapted to UHI without realizing it.
    52:56 End.

  104. A minor criteque. When you talk about siting issues, please make the distiction between a water plant and a wastewater plant clearer. I’ve worked in both and there is a difference when you turn on the tap. 8-)
    Otherwise, cudos and thanks.

  105. Babsy says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    pesadia says:
    August 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    You wrote: Having spent all (or most) of my life as professional salesman, I am not scientifically educated.

    Here’s a definition you may use to start your scientific education: Science deals with facts that are documentable and reproducible.

    ….and falsifiable

  106. Hi, Pamela,

    Re: “Janice you suggest making the same errors CAGWers do,” (8/18 at 9:59am)

    I see your point, but, I think that the scientific validity of the anti-CAGW arguments is not equivalent to the blatant disregard for the scientific method and conjecture (and, in some cases, downright lies) that characterize CAGW “science.” That is, we on the side of truth CAN state it boldly, for it stands on solid evidence.

    Advocating for truth to persuade, the purpose of a presentation such as that of the above video, requires positive, accurate-yet-bold, argumentation. That is, while when discussing the underlying science of climate change, treading carefully, including all the reservations and disclaimers and confidence levels is appropriate. When making a case to persuade, however, a completely different style must be used if one is to be effective.

    I must tell you, Ms. Gray, I am so grateful that you regularly post on WUWT. There are so FEW genuine scientists who are women who do that. While it is, like beards, lol, not of vital importance that there be women commenters with science credentials on this site, I find it inspiring that you are here, and, no doubt, so do any girls or young women silently reading. I wish Anna and Rhoda and others who occasionally post would do so more often.

    I hope all is well with you in Eastern Oregon — and not too hot!

    Take care.

    Your (non-scientist) sister in the fight for Truth in Science,

    Janice

    *********************************************************

    Dear Anthony,

    Re: reading from slides

    Education requires much repetition. Reading what is written on the slides verbatim reinforces your message and ties your oral presentation to your exhibits (otherwise, your speech and your slides become mutually distracting). By ADDING new details after reading each sub-part of each slide, you prevent the boredom of ONLY reading what was written and saying no more. So, DO BOTH!
    #(:))

    Yours,

    Janice

  107. @Stephen Rasey, thanks. My hearing issue had the biggest impact on my college years, a story I’ll tell someday. Becoming a broadcaster was serendipity that happened in the Purdue Met department hallway. And for me it was a godsend, since for the first time I had a job where I didn’t have to strain to hear/interact, only talk.

  108. 19 Aug: BBC: Matt McGrath: Climate leaks are ‘misleading’ says IPCC ahead of major report
    Sensitive questions
    According to the leak, they will put it down to natural meteorological variations and other factors which could include greater absorption of heat into the deep oceans – and the possibility that the climate is less sensitive to carbon dioxide than had previously been believed.
    Many climate sceptics have argued that this is a key factor behind the temperature slowdown, and a good reason not to believe the more extreme predictions of those they dismiss as warmist conspirators.
    But those involved with the IPCC say that even now, just a month away from publication you would be “foolish in the extreme” to take this latest leak as conclusive.
    “It is guaranteed it will change,” said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC. “In September the scientists will go through the 15 page summary for policymakers, line by line.”…
    “We’ve already given it to governments for their thoughts, and we’ve had 1,800 comments on that 15 page document,” he said…
    The ongoing problems with leaks is one of the reasons behind the mutterings that this large scale, multi faceted report from the IPCC could be its last…
    Lynn: “I think there will certainly be an IPCC in the future but there may not be these big block-buster events.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23755901

  109. Please forgive me, Anthony, for in my earlier smarty pants post, i neglected to tell you:
    WELL DONE, SIR!!!

  110. Very interesting presentation indeed. Learned a lot of new things. I didn’t know about your ears though, that sucks. I had a similar issues when I was a kid and my ears are slowly failing me. I hope to hear more presentations from you soon, I find it is a lot easier for someone like me (who isn’t as privy to all the jargon and technical information) to learn and understand when you present it.

  111. Unless I misunderstood it, the segment on aerosols was misleading. Volcanic aerosols do have transient cooling effects on climate, but the sulfate aerosols that are conjectured by IPCC to be masking a significant amount of global warming are the result of fossil fuel combustion, largely coal plants. There are several critical problems with this conjecture. One is the fact that each climate model has to use a different value in order to properly hindcast past temperature, making it basically an adjustable parameter. Another problem is that since these aerosols have lifetimes of days to weeks in the atmosphere, their signature of cooling should be correlated with regions where emissions are largest. This is not seen. In any event you may wish to examine that segment of your presentation.

  112. Margaret Smith says:
    August 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm (replying to)

    Babsy says:
    August 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    pesadia says:
    August 17, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    You wrote: Having spent all (or most) of my life as professional salesman, I am not scientifically educated.

    However, it is SPECIFICALLY your experience as a salesman that more than qualifies you as a “scientist” fully capable of inventing, improving, analyzing and continuing the CAGW dogma of exaggeration, extremism, despair, extrapolation and propaganda. Then again, as you are an “honest salesman” with a reputation to maintain among your brethren and fellow honest salesmen, I think they will degrade and spurn you should you ever stoop that low as to represent the CAGW religion.

  113. Thanks for sticking this at the top Anthony, I can’t tell some rather dense parties much easier than 1) search for WUWT 2) go to the returned site http://WATTSUpWithThat.com 3) click and read to top article about the story and video on “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness”. If they can’t can’t make it that far, I give.

  114. I’ll post as I review.

    The first comment I would make is it would be good to explain the theory of global warming. It’s not too hard: incoming radiation is invisible to C02, it is bounced back out as IR, a C02 molecule grabs the photon, and spits the photon back out in a random direction instead of letting it exit the atmosphere, bouncing some back to earth. I personally think this thinking explains a lot of what is going on, the AHA! moment, not realize the many other aspects that affect climate.

    Presentation style is really good once you get going. I have presented often too, and I’m initially hesitant, but as I get out of intro and into the material, it flows.

  115. This is for you, Anthony — GO, BOILERMAKERS!

    I hope the sound quality is still enjoyable — if not, WOW, the visuals will totally compensate.

    When they make that train walk forward, even I, a non-Purdue alum, felt a thrill of pride for your alma mater. IMPRESSIVE.

  116. Another point: here is a weather station on cinderstone. Why is it important? Something like “instead of grass which absorbs and uses the energy, or white that reflects it, it is absorbing and storing all that heat to release it at night.” Maybe people get that, but it oughtn’t to take too long to explain, and it adds weight to the citing issues you are very concerned about.

    I personally don’t appreciate your note on anomalies vs. absolute temperature in degrees K. The importance of temperature differences is the impact to people, not how much it is. Not sure how to fix this. It has too much uncertainty, in my view. Perhaps “What is normal for earth temperatures?” Hard to do, for sure. The Chicago slide of record temps was not understandable in the short time you had it up there.

    Next, you should pause at the end of transitioning between topics (not slides). It feels like a force feed, affording no oppty to reflect.

    You complained about non-zero based graphs with regards to temperatures, but put up a similar slide for water vapor. It reminded me I think your anomalies vs. absolute temperature graph is not convincing on reflection.

    On presentation giving, anyone can read a slide. On the slide “The role of aerosols”, I would put bullets, and if the presentation is going to be shared, put the text in smaller font.

    Note, you ought to say the heat differential is causing client scientists to try to find the missing heat. They know it is there because of their AHA moment.

  117. Loved your note about Thorium vs. uranium plutonium, and how that was on account of bombs. Incredibly powerful. I continue to think you are at your best when you are talking to the audience and not reading slides.

    It would be interesting to point out if we ruing the US economy, we will push production to C02 intensive China.

    That’s all. Great presentation. The activist nature of what you did with surveying the siting vs. is a David and Goliath story. It comes across really well.

    Many great things to say about the presentation, I’ve mostly limited my comments to areas that struck me as perhaps being improvable.

  118. @RockyRoad

    “Truth is free -”

    Socialist dogma. Privatized truth at market rates is more efficient and truer.

    “You’ll note Anthony hasn’t charged anybody here a single cent to watch this.”

    He’s a communist.

  119. Incidentally, Anthony, very well done. I’d like to see this on mainstream TV as well as You Tube.

    (And I was pleased to hear you say “unprecedented” instead of the horrible “unpreeeeercedented”.)

  120. Anthony, I very much enjoyed your presentation, especially the first part which shows that you are at least as concerned about the environment than many of these “green” boys and girls. Not to mention dear Al Gore, whose “ecological footprint” is many times what the average American consumes. Hear my words, but don’t look at my deeds…
    BTW, the presentation Al Gore did in the Netherlands a few years ago was good for a fee of 100,000 euro, or some 125,000 dollar. Seems that you are somewhat underpayed…

  121. Thanks Anthony, just watched it. I hope you get more opportunities to spread the message. There is an immense amount of information that could be discussed such as solar and ocean effects, etc.. that it must be hard to decide in which areas to focus on. Your relaxed way of talking, without vitriolic attacks on those opposed to your opinion, will help people to think a bit more before they believe everything the media tells them. The more people are aware of these issues (such as UHI) then the more people think about the origins of the data, and that means we will get better more accurate results in the future. Why not team up with some other guys and do a road show across the US? I am sure there would be many institutions out there which would love to have you.

  122. Thanks for posting the video presentation, Anthony – as a non scientist/engineer/climatologist (i.e. just an ordinary ‘bloke’) I appreciated your clear delivery, your understandable explanations and your humour. It’s great to be invited to watch and listen to a level-headed, informed talk such as this. One of the best I’ve seen in a long while – and easily on a par with Monckton for sheer viewing pleasure.

  123. Fantastic presentation, Anthony.

    It was a joy to see how you used the scientific method to see the obvious. Or what should have been obvious, but few people were looking at. You really highlighted the huge problems with the surface-temperature records. It’s easy to forget just how bad they are.

    Surprisingly, they seem worse now than 100 years ago.

  124. Way, way off topic. I did not know you were a Purdue alum. I am GaTech thru and thru. I have suggested to no less a personage then the AD of GaTech that they schedule a home and home football series between the No. 1 engineering school in the SE and one of the best, if not the, No. 1, engineering schools in the Midwest. Perhaps you could put in a word with the Purdue AD. It seems like a no brainer.

  125. Anthony

    This was an excellent talk. Unfortunately it seemed to be to the converted. Have you tried pitching this to a more “hostile” audience? And if so how did it go down?

  126. “I’ll provide full disclosure. There was mostly an aerospace interest due to Houston’s role in the space program, there was not a hint of the oil industry there.”

    That is NOT full disclosure.
    Who was the Aerospace interest? Who covered for what the ‘aerospace interest’ didn’t? Not a hint of oil industry? I guess we’ll just have to take your weord for that.

    Not going for complex conspiracy. Just wondering why you would say you would provide full disclosure and then procide to obsficate.

    REPLY: I was talking about my reimbursement in the paragraph below. There were several speakers and attendees from aerospace, including a tour of a local rocket company startup. It is in the program here: http://www.ddponline.org/2013/02/16/ddp-31st-annual-meeting-dates-and-location-set/

    Ad Astra Rocket Factory, Professional Tour ($50/person) on Monday, July 15. 8:15am to 11:30am. Limit is 25 persons, so reserve early! See the VASIMR plasma rocket engine, advanced superconductors, one of the world’s largest vacuum test chambers, and animations of future space exploration missions. You need not be a U.S. citizen, but the company needs to know your name and citizenship in advance. We will depart hotel at 8:15am and will be back at the hotel no later than 11:30am.

    – Anthony

  127. The first time I have ever been able to stay watching a whole video of such length. It was an excellent presentation and held the attention throughout.
    Have you ever produced a paper version? I would like to send it to several friends who prefer to read rather than to watch.
    Is there any chance of getting some company or institution to fund multiple copies (subject to your copyright) so that it can be sent to schools for use in their science classes?

  128. Solomon Green says:
    August 20, 2013 at 4:44 am

    > The first time I have ever been able to stay watching a whole video of such length. It was an excellent presentation and held the attention throughout.

    This is probably the most important critique. No matter how good the content is, if people won’t listen to it, it wouldn’t matter.

  129. Excellent presentation Anthony. We haven’t had any of our more alarmist friends making comments so I guess they are having difficulty coming up with any arguments against you.

  130. The NOAA approach to dealing with these documented temperature station problems is insulting to the public and scientific community. Closing the bad stations without admitting the problems for the temperature records or public debate is irresponsible. They are in effect hiding their “we’ve always done it this way” management style.

  131. I think the relevance of you keeping this going at the top is significant. It acts like a mission statement of who you are and what you believe in.

    It quickly allows those accessing this site to know you……..a likeable and genuine guy with good communication skills. The broadcasting experience helped developed those skills but being genuine is natural

    Getting to know you also included some personal items about Anthony Watts that are compelling about his desire to be authentic and do whats best for mankind…………….especially relevant in a political battle between 2 sides that often resort to personal attacks on the sincerely and agenda driven motives of the other side.

  132. Excellent stuff. The docs should have a much more realistic view of things now than *some* people would have them believe. Also, fascinating to hear old Franklin did the snow on soot experiment so long ago.

    You should start a “video presentations” section up there with the Reference Pages, Resources etc. This one deserves to remain easily found.

  133. Solid presentation. The most important thing is that you come across as a reasonable person with humor, humility, and a great deal of knowledge on the subject matter that has arrived at a position through much deliberation and investigation; not some zealot on a mission, paid for crony, or arrogant know-it-all that has taken a position due to self-interest, bandwagon syndrome, or a predisposing to jumping to conclusions if they fit a particular world view.

  134. What gets me is the lack of commentary from those with a higher visibility ,that agree with Anthony.

    This is a very good presentation.

    I think the global warmers are much more united, then the global coolers.

  135. That is a great presentation. The package of information is neat and flows seamlessly. The comparison to listening to videos from some of those ‘climate scientists’ and you, is night and day. Very nice focus!

    You forgot to add in several hundred ‘um, uhh, and err’s, though. Not a one in your entire talk, unlike some other speakers.

  136. Good presentation, Anthony. Of course you have done this professionally for many years, but I think the content and the order of the presentation were effective. I wish you would have included some graphical information on extreme weather, and your explanation of how that fits in with climate change.

  137. Bravo, Anthony!
    That was a great presentation! And now, possibly unbeknownst to you, you have opened up an entirely new way of reaching out to people.
    Visual and/or verbal presentations on WUWT.
    Let’s have you and other renowned contributors appearing in person giving their points of view.
    I’m sure that, even if the presenters do not wish to appear in person, that their ‘radio’ presentations would be most acceptable. I, for one, would love to hear the tales previously only written, given vocally by Willis (if he is too shy to appear!)
    The spoken word is far more powerful than the written word when making scientific points to the general public. You have the talent of being able to speak TO people and not DOWN to them; you don’t lecture, you educate.
    Please, please give us more like this.

  138. “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness”? The organization title sounds like a spin off of “Doomsday Preppers”. Have they got a “reality” show yet?

  139. What a great presentation! Thanks, Anthony. It’s a big plus to see you and hear you, as well as “just” read you. Please do more of this, I think it makes a big difference: not only in the quality of your rhetorical “punch” (which, already good, will improve with practice) but also in the overall reach and diversity of the presentations you can make. People today respond more to visual/personal pitches, less to literary/scholarly ones. Both are needed; and you have the “complete game;” so use it! Thanks.

  140. I agree with Janice Moore comments re: your style. You’re a natural on-stage. Drop or trim the “Arbor Day” business; your credentials readily emerge as impeccable. What matters is your logic and integrity, not your love of seedling trees.

  141. Wow, you are smooth ‘n good at ‘splaining. What popped into my head was how unfortunate for us it is that you was not born in Waltonville, Arkansas. With a gift of gab like that, we could easily have had a Bubba Watts instead of…

  142. oMan says:
    August 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    “I agree with Janice Moore comments re: your style. You’re a natural on-stage. Drop or trim the “Arbor Day” business; your credentials readily emerge as impeccable. What matters is your logic and integrity, not your love of seedling trees.”

    Respectfully disagree with you and Janice. For those who are not as familiar with Anthony, it is good to show them how he walked the walk before he talked the talk.

  143. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 20, 2013 at 11:44 am

    “I think the global warmers are much more united, then the global coolers.”

    _____________________________________
    The warmers may or may not be united, but it’s certain that own the microphones and payl the salaries (grants).

  144. Ross Carnsew says:
    August 20, 2013 at 4:43 am

    “I’ll provide full disclosure. There was mostly an aerospace interest due to Houston’s role in the space program, there was not a hint of the oil industry there.”

    That is NOT full disclosure.

    I think it’s close enough. I’m more interested in more than two words about
    what the doctors were all meeting about (Disaster Preparedness) and how well
    it fit in with Anthony’s talk.

    I don’t know about you, but I associate Houston more with the space program
    than I do with atrocities like Enron. Lyndon Johnson, NASA, and Houston
    are indelibly linked in my mind ever since Cape Kennedy
    Canaveral started handing over CapCom and other duties to Houston seconds
    after liftoff.

    Hardly any reason to have oil there, we’re not expecting major shake-ups
    in that arena for a while, right?

    Why would big oil be there except for convincing businesses that they won’t
    screwup again?

    Full disclaimer – I think Anthony is giving me some 20% of his Big Oil income.
    Or is it 40%? All the same in absolute terms….

  145. “you was not born in Waltonville, Arkansas.”
    Sorry, I sure mangled that sentence. Always in a rush, it took this long to get a bit of time to view the presentation.
    You wadn’t not born in Arkiefornia, that’s it.
    And WUWT is so good, ya sop it up with a biscuit!

  146. Excellent presentation!

    I too have a hearing loss. You should look into trying Lyric. No batteries to change. After an initial period of adjustment, the devices really do the job. Even the tinnitus has lessened. I no longer have a problem hearing when in problem environments such as you experienced during the Q & A.

  147. That fella Essex is a very clever chap – could’ve been quite a heavy talk but I was actually able to follow the thread.

  148. Thanks to everyone who commented and provided suggestions. Thanks especially for the kind words.

    I’ll move this and other videos into a special section of the website soon.

  149. This is a perfect video to send to believers, it sums it up with a reasonable amount of facts and data, and shows many of the absurdities, that might not be too apparent for most people.

  150. Watts: I’ll move this and other videos into a special section of the website soon

    I suggest a menu header “Watts’ Best“. It should lead to one or a few Index pages that Abstract eight to twelve WUWT posts that should be unforgetable, worth wide distribution, and have a long shelf life. How many individual posts do you have on WUWT? How can we regulars find the real gems in those thousands? How can newcomers find those gems quickly.

    This video should be at the top of the Watts’ Best list. But there are many other posts that belong.
    “Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero” is the post that hooked me.

    Start a post for nominations to a Watts’ Best page and turn it into a crowd source effort. Page categories can form as the nominations come it. But it might be a good idea to tie them into the existing Tags.

  151. Stephen Rasey says:
    August 21, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Watts: I’ll move this and other videos into a special section of the website soon

    I suggest a menu header “Watts’ Best“. It should lead to one or a few Index pages that Abstract eight to twelve WUWT posts that should be unforgetable, worth wide distribution, and have a long shelf life. How many individual posts do you have on WUWT? How can we regulars find the real gems in those thousands? How can newcomers find those gems quickly.

    Already been done, at least to my satisfaction. On my Guide to WUWT (see the right hand nav bar) at http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html I have a section titled WUWT Classics. I haven’t added this yet, but it certainly will be.

    The section is a bit heavy on articles I often reference, but I’m happy to consider suggestions.

  152. Dear Tom (in Florida),

    I did not (and do not want to) tell A-th-y to omit his Arbor Day efforts from his talk. I thought that part was GREAT, but, needed to be shortened a bit.

    Hope you are enjoying August, down there. Stay safe.

    Janice

    ************
    @ Ric Werme,

    Thank you SO MUCH, once again, for your excellent Guide to WUWT. It is very helpful and a generous support of the effort for Truth in Science going on here. Re: the videos, I don’t think the average visitor here will look in a “Guide” for video links. Thus, WUWT either needs a “VIDEO’S HERE!” type link in a prominent place or your Guide graphic needs to include “Videos and more” (or something like that).

    I hope you don’t mind my making that suggestion.

    Gratefully,

    Janice

  153. Janice Moore says:
    August 22, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    “Dear Tom (in Florida),
    Hope you are enjoying August, down there. Stay safe.
    Janice”

    I always enjoy summer in Florida. Originally from New England, I am a devote believer in warmer is better and really do not like temperatures (water or air) less than 80 F. I actually think about moving farther south for the winter, perhaps to Key West.

Comments are closed.