American Morning is aired live every weekday morning from 6 to 9 am EST on CNN.
At 7:30 AM EST Friday 12/11 Steve McIntyre will appear at the invitation of John Roberts. Be sure to watch.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, will he reveal the nefarious activities of Macavity?
I’m a tunin mah DVR!!!!!
That wouldn’t happen to be 4:30 am California time would it?
🙁
It makes you wonder how totally incompetant the senior management of MSM organisations are. Surely, you would think, there would be at least a few senior managers who understand the scale and scope of Climategate ?
After all…. imaging you are a senior manager at a struggline news organisation like the NYT or NBC, and you order your journalists to give climategate the full exposure it deserves. By doing that, you will start an avalanche throughout the media, and you will go down in history as the people who exposed to the masses, the biggest news story since 9/11. Maybe the biggest news story of ALL TIME.
You would think there would be at least few senior managers in the MSM who grasp what this could do their careers/fame/wealth.
I actually dont think it`s ideology at their level that’s stopping them (like it is with their journalists). I think it`s total and utter incompetance. They obviously have absultely no clue. No wonder the MSM (except FOX) are all going down. They are being managed by morons.
I’ll look for the YouTube video of it after work tomorrow. Or the WUWT post of it.
🙂
photon:
According to my calculations it would be
Gave my 4th Presentation on “Atmospheric Physics” tonight Steve!
It went over well. One AWG “Believer” who learned a lot. One person on the line
who said, “I take it you don’t BELIEVE in Global Warming”.
My standard reply, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints..” (The Apostle’s Creed.)
I then explain I deal with OBJECTIVE FACTS.
Why am I writing this. Steve, remember you need to be the ALPHA DOG in this fight. When your “opposition” rears it’s ugly head, JUMP ON THEM. When they use the term “WE” tell them, “Ah, sorry, I can’t work with you on this. I use the term ME, I, my research, what I have found. I don’t use the term “we” and I don’t respond to it. If you wish to use this language I will consider this discussion over.”
You’d be surprised at what happens.
In my “Atmospheric Physics” talks I START with the “classic” Meteorology work by Fleagle, Elsasser, Plazz, etc. I review the mathematics of “grey gas” radiation heat transfer. I cite specific numerical examples.
I intentionally start with DATA, numbers, derivations, etc. Once I have set this foundation, when we get to discussion, I quickly point out when people “go general”. I tell them, “I’m a very DULL engineer. Very linear thinking. I cannot work with “general concepts”. If you can come up with a specific example…”
AND then as in years ago when I used to speak on nuclear power for the power companies I worked for, I KNOW ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS. And I’m ready to POUNCE with counters.
“Kilomanjaro is losing its ice cap…!” Answer: Yes it is, the ice cap is above the freeze line, it’s losing it to sublimation and lack of snow. Deforestation of the windward side due to logging.”
“The polar ice cap is melting”. I pull out the satellite observed ice cover. Show how it is increasing every year of the last 6 or so. And ask, “Just how much lower than this 1979 to current “mean” does it have to be to be significant?”
“Greenland’s ice sheet is melting!” Pictures of the DEW line stations, 1965 to the present time. Showing the build up of snow/ice around them.
The statement: “You can’t deny…” I counter with, “What do you want for evidence?” (That throws them off!) If they give me something, I say, “If you accept this as evidence, I will “deny” this. The evidence will deny it. Will that be me, or the evidence? Do you wish to ARGUE with me, or examine evidence?”
I’m highly DISLIKED by the “emotional” AWG side. But I find that being very “Spock like” is hard for them to handle.
Keep these factors in mind. CONTROL THE GAME! Tell them, if you need to, “That question is rhetorical or leading. I will not answer it.”
You may get some less invites, but DON’T BE PASSIVE! They are the WOLVES, and you have to let them know – – – You are the HUNTER and they are in your gun sites.
Before the ranting begins,
Short Bio: Steven McIntyre (DOC)
” The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.
But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.””
Climategate: Anatomy of
a Public Relations Disaster
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221
Steve’s post tonight on IPCC and the trick is reporting that is wothy of Mike Wallace 40 years ago. I think the main TV talent today is to have a pretty face.
To paraphrase one of the climategate emails, I think if we spend a couple of 30 minute sessions with John Roberts in front of the computer screen, we might be able to show him who we are dealing with.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
To JK:
I am quite sure that all newsmedia have certain trusted reporters digging in this AWG mess since a few weeks. It will take some time and careful cooperation with true science sources before they publish their findings however. And the political climate must get some warming first… That may never happen or it may take å few years. But they sure are making preparations and are outlining the AGW orbituary just as they do with every celebrity.
Perhaps the AAM sympathetic MSM took a good hard look at their ratings plummet and decided that their biased one sided blind obedience to the AAM narrative was causing viewers to switch to channels that were covering events from both sides?
CNN like the BBC has shown incredible bias on the AAM issue, its major sponsors being from the ‘green technologies’ outfits like Suzlon and Vestas who have grown fat from massive artificial subsidies, most people just want impartial news and start to migrate to where that news can be found, the actual tiny minority of believers out there are no viewer base for a big MSM company, they would barely keep a small mid western town setup going.
How many “scientists” does CNN have lined up to ambush him on three different sides?
Watch for them to pepper in words like conspiracy, broad consensus, etc.
Frankly, I think CNN is inviting McvIntyre because they think they can make him look aloof and ineffective. I hope they are wrong.
OT, but on Channel 10 news tonight, reports of “summer snow” in parts of Victoria (Sorry, didn’t get the name of the area) and in New South Wales, Katoomba got to -2c last night.
Poptech, maybe convert that Word file to HTML and post it somewhere. I, for one, won’t open a Word file from an unknown source.
My poor Mac based DVR has been going non stop! Too much information too fast. Don’t even have time to scan it all there is so much going on in the press and blog sphere and in understanding the material of the scientists who are speaking out.
It really is fantastic to see the paradigm shift that it’s NOW OK to debate and question the alleged science of ManN (et. al.) made Global Warming Climate Change Hypotheses (it’s more than one hypothesis if you hadn’t noticed).
CNN can finally take up the challenge of questioning the science without appearing to be nut jobs themselves. The paradigm shifted not just for the scientists but also for the journalists!
Nice to see a self correcting paradigm shift in operation now! Maybe some actual science progress, out in the open this time, can get done. Maybe some falsifications of the AGW Hypothesis will take hold biting deep.
Steven you were great the last time on CNN. Panels are difficult even when well managed as that one was since you only get sound bites.
Evidence open and verifiable. More eyes on the problem. More eyes checking the math, the assumptions, the tiny weeny steps along the way, the conclusions.
It’s not just about science, it’s also about showing how the science is correct or not.
It’s about educating the public about the science with actual evidence not just platitudes and “trust us”.
Counter evidence must be dealt with in a proper full measure of discourse preferably based upon experiments and observations. This is why it’s critical that counter views be published in peer reviewed journals. They are not just for the one sided “truth” they are also for the counters to the “truth”.
The paradigm has shifted. Falsification is now possible to take hold.
“Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
The term was made popular by Karl Popper. Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.
For example, “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. “All men are immortal,” by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, “it will be raining here in one million years” is theoretically falsifiable, but not practical.
Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still very important for science and are often contained in scientific theories as unfalsifiable consequences. For example, while “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable, it is still contained as a consequence of the falsifiable theory that “every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years”. Similarly, the ancient metaphysical idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas.
In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper denied that falsifiability somehow makes scientific theories special. According to Popper, falsifiability is merely a special case of the much more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that falsification is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.
Two types of statements: observational and categorical
In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science.
Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.
The first are statements of observations, such as “this is a white swan”. Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They can be parsed in the form: There is an x that is a swan, and x is white.
The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as “all swans are white”. Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws? How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?
Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. That is, that one can move from ‘this is a white swan’, ‘that is a white swan’, and so on, to a universal statement such as ‘all swans are white’. This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation (and, in fact, the discovery of the Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive invalidity of this particular statement).
…
Kuhn and Lakatos
Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic of science, Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examined in detail the history of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing a ‘paradigm’ is difficult, as it requires an individual scientist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox theory.
Some falsificationists saw Kuhn’s work as a vindication, since it provided historical evidence that science progressed by rejecting inadequate theories, and that it is the decision, on the part of the scientist, to accept or reject a theory that is the crucial element of falsificationism. Foremost amongst these was Imre Lakatos.
Lakatos attempted to explain Kuhn’s work by arguing that science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of naïve falsification. In Lakatos’ approach, a scientist works within a research program that corresponds roughly with Kuhn’s ‘paradigm’. Whereas Popper rejected the use of ad hoc hypotheses as unscientific, Lakatos accepted their place in the development of new theories.
Some philosophers of science, such as Paul Feyerabend, take Kuhn’s work as showing that social factors, rather than adherence to a purely rational method, decide which scientific theories gain general acceptance. Many other philosophers of science dispute such a view, such as Alan Sokal and Kuhn himself.
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Well as Climategate verified anything goes was the way of things to support the multitude of AGW hypotheses. Very fortunately the paradigm has sifted and now scientists can make some real progress.
Good. It will be good to see Steve present the statistics on the problems he has with Mann’s Hockey stick and Briffa’s yamal series…. It will be up to everyone else to understand the implications….
Let’s hope that the penny drops for the interviewers about things like splicing modern temp records onto tree ring proxies when the proxies start inconveniently diverging from the AGW hypothesis…. or using 13 cherrypicked trees to make a temperature history…. etc.
Good luck Professor McIntyre, remain the studious scientist.
1st John Christy on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer; now Steve McIntyre on American Morning. The MSM print and video dam on ClimateGate has still not fully broken, but multiple major ”leaks” are in evidence. And when CNN starts following FoxNEWS even a little bit on this story, you know we’re getting somewhere.
Here’s hoping for a few more MSM guest spots like this by McIntyre, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etcetera. . .
In this sort of thing, for each statement, you have to quickly decide whether to build up a convincing argument or just give a fast, summarizing broadside. Usually you only get time for the broadside. If you’re lucky, you can add another supporting fact or two before they cut you off. Your argument often has to be presented upside-down. Think Journalism 101.
And most important, always wait until the mike is turned off before you say, “What an #$%@ur momisugly#%!”
You know, I think John Roberts is beginning to ‘see’ the light a bit. Maybe. A little. His first report (that I saw) was an interview he did with the new head of CRU. One came away thinking these poor guys have been so put upon.
I of course haven’t seen every segment Roberts has been involved in but the next one I saw he asked good questions and let the skeptic get in a very powerful last word. May only have been timing for the last bit but it felt good.
Today, though, with Gore? Gore claimed (again–how stupid does he think we are?) that the emails were ten years old. John Roberts actually corrected him.
Gore’s face was not to the camera but I noticed a little movment while Roberts was looking straight at Gore. Something flashed across Robert’s face–can’t define it–but if it were a flash over my face I’d define it as a realization that Gore was lying and knew it.
Or it may be my imagination which is running overtime these days I guess because I was flipping channels and landed on Olberman who had Chris forgot-his-name from the Nation laughing at Sarah Palin for ‘being so illogical and stupid’. Sigh.
But what Olberman said threw me. He asked if they have a Plan B, Chris says ‘huh?’. Olberman says a Plan B in case this global warming thing isn’t true.
I dropped my cigarette!
How rude, I’m sorry. Congrats to Steve — again! The beautiful thing about Steve, beyond the issues, is that he is soft spoken and not a bomb thrower. He isn’t the horrible monster that the CRU crew obviously despised. Speaks volumes about the crew, doesn’t it? Puts the authenticity squarely on Steve’s side.
prairiethoughts (22:33:34) :
It is not an unknown source, it is from Ross McKitrick’s website. If you have applied all updates to your version of Word (office), their is little fear of opening actual Word documents. Microsoft effectively stopped all the problems of office related infections years ago with security enhancements in their office products. So long as your version of Word (office) is updated and not outdated you have nothing to worry about. Which means Office 2000 or newer with all security patches applied. To be sure run Windows Update and install all the security updates + any for office. Office 2000 finally had supported ended in july of this year but is still effectively safe to use, Office 2003 is supported until 2014 ect…
The other problem was with .doc files that had hidden extensions such as word.doc.exe but the “.exe” was hidden. These are common with spam emails, not here.
Anyway it is safe to open the .doc file.
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate.
‘Against Method’ is one of the seminal books of the C20th IMO. However, you need to be careful summarizing it or Feyerabend’s ‘belief’. To me, he seems to be quite a playful thinker, and has his tongue in his cheek in quite a lot of his work. In any case , his analysis is acutely relevant when looking at the way science has been led by the nose through the abuse of trust evidenced by the secretive and disingenuous activities of those exposed by the CRUtape letters.
If you haven’t read ‘Against Method’ get it.
Did anyone else see James Hansen on Letterman Thursday night? I didn’t realize that Letterman was a devout believer…I wonder what HIS carbon footprint is and what he’s done to reduce CO2 emissions.
Hansen was actually pretty reasonable – at least he’s against the Copenhagen treaty and cap-and-trade too (even if it is for different reasons than mine!).