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.
S. Mcintyre is doing an excellent job. He is just being quite honest on the tv about his area of expertise . He cannot carry the entire non-agw science on his shoulders alone . We are badly in need of a list of other key non -AGW scientists, their area of expertise and their address for media contact. This could be posted here for others to use in their region . I did this for Canada and the media contacts picked up quickly
I wonder if the MSM likes to interview Steve and now Christy because they are so low-key. They’ve spent SO long trumpeting the warmists’ views that to bring on someone who can play their game of sound bites and one-liners would be anathema to them. I suspect we won’t be seeing Monckton or Lawson on CNN anytime soon but we will be getting our nauseous overdoses of Schmidt, Watson and Greenpeace.
The media is misusing Steve McIntyre. He’s an AUDITOR. They should be using him as an auditor not a spokesman.
For example, show a clip of Michael Mann describing “hide the decline” or “Mike’s Nature trick” then Show a clip of Steve auditing what they say. Not a panel discussion, but a clip of Steve, (with charts), explaining what’s wrong. Steve would fit better on “60 Minutes” rather than these sound byte shows.
I’m pretty relaxed that Copenhagen isnow a political nothing fudge and that the truth will out.
To keep the media interested, we need more red-meat, hopefully the strange data from Aus/Alaska et al will get more traction.
I keep hearing from AGWers that several Alaskan villages have fallen into the sea – is this the nonsense it seems to be?
Here is the start of such a list. Their area of expertise needs input from them
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html
I found the position of unassailable Mcintyre. There is no natural explanation for why the AGW hypothesis has been little investigated. Difficult to refute. I found the comments here a little frustrated. I see no reason. What do you think Anthony?
The important point surely is that Steve shows himself, in the CNN program here as well as in his blog, to be fair and reluctant to go beyond a solid interpretation of the facts. This makes him a tremendous resource to the Lord Monckton’s of the world.
“proper engineering quality analysis” That would be refreshing. Let have some more professional handling of the data and the models by people mindful of things like accuracy and honest presentation of issues. Instead of people motivated to do things like hide their “divergence problem”.
The BBC programme which someone earlier referred to is available as a podcast
here
However, it will only be there for the next 7 days, and I am not sure if it is available from outside the UK (programmes on iPlayer usually aren’t, unless you use a UK based proxy). Someone on Bishop Hill’s site has put up the podcast somewhere that should be available outside the UK. Look for the entry “The Report” there.
This programme featured Bishop Hill and Steve, among others, and was pretty even-handed.
The warmists can be compared to Big Tobacco just as easily as the skeptics.
All molecules in the atmosphere absorb and radiate solar energy (some more than others). That’s theory. But how this actually works out in the turbulent Earth’s atmosphere is the question (“how much, how to quantify that, and to what probability” as you say), and here the evidence is lacking. It’s all theory, and that’s what goes into the warmist models.
Our friend the Goracle says that the effect of CO2 is “a law of physics, like gravity.” And so it is. Absent any other factors, the massive gravity of the Earth would pull all the molecules of the atmosphere down to the surface, where they would sit at 0ºK. But there is all this energy from the Sun (and a little from within the Earth), so instead the molecules are all bouncing around with thermal energy (some fly off into space), and then there’s water vapor and winds and clouds and precipitation, and boundary layers, etc., creating an immensely chaotic system.
Maybe Lindzen or someone has a handle on the actual, empirical (measured) contribution of CO2 to ‘global’ temperature (assuming there is any meaningful way of defining that), compared to the effects of water vapor, nitrogen, argon, et al., compounded by energy fluctuation (diurnal to start) and transfers (ocean to atmosphere to land, etc.)—but absent any such hard data, it’s all theory. After all, bumblebees can’t fly, can they? Physics says so.
Apologies for the amateur lecture, and if I’m wrong feel free to correct me. But that’s how I see the issue.
/Mr Lynn
Steve did just fine. He is very effective at saying only what he knows and not making assertions that he cannot back up. This is who he is. I think people are tired of the “talking points” and “slick presentation” — this is what has gotten us into this mess.
It seems CNN is still wanting to frame this issue as “conspiracy nuts vs. solid, dependable scientists”…
Then again, the seeds of doubt HAVE been planted, and more people are paying attention to dissenting voices. That alone is a good thing. For years “we” have been saying that people need to look at the science… the science is where the problem is… but the warmists are playing 3-card monte with the science.
From reading the transcript, it seems Steve did exactly what he needed to do, and I’m glad. The whole tobacco industry thing REALLY annoys me, because the anti-smokers HAVE been dishonest… however, as soon as you say that you are marginalized in any debate (Score another for massive, highly financed PR).
Why are certain people picked to be spokesmen and others not? Does anyone wonder? This script we are watching play out now seems reminiscent of the Dan Rather copies of the damning Bush background information that had exactly the opposite effect than its overt presentation indicated. Dan Rather played the part of the aggrieved reporter when nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a psychological bait and switch and it worked as planned. Could this be the “trick” to end the debate?
Have no trust in the media because rather than being independent researchers, they are part and parcel of the power structure. We are in the hen house – they are the foxes. The media does not work on the public’s behalf. How many times do these people get off the hook because they are “incompetent’? This get out of jail free pass seems to work over and over and over and not just with this particular issue. This blog and the posters deliver far more information than the fox…I mean reporters.
Steve is not the right person for the kind of interview CNN was looking for. They want someone who in a couple of sentences can say why AGW is a hoax. I doubt John Roberts has much understanding of any of the work that Steve does. They’re not looking for someone to explain the technical nuances of temperature reconstructions or how data has been incorrectly manipulated. Many of us who read blogs like this are interested in these things but the average CNN viewer is not and I don’t expect to ever see any such technical discussions there. I think what Steve does is terrific and he is an asset to us all but CNN is not the proper venue for him.
You are all missing the point. It is too early in the fight for the knockout punch. We will be in the “softening up” stage for a long time. Establishing credibility is crucial to these early stages.
Steve is credible.
Paul, if I watched the interview and was unaware of who Steve was, I would never have known of his work showing how he believes the “trick” to hide the decline was pulled off, who the principal players were behind it, and that there is a strong case made to re-evaluate this important piece of evidence.
HankHenry (07:36:51) :
JonesII, Jamboree ! What a great word, how aptly used
I am not the author of it but Lord Monckton (in a TV show). He was the author, also, of the expression: “Al, baby”.
I watched this interview on CNN.
I have seen Mr McIntyre twice now on CNN and am very disappointed in the way he comes across on the screen. Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
Sorry, but I agree with Marty Ball’s analysis. SM need a message! He is winging it and does not have the experience to make a cogent point in an ad hoc environment.
WRONG.
Steve’s message is his work, period. It won’t translate well on the talking heads shows, and it can’t, because his work is based in detail and is complex, and can’t easily be whittled down to a soundbite. It is what it is. And both Steve and John can’t say they think that AGW is a hoax, because they both have stated emphatically that their beef is with the process and methodologies, and not the theory itself. Do you really want one of the talking heads to be able to show Steve or John to be liars by bringing up previous quotes stating they don’t disagrees with the theory of AGW? Talk about suicidal.
OT, I know. But I get a real kick out of hitting the warm-monger google ads knowing WUWT is getting something ($). I especially enjoy the irony of the PBS ad – funded predominantly by donations from liberals.
“Steve’s message is his work, period. It won’t translate well on the talking heads shows, and it can’t, because his work is based in detail and is complex, and can’t easily be whittled down to a soundbite”
Why then he appears on TV shows? His writing on the blog is much clearer and then his TV appearances. It seems that he is very careful to avoid on TV any final conclusions that are otherwise obvious: eg. that CRu temp data destruction is a scientific scandal of first order, that manipulating the data in paleo studies is obvious from those emails, that they openly discuss how to falsify mid century temp in order to present AGW more serious than it is etc. All that you can read on hi s blog, but cannot here from him on TV. Why? I don’t know but suppose that has something to do with politics and with his panic to distance himself from “skeptics”. He will rather end up “constructively criticizing” fraudsters than being perceived as a “right-wing” skeptic group, with the people like Lindzen, Spencer or Singer. I think that Steve is rather rare beast – an honest liberal. He is devoted to left-wing policy, but unlike most of climate-scientists activists, he is not ready to manipulate the science for political reasons. He did not master that kind of cynical post-normal science kind of philosophy that most of them mastered. He is still, in an old fashioned way, conventional science analyst who considers data, method and results as objective and replicable element of the scientific discourse. He wants to check the science behind the policy he likes. He despises the corruption of Hansen, Jones, Mann and others, in the similar way Lenin despised “bad guys from our camp”.
McIntyre’s ludicrous assumption that policy makers should act by and large as if nothing had happened just reflects this cognitive dissonance.
I listened to the interview on Sirius radio (no video). Paraphrasing the interviewer, Steve was asked if the emails called into question the basis of AGW theory. His response will be intrepreted by those who don’t follow the topic as a “NO”. What am I missing here? Steve has just about proven beyond reasonable doubt that the global gurus of paleo climate use sloppy methods and fudged (selectively biased) data. Steve, to his credit, called their behavior “unprofessional”, but, if , as he has demonstrated, the warmist analysis of the pre 1850 period doesn’t stand up, why couldn’t he take the next step and simply state that, therfore, a key element of the AGW alarmist logic train falls apart, i.e. current warming is unprecidented. Pointing that out doesn’t require one take sides in the AGW debate , it’s simply articulating the implications of Steve’s work. Pull that leg out of the AGW stool, it starts to look just a bit wobbly.
Haven’t seen the segment but just read the transcript. I think Steve did fine. McCracken went beyond the data just like Gavin did. Steve doesn’t need to denounce or declaim, these people are undermining their own credibility quite nicely.
Well of course,when you are ready to pound the message into everyman’s skull,you need to unleash the Morano
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaG6U8z8z
Looking at a video linked in one of the posts here where Mann is explaining the “trick” of “hiding the decline” an analogy came to me.
It would appear that if Jones et al. had the front end of a Ford motor car,but no back end and also had a similar car with a non-functioning front end,they would consider it acceptable to weld the orphaned front end of the first car onto the functioning rear of the second and sell it as a single vehicle.
Here in the U.K. the law takes a dim view of that sort of thing.
SonicFrog says:
“Do you really want one of the talking heads to be able to show Steve or John to be liars by bringing up previous quotes stating they don’t disagrees with the theory of AGW? Talk about suicidal.”
Steve and John appeared alongside adamant proponents of global warming who forcefully put forward their pro-AGW views. What I do want is someone on those shows who DOES disagree with AGW who can and will articulate their position. I want someone on who can move opinion away from disastrous public policies needlessly keeping us from using and developing our carbon-based energy sources.
If Steve and John do not disagree with the theory of AGW they should not allow themselves to be put opposite a proponent of AGW as “balancing” the opinion of the other pro-AGW guest. They should recommend another professional who truly is opposed to the AGW viewpoint such as Lindzen, Soon, etc.
They may be allowing themselves to be cast in a role (anti-AGW advocate) that they do not really espouse.