I just got word from the producer, that I will be on the PBS Newshour tonight. This is a long segment on climate change that will include several notable people from the climate debate, including Dr. Richard Muller among others. I don’t know what part of the hour the segment will be in, but because it is a feature story, I would suspect it not to be in the first few minutes. (Check local listings here)
I was asked by Spencer Michels, their San Francisco based correspondent, to do an interview. At the outset, he said that this would be an “in depth” segment. I replied that all I asked for was “fair editing” and he replied that there would be.
I was interviewed in my office on August 14th for about two hours. A three person crew (including Michels) with full production lighting was brought into my office where the interview was conducted. He was most interested in my surfacestations project, and my views on the severity of AGW effects and I replied at length. Later in follow up requests he asked for examples of weather stations in the SFO bay area that were affected and here is what I replied with in email:
=============================================================
===============================================================
Whether or not any of that supplemental info plus my two hours of time investment gets turned into a segment that reflects what I actually said is of course the question of the day. I have to think based on my interaction with Mr. Michels, which was quite pleasant, that it will be fair, though he did mention that there was quite a debate in the Washington office over my participation. So, that causes a little bit of worry to me.
On the plus side, he said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview:
You don’t seem that extreme.
I suppose that because I agreed that global warming occurred over the last century, and that Co2 plays a role (though isn’t the only driver) that he was surprised that he didn’t have a “denier” soundbite to work with. I spent a lot of time talking about station siting and the effects on absolute temperature and temperature trends as we discovered in Watts et al 2012, the logarithmic response of IR to CO2 in the atmosphere and other issues from a pragmatic viewpoint (IMHO).
Let’s hope he and the editors kept that thought about my supposed extremism when they edited.
UPDATE: My interview (a condensed version, though mostly accurate) is now online: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/17/my-interview-with-pbs-newshour-now-online/
Anthony, get your side of the story out at the same time that the section is aired. I hope you made a tape recording for yourself. You don’t want to be taken out of context. If you did then put it online when the section starts.
Wondering…
Did you get a copy of the raw footage of your interview? I am a familiar with a CANDU Nuclear Plant Operations policy that requires all interviews of plant employees to be recorded by the Plant operations due to anti-nuke biased editing circa 1970s and 1980s. It was insurance against libel.
Anthony….while I love your optimism,you have as much chance of a “fair” editing and representation as a white mouse in a rattler’s cage. Journalistic integrity,whether print or media, was lost about…oh….hold it.What you never had,you can’t lose.
“I replied that all I asked for was “fair editing” and he replied that there would be.”
You are so naive Anthony. Get ready for disappointing news.
Yeah, Anthony. You don’t seem too extreme, but you didn’t let them interview UCS-member-in-good-standing Kenji Watts, did you?
I’ll be quite surprised if you’re not edited down to 8 seconds of “…there are some problems with some of the surface stations…” and then 3-4 minutes are given over to someone else explaining how those problems have “been accounted for and adjustments made and we’re still all gonna fry.”
I am not holding my breath for “Fair and balanced; we report, you decide.” But we’ll see.
I bet Anthony gets less than one minute air time and they show his statement closest to denialism they can edit. Plus they will use the least flattering shot with a telephone pole coming out of the top of his head.
careful anthony remember what they did to dellingpole. record the interview yourself. it can’t be illegal to record something that happens in your own office, can it ?
DayHay says:
September 17, 2012 at 11:44 am
Don’t worry, you will get your “denier” label at some point.
First rule, never trust a politician.
Second rule, apply first rule to journalists.
REPLY: This fellow is old school, and he and I have some shared history in the broadcast business through mutual acquaintances. I got no hint of any sort of setup or malice other than that one curious comment. We’ll see. – Anthony
He’s just the field producer, who’s only job is to supply the content, probably given a checklist of things to look for. He doesn’t do the on-air edit, or even probably have a contribution to it. Don’t expect to come off looking especially well. PBS went off the rails with the election of Obama. Ifil is so in the tank, its embarrassing. If you didn’t come off extreme, you might not see much actual airtime…
Happy Birthday, Anthony!
I see on the PBS web site that tonight’s story is titled:
“A change of heart for a global warming skeptic”
No doubt this is a story about Muller and his BEST project.
Watts may not get trashed, but his opinion will be marginalized.
http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
better still have a large digital clock displaying hours, minutes & secondbehind you in shot
sorry that should be seconds behind you
There seems to be some worry they’ll edit AW into a crazy denier.
I think it would be more clever and actually quite funny if they edited him into the consensus. He probably made enough statements of truth that concede points to the opposition, and defferent waffles to invite civil discussion, that it could be spliced in with polar bear drownings and pictures of dried out corn stalks to make a good scare movie.
I agree with the sentiment here that the warmists tend to be left wingers, but don’t forget that the real forte of the left wing is unconstrained thought (unconstrained by arbitrary tradition or by reality). I enjoy NPR the same way I enjoy Star Wars – suspension of disbelief and acceptance that it assumes the character of the genre.
You”re a brave man, Anthony. I do think they’ll make an effort to be “fair,” but their number one job is to promulgate the CAGW partly line. They’re convinced all skeptics are all nut-jobs and that the fate of the planet is hanging in the balance.
The main problem is you’ll never be given the last word. You’ll be seen pointing out XYZ problem, and then we’ll be shown someone from the team explaining, in condescending tones no doubt, why you’re wrong. And that will be that. So much for fair and balanced.
Note to all WUWT readers, regardless of your position (alarmist, lukewarmer, or skeptic), when being interviewed by “the media”, always have a video or at least a sound recording of the interview. As a condition of the interview, always insist the copyright for the raw interview is jointly shared (you are 50% of it, consequently you _OWN_ 50% of it). Let them know you reserve the exclusive right to publish your raw recording of the interview in the event you ‘feel’ you have been used & abused by the media’s editing of the interview. The editing process is extremely subjective. Alternatively, don’t tell “the media” you are also recording the interview, since it is more fun to ‘catch’ the interviewer in a lie at a later date.
Thanks for the heads-up, Anthony. This is one of those days I’m happy Comcast lets me program my DVR over the internet!
I think someone wanting you to lower your guard would be quite pleasant, also. But maybe I’m just too cynical about such issues.
Anthony has the devastating WUWT? to get his side out. Be aware that EVERYBODY on either side of the debate read WUWT? extensively. The bullies fear your reach Anthony. What is more important is that the surfacestations project is correct.
People who believe the stuff oozing from their tv set need to wake up. The world is being bamboozled by a source of entertainment that is extremely powerful in zombie-fying those who are hypnotized by it’s enticing glow.
Well, let’s hope they give you a fair shake, Anthony.
Please post a link to the interview. I, for one, unplugged my television about 5 years ago. And I can guarantee you I have not missed it.
I can get pbs news here in the uk via virginmedia,channel 243. and its on Sky channel 166.
Looking forward to it.
Heres`s hoping we dont get a cut down version.
It’s interesting that Anthony mentions ‘the logarithmic response of IR to CO2’
This seems often forgotten.
Has this curve ever appeared in an IPCC report? I have seen it explained in a subdued way but I have not seen the curve. Callendar used it in his AGW papers in the 1930s but I have not seen it in AGW account since. I spoke to someone once who was telling me about his failed campaign to get it into SAR. Such a dampening response (lim -> 0) is of course the mathematical opposite to catastrophic (lim -> infin, or classic catastrophic tipping pts) and so anathema to the alarmist project.
I would still like to see the evidence behind CO2 being a factor – I know the chemistry behind the suggestion that CO2 influences global temperatures – but I have yet to see absolute proof suggesting this is true – in fact the CERN Cloud study suggested other things, and at least from the abstracts I saw at the time of the release, that CO2 impact was negligible.
I realize that is only one study – but before I believe anything about CO2 I would sure like some actual evidence – not a chemistry lab experiment – verifying it. It seems that CO2 is more a byproduct of heating than its cause.
Leave it to the prejudiced broadcasting service to never surprise anyone. It’s refreshing that you still trust people Anthony, but sometimes worrisome.