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/
The transcript looked very fair and balanced. Didn’t seem like a ‘stitch-up job at all.
They are going to portray Muller as the “converted” skeptic. We all know that to be a bunch of PBS (political bull s**t).
Two hour investment for the only snippet they need….
“that global warming occurred over the last century and that CO2 plays a role”….
Although warming is questionable and CO2 has no role….what you will see on PBS is off camera questions with edits, that misrepresents the actual interview….coupled with voice overs and pans of your office and data….there will be NO attempt at fair and balanced news reporting…this is mass message honing in the Gobels traditon. Uneditted, live interviews are the only fair and truthful method of dealing with these automatons.
REPLY: You might want to have a look at what actually happened, while this isn’t the entire interview, it is condensed, it is most of it. – Anthony
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/17/my-interview-with-pbs-newshour-now-online/
Anthony: Michaels has always been one of the fairest and most thorough journalists on television. It was your good fortune for him to be doing this story and for it to be on PBS. It will probably have a slight warmist tilt, but it will still be informative and hopefully add some clarity to the issues.
Expect a few additional hit tomorrow Anthony. 😀
DaveE.
Anthony, I thought the portion of your interview just presented on PBS a few minutes ago was quite good. You present well, and–dare I say–don’t seem at all extreme. (sarc)
I wish public discourse on the effects of our changing climate could always be this cordial.
Keep up the good work.
Felix
I hope this isn’t to far off topic. Use of the phrase “pragmatic skeptic” to describe Anthony threw me a bit. So I tried to jot down simple definitions for the various terms used in the debate.
I’m finding it difficult to properly define the distinction between Warmers, LukeWarmers, and Skeptics in a concise way.
Serious suggestions would be appreciated. I’m convinced that if the media had a proper definition of these terms the pieces they produce would be far more insightful. “You don’t seem that extreme” is a good example.
Affirmer: one who blindly supports the IPCC conclusions with little to no understanding of the science.
Denier: one who blindly rejects the IPCC conclusions with little to no understanding of the science.
Everyone else, to one degree or another, is skeptical of IPCC conclusions. Warmers, LukeWarmers, and Skeptics support aspects of the IPCC conclusions to varying degrees.
No one, other than Affirmers and Alarmists support all of the IPCC conclusions for a very simple reason. The conclusions are presented in relation to degrees of certainty. Many of the IPCC conclusions are found to have low levels of certainty. In other words, many of the conclusions are unsupportable.
The biggest problem sub-group in the mix are the Alarmists. Alarmists have a vested interest, either financially or psychologically, in the outcome/solutions with an understanding of the science that varies from 0% to 100%. This is the group that thwarts attempts to have an intelligent debate about the state of the science and proposed solutions.
The IPCC has included solution work groups from its formation. The IPCC has a vested interest in the science and the solutions and thus is Alarmist by design.
There’s another group worth mentioning; Climate Realists.
“Climate realists believe that the danger of climate change has been exaggerated both as to the magnitude and the degree of human causation, and that most of the proposed “solutions” are not viable anyway.” –Arthur Wiegenfeld
Climate Realists tend to be more pragmatic in the debate preferring to focus on outcomes in direct relation costs incurred to evaluate proposed solutions.
The comments at PBS are particularly telling. There are a lot that are critical of PBS to dare show the other side. Hateful lot they are, threatening to pull back support for PBS, questioning the wisdom of interviewing a ‘Denier’, etc. It’s very hard to win over the converted.
I haven’t watched the PBS news hour in years; I’m looking forward to it. I suspect your appearance will increase viewership. Now if you could just get on the John Stossel show …
Dr Burns says:
September 17, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“ANTHONY WATTS: … it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years. But what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide? And what percentage of that is from changes in the local and measurement environment? ”
This is a very misleading statement. It does not allow for the fact that real warming, if any, has been brought about by natural causes, such as changes in solar activity and clouds. It implies that measured warming is a result of a combination of CO2, station siting and UHI.
Not misleading at all. We don’t know yet whether any of the warming mechanisms postulated are relatively factual. We believe they are, but we’re a long way from evaluating the extent. The two things Anthony mentioned are valid – Anthony is not saying they are the whole story. He is absolutely correct in what he states. And the answer from the first question is easy: “low, very low”. The second is more significant. Our metrics of global warming are an absolute horror.
I just watched the presentation and found it to be disappointing, as “they” are still attempting to color the skeptics as global warming deniers. NO! The land temperatures here have increased since the LIA, but the reasons therefor were not mainly anthropogenic.
John from CA says:
September 17, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I hope this isn’t to far off topic. Use of the phrase “pragmatic skeptic” to describe Anthony threw me a bit. So I tried to jot down simple definitions for the various terms used in the debate.
I’m finding it difficult to properly define the distinction between Warmers, LukeWarmers, and Skeptics in a concise way.
===========
Warmers and LukeWarmers: the distinction between the two comes done to disagreement over climate sensitivity. Based on a comment at Climate Etc.:
steven mosher | June 2, 2011 at 1:16 am
Lukewarmer ( hey I’m a founding member) was first coined on climate Audit. There were two core beliefs we held about the SCIENCE.
1. IR opaque gases in the atmosphere lead to a warmer planet. That is, an atmosphere with, say, twice the C02 will be warmer than one with half the C02. Most of the initial members of the group are engineers or former engineers who understand the physics of radiative transfer.
2. The key question of climate science is how sensitive is the long term temperature average ( one climate metric) to the doubling of C02.
Our belief in radiative physics separates us from those in the Sky Dragon camp and from people who believe that GHGs have nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. We see them as flouting basic physics known to work. They are anti scientific. I cant think of a better word. This is measured working physics.
The second question is one that we believe can divide the debate into 3 rough groups. The IPCC puts a range of sensitivity between 1.5C and and 6C for a doubling of C02. We see a skeptical camp falling anywhere below ~1C. They are skeptical of the accepted science. You might class Lindzen and Spencer in this group. We dont see them as being anti scientific. They fall outside the mainstream, but they are dedicated to doing science.
Lukewarmers fall anywhere between 1C and 3C. They believe that the real sensitivity will fall below the mean value of the IPCC (~3C). For reference, ModelE has a sensitivity of 2.7C. Those who believe that the real sensitivity lies above 3 ( say hansen, perhaps) we call them warmers. Lukewarmers are within the mainstream of climate science.
Policy: There really isn’t any consolidated lukewarmer position on policy. Why? well, because science doesnt determine policy. Science can inform policy, but my belief that sensitivity lies between 1.5C and 3C has no logical connection to what I think we SHOULD do. is verus ought. As a Lukewarmer, I’d argue that we really should not have an accepted policy position. We’ve expressed on a few occasions that we support a policy of no regrets. Simply, those actions we would do regardless of the truth of AGW. For example, we tend to support nuclear.
Of course I realize that the first Lukewarmers have no control over what other people who use the term mean by it. So, I’m just recounting some of our initial thinking. Lukewarmer is a description of a position about the science. GHGs cause warming. Sensitivity is more likely to be less than 3C than it is to be greater than 3C. If you accept those two, you’re a lukewarmer.
The other thing we all agreed on was the first credo for Lukerwarmers Free the data; free the code; open the debate.
By open the debate I mean this. There IS a debate in climate science. That debate is about sensitivity. If you accept #1 ( see above) you can join the debate.
The nice thing about the lukewarmer position is that you really don’t need to have a position on tangential issues like the Hockey stick or the ice free arctic or any other number of distractions. It’s all about the sensitivity.
Skeptics would add additional factors to the LukeWarmer position.
Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
by Judith Curry
The skeptics thread has shown that it is plausible to be skeptical of a number of issues regarding the findings of IPCC WG1. However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.
Skeptics: make your best case
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/26/skeptics-make-your-best-case/
========
Anthony,
Wouldn’t a WUWT press kit help and shouldn’t it contain a glossary of terms used in the debate?
I’d be happy to do the leg work for your review and suspect you can count on a lot of help from other sites to pull it together.
John from CA says:
“Skeptics: make your best case”.
Judith Curry has it backward, of course. It is those who put forth the AGW conjecture who have the onus of proof, or at least of providing convincing scientific evidence confirming AGW.
By ‘evidence’ I mean testable, measurable data such as ice core data, and convincing empirical observations conducted in a scientific manner, such as the Central England Temperature series.
Funny thing is, there is no scientific evidence that confirms AGW in a measurable, testable way. AGW may exist, but until and unless there is solid evidence connecting human emitted CO2 with a measurable rise in temperature, AGW is simply a conjecture. An opinion. Possibly only a belief.
The onus is on the alarmist crowd, and they cannot convince scientific skeptics of AGW without providing solid testable evidence directly connecting global warming with human CO2 emissions in a measurable and replicable way. That is how science works, and all the arm-waving over AGW is meaningless without convincing scientific evidence. And so far, there is little if any evidence for AGW. Which leaves opinion and belief.
D Boehm says:
September 18, 2012 at 11:52 am
John from CA says:
“Skeptics: make your best case”.
Judith Curry has it backward, of course.
==========
The onus of proof is on the IPCC WG1 not Alarmists. Alarmists should be removed from the debate due to their vested interest. The Media doesn’t understand the meaning of the terms used to describe the various groups in the debate.
Curry was simply giving Skeptics an opportunity to present valid issues that also question IPCC conclusions.
John from CA says (September 18, 2012 at 11:23 am):
“Most of the initial members of the group are engineers or former engineers who understand the physics of radiative transfer. …Our belief in radiative physics separates us from those in the Sky Dragon camp and from people who believe that GHGs have nothing to do with the temperature of the planet.”
=================================================
The real physics of radiative transfer has never included a notion about the (back) radiation from colder CO2 warming the warmer surface. Apparently no one has been able to prove this notion experimentally.
Your “belief” has no basis in science.
Greg House says:
September 18, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Your “belief” has no basis in science.
============
My interest is to attempt to describe the various climate groups in the debate with the intent of sharing the info with climate sites and the media.
Did I miss any groups?
Which group (of those 73 out of 76 government-funded self-selected “scientists” who receive money from the government to specifically create the justification for further funding of government-funded “scientists” by justifying 1.3 trillion of new tax dollars) are the climate theists going to be assigned?
After all, if funding creates biases, as claimed every day by the government-funded “scientists”, who are the group most thoroughly corrupted by funding biases?
RACookPE1978 says:
September 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Which group (of those 73 out of 76 government-funded self-selected “scientists” who receive money from the government to specifically create the justification for further funding of government-funded “scientists” by justifying 1.3 trillion of new tax dollars) are the climate theists going to be assigned?
After all, if funding creates biases, as claimed every day by the government-funded “scientists”, who are the group most thoroughly corrupted by funding biases?
============
Climate Scientists could logically fall into any of the groups. Warmer doesn’t strike me as polite but I didn’t make up the terms. I wonder what self-label CAGW, AGW, and IPCC supporters prefer.
Langmuir’s Symptoms of Pathological Science
(When reading, keep AGW in mind):
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. Check. High CO2, low CO2, all produces the same effect.
The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. Check. Very low statistical significance. And we can almost, barely, ‘see’ AGW. And again, maybe not.
Claims of great accuracy. Check. Purporting to measure temperature to tenths of a degree over centuries.
Fantastic theories contrary to experience. Check. Experience shows that everything now being observed has happened before.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. Check. Everything is blamed on AGW.
Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion. Check.
Source: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Nrays
I am not saying that AGW does not exist. I don’t know. But there is no convincing scientific evidence measuring AGW, therefore no one else knows for sure, either. AGW may turn out to be like N-Rays, or the Allison effect. Or CO2 may turn out to have a net cooling effect. At this point, we just Do. Not. Know. And those who claim to ‘know’ are operating based on belief, not on the rigorous scientific method.
D Boehm,
Your comments related to belief vs fact and the articles reference to Pathological Science are very interesting. Many, who support the IPCC conclusions, refer to themselves as ‘Believers’.
So far, I’m not getting a lot of traction for the idea of a common set of defined terms and a corresponding Press Kit to help define the self-labeled groups in the climate debate. This seems like a very logical approach to eliminate confusion and aid communication.
John from CA says:
September 18, 2012 at 11:31 am
========
My comment led several to the 2010 thread topic on Climate Etc.
Dr. Curry opened a new thread.
Skeptics: make your best case. Part II
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/18/skeptics-make-your-best-case-part-ii/