The amount of hate directed at me today due to my appearance on PBS yesterday has been, in climate parlance, “unprecedented”. Most of the objections were not with what I said, but rather that I was allowed to speak at all. Apparently my mere presence in the broadcast has caused such a firestorm of complaints to PBS that they had to put up an apology piece. It is truly bizarre behavior on display. Even more bizarre is the fact that after 230 comments, my comment requesting a couple of simple spelling corrections still has not been approved nor acted upon. This is what my browser shows me today, note the yellow highlight:
Admittedly, I misspelled typographical in my haste to notify them of problems in their own article, but I never expected them to flat out ignore it. Here’s my screencap from yesterday; shortly after the article went up when there were only two comments besides mine:
My request was for them to fix errors that likely resulted in transcription, either by a human transcriptionist unfamiliar with the science, or speech to text software that made the wrong word choice.
My requested corrections were:
heat sync ===> should be ===> heat sink
and
sighting issues ===> should be ===> siting issues
another that I didn’t mention that should be fixed is:
solar insulation ===> should be ===> solar insolation
But I guess they were too busy responding to threats to cancel donations, angry and sometimes hateful comments, and writing appeasement articles to sooth the fan base to worry about such trivialities.
For the record, here is what I sent to PBS Correspondent Spencer Michels today:
From: Anthony
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:48 AM
To: smichels@xxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Thank you
Hello Spencer,
Overall I’m pleased with the results of your work yesterday, and while some people have emotions ranging from quibbles to outrage about it, I’m appreciative, as are many, that you fought to have me included.
Most of the complaints I’ve seen haven’t much to do with the content of what I said but mostly over the fact that I was allowed to speak at all.
When my new paper is published, I’ll include you on the release list. After going through our second round of review, I’m confident that our results will hold up, and that there is a bias in the surface temperature record, creating an increased temperature trend due to station siting issues.
Thank you again for your fair representation.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
I’ll have more to say on this episode later. Right now I’m just reeling from the hate sent my way for daring to express an opinion at the invitation of PBS.
Here’s an example from the “Forecast the Facts” paid political organization who bullies TV weathercasters into saying what they want:
“On September 17, 2012, PBS Newshour provided an unchecked platform for Anthony Watts, a virulent climate change denier funded by the Heartland Institute. This is the kind of reporting we expect from Fox News, not PBS. Please join us in calling on the PBS ombudsman to immediately investigate how this segment came to be aired and recommend corrective action to make sure a journalistic abomination like this never happens again.
The Petition – Below is the petition we’ll send to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler: “Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting never again occurs on PBS.”
“…featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts”
Gosh, I suppose they didn’t read this part of the interview:
SPENCER MICHELS: His conclusion though is that basically global warming exists and that the scientists, no matter what the problems were, were pretty much right on.
ANTHONY WATTS: I agree with him that global warming exists. However, the ability to attribute the percentage of global warming to CO2 versus other man-made influences is still an open question.
or this:
ANTHONY WATTS: I’m saying that the data might be biased by these influences to a percentage. Yes, we have some global warming, 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?
What am I denying?
It really is easy to disturb the collective, isn’t it?
230 comments? Your volunteer organisation handles more than that on several different articles on most days.
Perhaps you should offer them technical assistance as well as help with spelling?
on behalf of the world, “sorry”.
(sad, isn’t it?)
Anthony – please know that there is a huge amount of people that are very proud of what you have done, not only by presenting a logical and intelligent opinion on this show piece, but what you have stood for since the beginning of WUWT, and continue to do so. You Sir, are a true champion and leader, and sometime in the not too distant future, your website, and your continued efforts to rebalance the argument, will be appreciated for their true worth. Congratulations on your continued efforts – stay the course, and try as best you can to ignore the sad whimpering of the vocal minority.
How dare they allow a dissenter’s voice to be heard. Sarc.
If you can’t refute the opponents arguments, then try to drown them out by repeating the same line, while holding your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes. If that is too difficult, then try to make sure they can’t share their arguments with you or others. Sarc.
your participation was great but not the story it seems. In fact the interview was poor from their point of view, they missed many obvious questions. However, the reaction to your interview is priceless. Its what we in the UK call “shooting your self in the foot” ( and you folks may say that too )… basically they have put on display a collective ignorance and distain for basic scientific behaviour that is breathtaking. In their world freedom to speak should be banned because you are not a field scientist yet their 97% of all dogs like Winalot dog food type statement is somehow heralded as a defence for their bigotry. Its pathetic beyond words. You could have given an interview about women lingerie Anthony for all they care…. they did not listen and have not the pure scientific curiosity to do so….
Some say that, at this rate, Climate Change will become impossible to report for all but the most stupidly wide-eyed of journalists, sheepishly doing a copy-and-paste on anything Dear Kev and friends will pass.
Some say, it has already happened.
As a frequent listener to National Propaganda Radio (one needs to keep up with what the enemy is saying) I am somewhat shocked that you were given any venue, whatsoever. You most certainly should not expect fair or accurate treatment. I do find it surprisingly refreshing that they allowed you any acknowlegement at all. NPR would be one of my first candidates for complete elimination from our national budget along with most of the EPA, all of the Dept of Energy and much of HEW.
When all of this massive scam finally comes crashing down- and it WILL – there will be silence from the vast majority of such people. They’ll spend the next 30 years hoping no one Ever asks them where they were, when the Ivory Towers fell.
And they will NEVER apologize.
Hi Anthony,
I thought your interview on PBS was reasonable, but not great. It appeared to the viewer (myself) that you were too carefully choosing a ‘tactful’ response to the questions. This may be your style but it looked a little contrived, which is not so good for the science.
That said, i placed two constructively worded responses on the PBS.org website – both yesterday and today and while other comments have been approved, mine have not.
Comment 1:
Basically, referred to the complete lack of knowledge exhibited by the electorate on CO2 and say flora. Most people do not know what trees are made from… Carbon fixation from CO2. There are a number of intereviews on the Internet about this topic. All are astounding in that the respondents exhibit a complete lack of minor environmental science. My point is, how can people make informed decisions when they do not understand the meager scientific basics. Relatedly, on the level of engagement – these same people do not understand how CO2 taxation would work. That is, who would collect the taxes and who would benefit? Second, who would ‘police’ the CO2 emission levels and to which governments would these individuals report? What are the implications for sovereign countries?
Comment 2:
No one, on the PBS.org – Comments Section is addressing the questions that you posed in the interview; namely, the suitability of the temperature data sets and Muller’s paper… not passsing peer review.
It would appear to me that PBS is failing the test of openness and balanced information exchange. This will hurt their brand.
Lastly, I am pleased that you took the time to do the interview.
jds in Toronto
There is no amount of science, logic or reality that will divest a True Believer of his True Beliefs and any attempt to do so will result in vitriolic, hateful responses. Welcome to the world and mind (a scary place) of the left wing.
Reminiscent of the hate response of the muslim world to the recent film trailer.
I guess that’s religious fanatics for you.
What surprises me is the outrage that Mr Watts should be allowed to speak.
Not what he said but that his comments were actually actually solicited and broadcast.
He dared to suggest that the temperature record might lack accuracy because of heat from buildings or constructions and equipment that had been erected around the thermometer sites.
A note of caution that the quality of the data should be checked.
And it generates hysterical responses.
Heh. They have no idea. I sent a polite comment to Getler today, which will come across to him somewhat better than the terse instruction contained in the ‘petition’.
“Immediately investigate the NewsHour segment featuring climate change denier and conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts [ad hominem] for violations of PBS standards on accuracy, integrity, and transparency, and recommend corrective action to ensure that such reporting [of free speech] never again occurs on PBS.”
What a bunch of losers.
Sorry to hear about you becoming the subject of todays five minute hate Anthony.
Sounds like the ABC or SBS in Oz- the peace loving luvvies show their virulent hatred for anyone who dares to question their received wisdom. Well done Anthony.
Ken
They’re no dummies, nor are they stupid they knew what kind of blow back they would get. They were looking to get a bounce about the show even if negative.
Anthony:
You did a good job. You presented facts clearly and calmly. Hence, alarmists want to ban you and to defame you.
I am very surprised that this is a new experience for you but – since you imply it is – I say
Welcome to the club.
Richard
Nice non-Gandhi quote: And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. (N. Klein, 1918)
It is precisely this kind of assault that made me look into the issue of CAGW in the first place. If they are so right, why do they need to be so “virulently” hostile? I discovered warmists are vicious towards any critique of the consensus, and sceptics politely point to facts and data (or lack of them). Thank you so much Anthony for giving us information. It is infinitely preferable to being called names for asking questions.
Looks like the Climate Response Team was called in for that one.
Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5. Hate Level 5.
The invective from the Forcast the Facts blurb is as over the top crazyness as I’ve seen yet. You know you have them on the run when they come out with stuff like this. Keep up the good work!
The very fact that you were given a platform is progress.
For every squealing green there was probably a hundred normal people nodding in quiet agreement.
Good on ya!
Pearls before swine! You are appreciated Anthony, this site has taught me so much and I enjoy it, (even the bits I do not truly understand).
This is exactly what I mean about the dangers of IDEOLOGY, which has no place whatsoever in Science.
It is anathema to the very idea of the scientific method, which is proof positive why Anthony Watt’s mere appearance on the News Hour on PBS has caused such a firestorm among the AGW carbon climate change scam industry.
That ideology ignores all the laws of physics. Since 1988, when the ‘global warming’ ideology really got going in Colorado when I covered climate/weather for Knight-Ridder as a journalist and dealt with NCAR and their climate scientists on a regular basis; many of them were quite uncertain about even the existence of global warming.
Of course, we all know that millions in federal funding since the 1990s led to the ideological war on science in general and on climate science in particular with the lie that humanity is the cause of global warming.
In my expertise as a astrometeorologist in forecasting climate and weather I know all too well that it is the SUN that is the cause of global warming and all climate change.
All of our climate change comes from outer space, for that is where our planet lives and it is where the Sun, the driver and life-giver to our planet, also lives.
The facts of the laws of physics cannot be altered by opinion, outright lies, or ideology.
As Aldous Huxley once said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
The Stalinists are outraged.
I guess they really mean it when they say the debates over. Now they are saying to PBS, “The debates over OR ELSE!!”
Anthony: the hysteria you see and hear is directly related to the calm effectiveness and professional excellence of your presentation. You were very good and they are frightened by it.