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?
Two things of note.
My posts that had no content, i.e. the ones asking for evidence or citation were published. Anything that I posted regarding the flaws in the science, gone.
A great number of the posters that are gnashing their teeth are people that have been unable to defend themselves scientifically on WUWT?. The grapes are as sour as they can be. Some of them are still spewing things that have been shown to them as incorrect. Like cornered animals they are. We knew it was coming. Hopefully Joe Public sees through their hand-waving.
Some great posts on there, Tallbloke !!
Hmmm…maybe someone should make the point to the ombudsman that they probably got a bump in viewership with this program? I, for one, actually sat and watched the entire program–which I never have done before. It was galling to have to listen to the desperate advocates, but it was pure pleasure to hear Anthony’s reasoned responses.
After watching a show like that, I like to ask myself, “Self, which of those people would you want for a next door neighbor?”
Advertisers have a saying: “Sizzle sells.” If they can see that they can make the issue sizzle, then perhaps there will be more opportunities for actual debates in public venues. Since so many of the American population no longer see CAGW as deserving of their undying support and limitless sacrifice, maybe they can stir the waters and make an extra buck out of the turmoil? After all, there are evidently still plenty of rabid believers out there who are not the least bit shy about voicing their objections to hearing from a credible skeptic. That will get them a bump in their web viewship, too.
Heh. Heh.
After all, their bottom line should improve if they actually host more confrontations between any of the well known advocates and reasonable, knowledgeable skeptics like Anthony.
Hi Anthony – The PBS interview was objective and fairly presented. You did a very effective job of overviewing your perspective.
I do dispute that they write that you are not a scientist. One does not need a Ph.d. to do scientific research and publish in respected peer reviewed journals. You are very much a scientist and in your research are following the scientific method. Except when they raise constructive issues with respect to your interview, I recommend you just ignore them. Best Regards
Roger A. Pielke Sr.
REPLY: Thank you Roger
Does it seem strange to anyone else that now skeptics are “conspiracy theorists”?
Trouble is, the reaction to the interview will scare some of the fence-sitting scientists back into their cubbyholes. Hang in there Anthony. Think of Sir Ranulph Fiennes as he plans to walk across Antarctica during its winter at temperatures of minus 90 degrees C, and in the dark. Now that’s ‘being out in the cold’!
This has, of course, happened before. Probably many times. And it will happen again.
The last great fighter against this kind of idiocy was Julian Simon. He stood alone by following the data, being right when all the others were wrong, and was vilified and persecuted for this.
When he was proven right, he received no applause or recognition. He commented that, for some reason he could never comprehend:
“… people were inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they were immune to contrary evidence just as if they’d been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seemed to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” spoke awful falsehoods, and they were believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker…”
Deja vu…?
By the way, let’s remember that this is what we all are trying to do in order to stop the AGW carbom scam industry from taking over the world. It really is a battle that requires teamwork and creativity to return climate science – and the world – to its common senses again.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OhhHCSrK8Q?rel=0&w=420&h=315%5D
The terminology of your discourse has fueled our skeptic nature, informing and impulsing valuation of participation and redounding on the conclusion that you are a weenie.”
>> What am I denying?
You are denying climate ! You clearly said that climate does not exist and never has. You also said the Holocaust never happened and that the moon landing was a hoax. You are clearly a total nutter . The constitution must be changed now to remove any part that allows people like you to be heard. Freedom of speech was a big mistake. We must save the planet. We need to unite an army of
guerillasmonkeys to …..Apart from that, congratulations on a very well conducted interview and kudos to Spencer Michels for pushing for proper journalistic standards and making it happen.
It was interesting to see you live and get some impression of who you are rather than the very flat impression that can be gained from blog articles.
This and the number of non AGW papers getting published recently shows some sanity is slowly returning. You are in no small way contributing to that change.
congratulations and thank you!
Looks like PBS needs to get a dictionary out and look up “scientist”. Anthony has peer reviewed papers published, and has conducted original research. How is he not a “scientist”? (Remember, Einstein was a patent clerk…)
And yet, they have “corrected” the article to remove the implication that he was a scientist, and in their notice of correction, have explicitly stated that he is not one.
Anthony, if they are going for more interviews, Id be pushing for Lindzen, Spencer, etc….to get in on the act => to provide balance (if needed). It’s likely PBS will want to appease the uproar (ie. follow the consensus majority view). Atleast if this is done, then there is no excuse for an all-alarmist interview.
Cheers.
Sometime late tonight, expect brown shirted government security forces to show up at your door and haul out – voluntarily, of course – for ‘questioning’. You don’t happen to have a probation officer, do you?
Anthony,
Two things.
1. You were quite gentle in your dissent during the interview. That viewers would have such an extreme reaction shows the deep level of investment they have in the existence of catastrophic global warming.
2. In the PBS apology post there is an editor’s note : “An earlier version of this post implied that Anthony Watts is a scientist. As we reported on the broadcast last night, he is not.” This is an interesting statement because it is intended to dismiss your argument by attacking your credentials. I would argue that having 25 years of experience as a Meteorologist does, indeed, make you a scientist. I don’t think it matters, as your work speaks for itself, but, to clear up any confusion, do you have a degree in any scientific field?
Anthony, I sincerely hope that Spencer Michels really does “get it” and is able to address this travesty.
But in the meantime …
I’m sure that any minute now we shall see the friendly folks at the U.K. Guardian being kind enough to host an “Open Letter”** from those illustrious exemplars of civilized discourse (Bradley, Karoly, Mann, Overpeck, Santer, Schmidt and Trenberth) who – very close on the heels of Gleickgate – put out their oh-so-heartfelt call for their opponents to engage in “an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change” while strongly condemning those who are embarked upon this campaign to “disappear” your voice from the airwaves.
[** See: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf ]
Although I’m rather inclined towards the alternate possibility, and all we shall hear is an encore performance of one of their favourite tunes: Sounds of Silence.
As with articles on your blog, the more vitriol you elicit from anthropogenic doom fetishists, the more impact you know you have had. I hope you publish some of the hate mail you have received to show how in the minds of many, AGW is the expression of suppressed misanthropy stemming from a fear of uncertainty and impotence that manifests itself in a desparate need for self assertion in the form of aggression, bullying and focused group hatred of a bogeyman (sceptics).
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into promoting rationality and healthy scepticism Anthony.
Only 230 comments, Anthony you must be slipping!
“An unbeliever!!! Persecute! Kill the heretic!!!!” – the crowd baying against the annoyed hermit. Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
Plus ca change?
It is clear why they don’t want you to get a word in edgewise,…..
Two very wise people recently commented on what makes a scientist:
****************************
Person One:
A scientist is a person who is searching for an understanding of why something is, or how it functions – no, not things like how your toaster functions since it is already known by others. Education level is not necessarily a criteria but these days if you want to do research, and that is what we tend to think most scientists do, a Phd is almost essential these days. A Phd does not make you a scientist, I could have a Phd in literature but that wouldn’t make me a scientist.
Scientists can fall into 2 major groups, experimental and theoretical. Using particle physics as an example, the theoretical physicist would develop a theory on the existence of a particle or perhaps the characteristic of particle and then the experimental physicist would conduct experiments to confirm or deny the theory. This does not mean that a scientist has to be one or the other specifically but like many things some people do some things better than they do other things. There are many scientists who do both the theory and the experimental.
It isn’t all that cut and dried though. You can have an applied scientist whose work will overlap the experimental scientist’s work usually if you want to do as the name says, apply what has been uncovered to more real-world applications. Engineering is applied science and an engineer can encompass a wide variety of activities.
If you go to the application of scientific “things” that are reasonably well-known and understood then you are now going into the domain of engineers and technologists. Back to particle physics, a scientist may say that we need to increase the proton current through our new detector by 10% but I know this will cause extra heat. This problem could then be passed to an engineer whose field includes heat transfer and he would determine if the heat generated at various points in the apparatus is safe. He would be using established methods for calculating and mapping the temperature distribution.
We must be careful not to pigeon-hole too strictly, engineers that work in research areas may have to use a lot of innovation and collaboration with the scientists for problems because the well-established methods may not be available for some activities that are pushing boundaries. I wouldn’t say engineers that have worked at a research facility for several years have the same mind-set as an engineer who has been working in a more routine engineering environment. This can be extrapolated to technologists and technicians as well.
Again, I caution about trying to pigeon-hole any of the above too rigorously.
— continued —
Since scientist is not a legally defined profession such as Professional Engineer anybody pursuing the above can call themselves a scientist. I don’t think I’d run down to NRC and apply for a job as a scientist after a couple of days of unbiased observation of the mating habits of earthworms. Of course, what we think of as the definition of a profession is highly based on what knowledge and qualifications that are required to be employed in that profession and accepted by others in the profession.
********************
Second Person:
Yes. In academic research, the Principal Investigator (the boss of the lab, the professor, etc.) is usually the only one with the official title of ‘Scientist’ or ‘Senior Scientist’. His or her main job is to keep the lab funded (which is only getting harder and harder to do). Aside from technicians and graduate students, the main people that review the literature, come up with hypotheses and do experiments are the Research Associates and post-doctoral (or Research) Fellows. The official job title for these people is, unfortunately, ‘Trainee’. Of course in public no one says that he or she is a ‘Trainee’, the individual will generally say, ‘Scientist’.
*************************************
As Roger Pielke says — you fit the definition… (Note that Peer Reviewed Literature does not appear here… and it should not)
Hope that helps some who wonder what “The Great Minds” think. My words to describe those fellows — but I think it fits.
Why do I get the feeling that our friends at “Forecast the Facts” had that press release and petition locked and loaded well before anyone actually saw the broadcast?
/snark
The comments over on PBS were a real eye opener. No wonder CAGW is such a nasty business. The real standout over there was the consistent “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. ‘Anthony doesn’t have a PhD after his name so therefore he can’t possibly understand any of the issues. Only our favorite scientists can understand.’ What a bunch of nonsense.
When I read comments like those on PBS it convinces me even more that we’re dealing with a religion.
Well done Anthony.
The quality of the responses indicates to me that these people are more desperate to convince themselves than anybody else that their religion is still valid.
“What am I denying?” You are denying them all the riches and power they desire. But mostly the riches. Bastards.
Just a natural response from the CAGW ants nest, as they swarm to attack at the slightest tread on “their territory” Anthony! Just shows exactly what we have to contend with, a mindless attacking mob lead by some clever manipulators of the truth, who should know better.