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 is sad to see that PBS, particularly the News Hour continues its long decline in journalistic standards. They have been unable to provide balance on this issue for many years. Worse yet, the comments on the PBS site are a sad commentary on how irrational people can be when presented with a viewpoint that is counter to their strongly held beliefs and how unwilling some are to rational dialog on this topic. I sent these links to a CAGW friend of mine on the issue of personal beliefs after hearing the discussion by chance on NPR this spring. Despite the origin of the interview he never listened to them.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2012/05/npr-interview-on-partisanship-versus-facts.html
The comments on Hari’s blog post were hilarious. It was so one-sided I felt like I needed to respond. We’ll see if they actually approve my comment. Here’s what I wrote:
I read the comments here with some amusement as I bet 97% of the people saying Anthony Watts shouldn’t be interviewed because he’s a skeptic don’t have the slightest clue what the main skeptical position is (there are actually many). I think it’s important to understand a person’s argument before you argue against him. Very few skeptics actually believe there hasn’t been warming, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that the vast majority of skeptics believe that the earth has warmed and I don’t think it’s controversial to say that we believe CO2 has been a contributor to that. But what we do object to is people saying that CO2 is unequivocally causing the warming and that it’s been established that this warming will have catastrophic consequences. Offhand I’d also say that a good number of us believe that the earth has been warming naturally since the Little Ice Age ended in the 1700’s (not many SUV’s around back then) and that the vast majority of the warming is simply due to a natural cycle.
But instead of debating this position the alarmists will have people believe that the skeptical folks insist that warming hasn’t actually occurred because that’s the only position they can actually effectively argue against. They’ll say Anthony Watt’s “denies” global warming because he doesn’t believe temperatures are being measured accurately which is a red herring; it’s possible to believe there’s been warming AND that NOAA has botched the temperature records. The Surfacestations project was created for a couple different reasons – first was to find out just how poor the temperature record is (and it’s pretty terrible) and the second was to force NOAA to do a better job of it (which is slowly coming about). When 90% of the temperature sensing stations have major siting issues then that’s something that needs to be straightened out so we can make informed decisions instead of guessing.
But what I think is the most interesting is that the vast majority of skeptics were actually believers in manmade global warming, just like all the other commenters here currently lambasting PBS for giving Anthony time in the piece. Someday I hope you’ll be able to set aside your belief and look at the information in a truly pragmatic fashion and see for yourself that there really is another side to the story.
In light of recent international events, the obvious course PBS should take is to apologize for allowing Anthony to offend the CO2 Warmist Believers’
scientificreligious sensibilities!Speaking of PBS
Global temperatures naturally fluctuate slightly from year to year. However, in the past 10,000 years, there have been three relatively long global cold spells. The Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most recent and best documented, especially in Europe.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1505/features/lia.htm
The only name that I can see on the Forecast the Facts website is Blair Fitzgibbon, their media contact. Did he have anything to do with their proposal to ask the PBS ombudsman to stifle free speech? In effect the request is for a private media corporation to censor their news reporting. Just like in China.
Were Blair Fitzgibbon to be involved with such a request for censorship (he may have had nothing to do with it but it is his name on the site) it would indeed be ironic as the media organisation he works for, FitzGibbon Media appears to have as a client an organisation named Free Speech For People. A recent release, on behalf of Free Speech For People, where the contact was Blair Fitzgibbon, Stated:
“The State of New Mexico is helping to lead the way for the nation in this movement to ensure that people, not corporations, govern in America. We look forward to working with state legislatures across the country which will follow New Mexico’s example and defend our democracy.”
http://fitzgibbonmedia.com/news/279/nm-legislature-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united
Perhaps Blair should have a quiet word with Forecast the Facts and remind them that the most important component of democracy is freedom, particularly of speech, however much they may disagree with the views of others.
Somehow the PBS crowd can just sense that you are probably not an Obama supporter, Anthony.
And they can’t forgive that!
“On September 17, 2012, PBS Newshour provided an unchecked platform for Anthony Watts, a virulent climate change denier funded by the ….»
= = == = = = = = =
This looks like a call for censorship, – directional censorship that is -.
It should be easy for all (us and them) to see who the DENIERS really are.
The Hockey players are the ones denying «Climate -Change» (historical climate change that is) all we are questioning is, – (or our question is): – Where is the proof that us two-legged beasts are responsible for the claimed «un-natural behaviour» of the climate. –
The Younger Dryas, after all lasted for 1300 years so what about the assumption of a climate that takes 10s of thousands of years to change – hence a (T) rise of 0.6 deg. C – (or 1 deg. F even) during the last 150 years is «Unpresidented»
For the first time in a number of years I watched the Newshour on PBS [your interview segment]
Well done. Keep on keeping on!
When North America was cooler and the glaciers advanced, the ancient lake site at Snowmass was cooler, too. There was grass there, but fewer trees. When the continent warmed and glaciers retreated, Snowmass also warmed. Forests around the lake grew lush, drawing families of mastodon.
Furry and chunkier than its mammoth cousins, the mastodon was built to fight. Averaging five tons, it was about the size of today’s African elephant, but more robustly built.
The giant Bison latifrons also flourished in the warmth. At two tons, this one was twice as big as today’s bison, with up to eight-foot headgear.
One top predator of these warm-weather animals was Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat. About six feet long and 600 pounds, Smilodon used its bulk to subdue prey, not its teeth. Only when the prey was down would it sink its enormous fangs into a victim’s windpipe and jugular.
When the world cooled and the glaciers advanced, another set of creatures came on the scene. Columbian mammoths were the largest of the Ice Age icons, and probably lived in matriarchal families. At 13 feet tall, with 12-foot tusks, they were larger than today’s elephants. But these giant plant eaters faced plenty of plus-sized predators.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/ice-age-death-trap.html
I would go over and read the comments at PBS, but like a lot of websites/networks that have adopted ‘the Cause’, it would just make me angry, so i won’t. 🙂 Congrats on making it on PBS in the 1st place Anhtony, one thing I would have liked to have seen was you speaking more about climate temperature cycles having a natural (majority) component. (perhaps you were intentionally tempering your stance?….I imagine PBS studio heads would have spontaneously combusted if you would have dropped the ‘Mother Naitch’ bombshell on top of everything else) Since we can’t present data from the ‘Null’ case ie) the situation without any human population, nothing about AGW is provable and is merely untestable, unverifiable conjecture.
I guess the hate mails you got was because of the green lobby organization “Forecast The Facts” which distributed this nice little sign up form for the PBS in order to the impose corrective journalism on public radio. PBS can’t according to them be a place for a debate on climate science. This is what I call green zombie activism.
Governance through rent-a-mob.
That’s exactly what is being decided: are people simply going to allow an entire civilization’s legacy be ripped up and ripped off like that?
Maybe.
I saw some WWI and WW2 movies that didn’t say much for the tribal soccer game of governance practiced by Euros and the internationalist set.
Having read through many of the ignorantly bizarre comments on Hari’s commentary, I would say you probably should suggest to PBS that if they leave the comments up, they will be looking at a multiple libel suit. PBS is not a blog. They’ve allowed you to be libelled thoroughly in their online presence. Ditto going after some of the commenters. Its one thing to allow people to rant, its something else to let them defame with impunity.
tallbloke says:
September 18, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Comment submited to the ‘apology post’ at PBS
It looks like the new Anthony Watts et al paper will pass peer review, so I suggest everyone calms down and awaits the outcome. There are some important findings in it, and if verified by the peer reviewers, there will be important issues to discuss regarding the extent of the warming indicated by the temperature record as it is currently adjusted.
You don’t need to be a scientist to be able to conduct statistical studies and make logical deductions from the results. What is important is the correct treatment of input data.
================================================================
So when the paper is published can we then call Anthony a scientist? How does one know who is a scientist or not?
It really makes me sad when my friends just refuse to read some of the logical well argued stuff I give them – like Bob Tisdales new book. Links to purchase it here:- http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
They are happy to listen to the tripe published on the Australian ABC and SBS and yet refuse to read a little deeper into the sensible and clear information available here and other blogs.
Keep up the good work Anthony and mods… Illegitimis nil carborundum!
“What am I denying?”
–
Asking bigots to back up prejudice with actual facts requires them to actually think. It’s so much more fun to engage in thoughtless name calling.
@Ian
you have no idea what i was even talking about do you sir? If so your words do you no service.
They want to deny the freedom of speech.
James from Arding says:
“How does one know who is a scientist or not?”
Here is my dictionary’s definition of “scientist”:
scientist |ˈsīəntist|
noun
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
You can decide for yourself who qualifies.
Well done, Anthony. The Believers must be feeling pretty vulnerable if your few minutes of mild mannered and unsensational comment (after years of AGW scare material) caused such an uproar. It seems that nothing short of 100% censorship of views they don’t like will satisfy them.
As for ‘Forecast the Facts’ – why are so many Believers either illiterate or Orwellian in their use of language? Facts can’t be forecast – either they are facts or they aren’t. Give the faith in model predictions, perhaps some wish that facts could be forecast – but nope, forecasts are not facts.
I read somewhere that if you throw a rock into a pack of hyenas, the ones that yelp are the ones that were hit. Your rock must have bounced around a lot! You have the entire cackle of hyenas howling! Congratulations Anthony for being on message and on point for the rest of us! We need many more like yourself! I gave up on PBR many years ago…
To be a scientist you need no stinkn’ badge.
To be a scientist you need no stinkn’ letters.
It’s a quality and state of mind. An inquisitive mind, good intents, following the scientific method, data with integrity with an open mind, methods and results and your are one Anthony. Don’t let their words mean anything for they are in essence the badge-makers, the letter-issuers, so why do you think they so throw up over any other person being called a scientist if not pre indoctrinated, institutionalized and ordained into their exclusive club (and I am one of those but no longer so proud of it).
SHould be PBS, but there’s really no difference!
Obviously, Watts and PBS got swept up in one of those newer, more intense, hurricanes triggered by global warming.
Upon reading this story I immediately sent off an email (from the pbs website) to Ombudsman Getler praising PBS for including you, Anthony. Here’s the body of what I wrote:
Mr. Getler,
I would like to applaud the journalistic integrity shown by PBS by including Anthony Watts in the recent story covered by Newshour. The subject of climate change, and the question of exactly how much of recent warming can be attributed to mankind’s activities is a timely and important one.
Due to the increasingly politicized nature of what is essentially a scientific debate, the general public deserves to hear arguments from both sides, and by including both Watts and Richard Muller PBS did so. Currently in the media, balance in reporting the climate issue is lacking, and PBS deserves praise for rising to a higher journalistic standard.
The response to PBS about Anthony is a sign of our times. There is a lynch mob for each Leftie opinion outlet and it flexes its muscles, producing huge numbers of comments, every time there is some doubt about the opinion outlet in question. You can see this in the Chronicle of Higher Education. You can see it in The Guardian where the lynch mob is present and ready for duty at all times.
Thirty years ago, the attempt to lynch a commentor posting to the Journal of Higher Education would have been met with the greatest disdain from a host of readers. No more. The howlers carry the day. Opinion outlets are permitted only propaganda.