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?
This is normal mode of operation for these goons. The screeching, screaming wheel gets the concessions. They know this and the jim lehrer snooze hour is more than happy to accommodate. What’s new? Not this!
The response by the terrified and polarised to the PBS piece is scarier than a glass thermometer on asphalt.
In case WUWT’ers are not yet aware, this type of political polarisation in the US in the media and elsewhere has reached the point that Canada has decided to conduct ‘an intervention’ and has formed a political running for the White House. They have officially declared their ‘Canadacy’ for President of the USA.
Sample:
Under the slogan ‘Yes We Canada’, the party of the Great White North promises to: Change the phrase “job creators” to “job creationists”; continue building pipelines, only ones with maple syrup; and close Guantanamo Bay and move the inmates to the Arctic, where they can be legally “snowboarded.”
Read about how Canadians are going to change things like this PBS outrage when you vote, this November, for the Canada Party.
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2012/09/10/Canada-Party/
Canada and the USA have a lot in common, he notes, such as both ‘experiencing a wave of illiterate foreigners crossing from south of the border to take our jobs.’
to /sarc or not to /sarc…
I was going to send a message to those disgusting cretins at Forecast the Lies but realized they wouldn’t even read my email, just assume I’m funded by Industry.
Glad you and your work is generating publicity Anthony, you’ve worked hard and have a lot to show for it!
Those who threaten to withhold financial support for PBS because they don’t like some of the content need to be reminded that the broadcaster is not supposed to be a platform to project their personal ideology; their Ministry of Truth. Calling for the censorship of those who say things which one simply doesn’t like, with threats to “punish” if the other is not censored, is not support of free speech.
This response to prevent free speech occurred in Australia for about forty years in the area of education. I asked one of those involved “What is your plan?’
She replied “I will keep on publishing the facts until someone listens”
Thank you for publishing the facts.Someone will listen.
Anthony, this has probably been said in the comments already, but realize that being the most read and well known person lifting the rock (among many other great people), you. are. a. threat. to. the. Agenda. Threats have to be dealt with, in whatever manner. The same people who teach Alinski in the political arena, have taught those in the CAGW arena. If you’re taking flak, you’re over the target. Many, many people out here in flyover country and around the world are behind you Anthony, never forget that.
Hmm one has to wonder how many of these comments would have been called “death threats” if they had been made by skeptics. Nah, I changed my mind. I don’t have to wonder at all.
Anthony, you are a hero.
Notice to the one who posted this: “The Petition – Below is the petition we’ll send to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler:…..”
Two can play that game. Only My Petition will be to the U.S. Congress to de-fund
PBS not allowing both side of any issue be expressed with equal time.
Come, come… these PBS commenters are spoiled brats, unprincipled zealots constitutionally incapable of objective, rational anything. Really, AW, what did you expect?
The comments under the apology are like a swarm of killer bee’s flashed into a frenzy. Looks like the damage control team are out in full force. How dare a skeptic be allowed into “their” propaganda outlet.
Everything from denial of UHI to the stupid reference of 97% of all scientists lie.
And what is the real definition of a “Scientist”. Is there now some secret club you have to join? Did Benji not pay his dues this year? Just this week wasn’t it amateur scientist that discovered the explosion on Jupiter. The little jab at Anthony at the end about him not being a “real” scientist was pathetic.
LIberals (US definition) are soooooo tolerant, aren’t they? Geez. Certain politicians in Germany in the 1930s would be proud of the language these folks use.
While “fairness” is their driving force, allegedly, if one doesn’t click their heels to the liberal / eco-fascist / socialist party line, they become trash, with multiple ad hominems heaped upon them in very short order.
How pathetic these warmists are.
Science is not the issue. Political control and manipulation is. Climate is secondary….at best.
Q) “What am I denying?”
A) That the sky is falling
Please take a sip of this Kool Aid and try again.
Hey Anthony, Do you have a birthday soon? If so, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Don’t worry about the hate mail – it’s often rather amusing – you just need a positive attitude.
My favorite such experience was in ~2002, after I had written an article for the National Post panning global warming hysteria.
I soon received a threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of Prague! Quelle surprise!
I replied: “Dear Sir. You are entirely correct. I am the ONE, personally responsible for the flooding of Prague. Now ‘buzz off’ or I’ll do it again!”
🙂
That should not surprise you. Since their position is based on perpetuating false dogma, truth and reason becomes the enemy they must fight.
You have my support, Anthony.
it’s an old quote, but nonetheless true:
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. – Winston Churchill
you’ve done an excellent job with wuwt. well done anthony.
Whatever happened to free speech and hearing all sides of an argument?
Anthony
Many thanks from a ‘down under’ fan. First task in my morning is a look at WUWT, you never disappoint. I will make what donation I can to support you, well done.
Hang in there, mate.
[snip . . . we don’t do that here . . mod]
Anthony, you should not be surprised if you stick your hand into a snakehole, and you get bit. Thats what snakes do, its nothing personal, but it aint fun.
You are doing a great job mate, dont let them get you down.
I read the apology piede and the comments, then posted a comment. As Anthony noted, a good percentage of the comments are ad hominem attacks against Anthony. What was more interesting were the number of “likes”: anti-Watts postings got 10 -20 likes; pro-Watts postings were 40-50 likes. Heh. PS: I post as aGrimm in Disqus. Go give me some likes!
More proof (if proof were needed) that there are some pretty nasty critters under the AGW stone. Fortunately they only seem to be about 1ppm of the US public, which is reassuring no matter how poisonous they are.
More power to your elbow, Anthony. Non illegitimi carborundum!
PBS coordinated with Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (or whatever alias they conspire under at the moment), and other lobby groups, informing them first, then they approached Anthony for the interview.
The content hardly matters. They’re out to “fix” the problem that Ralph Nader is highlighting, to buck up squishy Dem candidates.
So they manufacture a mob display astroturf on the eco-lobby’s favorite issue, not to fool the public, but rather to fool would be Democrat politicians.
“What am I denying?”
They are accusing you of being a virulent climate change denier.
They are accusing you of being funded by the Heartland Institute.
They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on accuracy.
They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on integrity.
They are acusing you of violations of PBS standards on transparency.
They are acusing you of being part of a journalistic abomination.
I’d guess you deny most of that (perhaps one project for HI could clasify you as “funded”, not sure about that one).
Well done and congratulations. It all helps.