This just appeared on the PBS Blog, apparently the mere presence of my interview was enough to push NOAA into responding. It seems they are in full damage control mode.
CLIMATE — September 18, 2012 at 6:08 PM EDT
Climate Change From Different Perspectives
By: Spencer Michels
Anything dealing with climate change is bound to provoke an argument. And our story on Berkeley physicist Richard Muller’s recent conversion to a believer in man-made global warming, which he made in an op-ed in the New York Times, certainly stirred the pot. In addition to preparing a video story on the PBS NewsHour, I had written a blog that included extended remarks from Anthony Watts, a well-known blogger and prominent voice in the skeptic community. Watts — a former California TV weatherman who runs a company that provides weather data to TV stations — says he doesn’t completely discount global warming, but he says that much of the data recording temperatures are flawed because the stations are in areas like urban settings which retain heat and therefore read too high.
The idea of the online post — in part — was to let the audience hear more about the views of a prominent voice from the community of skeptics. In the past, we have on occasion provided a more expansive view from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say climate change is real, an ever-growing problem and one that is getting significantly worse because of our own contribution to greenhouse gases. (In fact, my colleague Hari Sreenivasan posted links to some of that prior reporting earlier today.) We thought the online post with Watts would provide a chance for viewers to hear more about the skeptical perspective than we have done recently.
That said — and as many of you wrote us to complain — we should have not ONLY posted additional comments from Watts’ perspective. So we have more interviews and responses from the scientific community about climate change. Let’s start on the question of whether temperature data is flawed. That was raised by Watts, and his views on that are being heavily criticized on the web today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:
The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that U.S. temperatures have risen and continue to rise with recent widespread record-setting temperatures in the USA. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.
Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting. A subsequent research study led by university and private sector scientists reached the same conclusion (Fall et al. 2011). Additionally, the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the US Historical Climatology Network dataset in July 2010 and concluded that “the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset.”
Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.
NOAA also provides this link for those who want more information. [Note from Anthony, see what we found using a new method (not employed by NOAA but endorsed by WMO) in Watts et al 2012, here. Strange that they don’t mention the General Accounting office report on USHCN (what the erroneously refer to as the inspector general’s report) was due to my inquiry, not theirs.]
There are plenty of other links where you can find data and information about this question of temperature measurements. One of note that we are including here is the website, skepticalscience.com, which examines and pushes back on the critique from the skeptics’ community.
One point that we tried to make in the broadcast piece was that Richard Muller, in fact, had his own doubts in the past on temperature readings with some issues that were similar to Watts’ criticisms. But he and his daughter, mathematician Elizabeth Muller, told us they looked closely at climate data and now clearly believe that human-induced climate change is happening. Here’s more of what they told us:
You can read the full story here.
I’m surprised that in the body the story, they’d link to SkepticalScience given what has transpired there recently with the conspiracy mongering, secret forums, hate speech and all that.
I’m still waiting for PBS to make the correction I asked for.
The CAGW crowd has failed to recognize the general public has yet to experience any of the Algorian inconveniences to which they espouse. They continue as if blinded and deaf; purveyors of Snake Oil, having lived out any notion of legitimacy, thus choice-less, must carry the torch by means of livelihood.
Very interesting response from them and NOAA….. to paraphrase someone elses saying:-
“Judge the worth of a man by the size of his enemies, not of his friends.”
Well done A.W.
milodonharlani says:
September 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Re: Jane Lubchenco, no surprises there:
Lubchenco is a member of the NAS Climate Choices Committee. She served, until her NOAA appointment, on the boards of World Resources Institute, (Al Gore is on the board), Environmental Defense, and on advisory committees for the National Research Council, the National Science Foundation and the United Nations Environment Programme.
She was a contributor to the 1991 report of the National Research Council, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, along with Stephen Schneider, Maurice Strong, Tom Karl, William Nordhaus and others. She is a long time associate of John Holdren, who is also on the “Climate Choices Committee” and “was mentioned for her contribution to The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects, by John P. Holdren, Gretchen C. Daily, and Paul R. Ehrlich, 1995. Distributed for the United Nations University by The World Bank Washington, D.C.” “This paper benefited greatly from interactions with R. Cicerone, A. Coale, T. Dietz, P. Gleick, R. Heal, R. Lenski, M. McDonnell, J. Lubchenco (and others)”
She was, again until 2008, and maybe still is, an Advisory Board Member of Diversitas, a UN linked, international-government funded diversity institute, along with Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford. Its Scientific Committee is chaired by Harold Mooney, of Stanford.
She is a member of the National Ocean Council with Lisa Jackson.The co-chairs are Nancy Sutley and John Holdren. Her theme of the moment is Ocean acidification and you can see her here demonstrating how vinegar dissolves chalk: http://www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/index.html.
More about the NOC here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_agenda_21_will_rule_us_waves.html
As an aside, did you know that “America Is Only Nation Where Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment” http://junkscience.com/2012/09/10/america-is-only-nation-where-climate-scientists-face-organized-harassment/
@X Anomaly
I agree there is a strong element of bias in perceptions, both with the published science and with Anthony’s interview, as seen and heard by the True Believers in CAGW. I was sent this today – a clear-cut case of genuine man-in-the-street confirmation bias about a very topical object, an iPhone 5:
This shows how easily people can convince themselves whatever they want about what they see and touch (in this case). Perhaps that will become a classic video.
When people heard Anthony say something about temperatures, they all rushed to their favourite arguments about ‘records’ and ‘heat’ and ‘drought’ because it is what they know. They cannot pull out things they do not know. We see it over and over – they are not really engaged and listening, they are plotting their next ‘rebuttal’ without learning anything.
Anthony, your answers were ‘as mild as milk’. Thank you.
I have also written to the ombusdman about the pressure from paid organisations threatening the flow of funding if they (PBS) dare discuss climate issues openly. PBS has been a ‘union shop’ for such a long time it actually seems odd to have a countervailing point of view about what is taking place in the atmosphere and its ramifications. Good for them, they are broadening, not deadening, their view.
The over-reaction of the warmist clique is expected – bullying is their last hope because a frank discussion would see their climate-castles-in-the-air move distinctly earthward. With a plunk.
This is what happens when you try to bring a sense of reason into this subject. The mere fact that PBS tried to be somewhat balanced is rather impressive. As far as NOAA, a lot of time and money has gone into their work, and they are going to stand by it come hell or high water.
By having you on PBS, your comments, as moderate as they were, instill doubt into the AGW theory. We’re to be indoctrinated by this theory. You, along with many others, are messing that up, and this is what so infuriates the AGW crowd (kinda like another religion we know).
My worry is that the mild terrorism that is being perpetrated through hate via online outlets, and even going so far as trying to defraud the Heartland Institute, may get even worse. Someone may very well snap, and do something really horrible. This world we are living in is becoming even darker, and terrorism in all its forms is becoming more commonplace (at least more openly common) in religion and politics (which climate science has become a part of unfortunately).
What they scream about the most, that is where the bodies are buried…
So we have the trotting out again of “peer review” (several times). In the context of Climategate and the clear “pal review”; that means they know they have to depend on ‘group support’ in the pal review process and that impartial analysis from outside the circle of Pals is a threat.
We have the repeated assertion that the data is good. Fine. Ideal! That shows they know they have cooked those books and must defend that data against questions (and the analysis that might follow)>
UHI is dismissed along with site issues. That shows they know that UHI is not handled properly and that station selection and siting are underpinings of the data diddling / adjusting / hockey stick creation. “Pay no attention to that concrete and exhaust vent behind the curtain”.
They trot out the “new” network and a long time horizon, and assert it will prove all is well as things match NOW. That shows they know the ‘warming’ is baked in the cake of the older data from the past. They KNOW that re-writing the past is the corner stone of ‘the game’, and what shows in the data now is just not important… since they control the past…
Then they trot out a non-skeptic non-conversion. They KNOW he was never a skeptic. That says they know they are using classical propaganda techniques and direct lying. There is no moral compass to be found.
It’s really not that hard to “read their tells”… just look at what they most loudly proclaim, behind it is the “bluff hand”.
And they say “A one eyed man is king in a village of blind people”
A couple weeks ago our local TV news had an expos`e about the weather stations at DTW, Detroit Metro Airport, seems that because of their locations and the surrounding building causing the eddy currents in the wind, the control tower at times cannot tell what directions the wind is blowing or how fast or how gusty; occasionally this leads to an aircraft all but falling out of the air upon landing or coming in so hot they almost run off the runway. Of course the FAA reasured everyone that DTW was as safe as any airport in the nation, but the cynic in me heard that every where else was equally dangerous.
So, hate mail coming Anthony’s way? I can’t say that’s a total surprise to viewers of News Hour. The program has been heading down the tubes for some time now.
Besides the mild, genial tone of the man in the interview (and I don’t mean Muller), and besides the ordinary (almost bland) truths and directness of his observations about the climate, there was something else on display. For whatever reason, Spencer Michaels or his directors, or the producers chose to show Anthony’s office – the place where he works, so surprisingly modest – no expensive suburban two-story office for him, nor well-staffed urban office. I’ll repeat what many here are very aware of: despite PBS claims to the contrary. There have been no other skeptical voices interviewed or represented on The News Hour in recent history, and frankly, I think Anthony may have been the first, so that deck was well and truly stacked when Anthony agreed to be dealt in, The medium of News Hour has gradually become its message, and judging by the angry responses to Anthony’s appearance, they don’t want a spoiler for that message, even under the auspices of a “debate”, or for “balance”. Its viewers demand otherwise, and, perhaps more importantly, so do its funders. I suspect a cursory check of these agencies and the intent of their money would prove that they have an agenda favoring rent-seeking big government and the unending gravy train of global warming.
Foundation Funders
BNSF Railway (Buffet)
Intel
S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Gruber Family Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Joyce Foundation
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
National Endowment for the Arts
National Science Foundation
John and Wendy Neu Family Foundation
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Park Foundation
Poetry Foundation
Rockefeller Foundation
Skoll Foundation
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Starr Foundation
Wallace Foundation
For years, the government warmists refused even to acknowledge the names of skeptics like McIntyre and Watts because it threatened their consensus meme. Now one not only has a voice, but an identify, complete with the image of his modest-looking office in Chico California. One can only imagine, then, the pique, the ire, the self-righteous indignation, to see this one man, this … upstart Anthony Watts fellow with his cottage industry of followers elevated to national prominence. with all the attendant, unspeakable humiliation to the “science” – the holy sanctuary of the Washington elite.
This back-pedalling is no joke. It is part of a worrying trend I’ve noted and I’m sure others have too. The USA as a bastion of freedom to do and to say for the world is crumbling frighteningly. Its as if the tearing down of the iron curtain we celebrated not so long ago has released a virus that has infected the West. Freedom seemed more precious when we worried about losing it. It actually drove scientific and academic excellent. Now academic institutions in the US, the fifth estate, and influential statesmen are incubating this virus. It started off as “political correctness” that we used to joke about – now the joke is on us. What about Europe? Europe succumbed long ago – maybe Germany will recover. Ironically,Eastern Europe, India and China seem to be the unlikely saviours that have prevented the new order craziness from taking charge.
Sorry, I get a bit gloomy when I see former giants bullied and seemingly helpless. I guess to put it in perspective, PBS is a collective with a large birkenstock-foreign stationwagon element. It was brave of them to even consider irking their base, which doesn’t want controversy unless it is the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct kind.
What cowards. They would NEVER do this for issues regarding traditional or conservative or Christian issues.
It was never about freedom of speech or diversity of opinion. It was always about power and control.
PBS may be backtracking some, but those making comments (supporting Mr. Watts) there are not.
Example, from commenter duediligence
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/keeping-climate-stories-in-context.html#disqus_thread
Anthony,
I did some quick research for you relating to a nasty AGW jihadist who calls himself SecularAnimist, who has been busy slandering you over at the PBS website. Like all warmies, he demonstrates a knack for cognitive dissonance through blatant hypocrisy by having the gall to use the word slander while he does exactly that!
NOTE: This is found on the PBS website as the 26th comment in this thread on the first page when sorted by oldest to newset. That direct link to the comment does not work since it is a discus site, with its retarded ‘newest first’ sort order and it shows only a short pagefull at a time.
Anyway, this toilet bug called “SecularAnimist” apparently has not ever had the courage to post here at WUWT ( perhaps he fears you will have his IP address ), but his name has come up in discussions on at least 5 different threads ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ).
As I have been so fond of pointing out lately: The conspiracy theorists almost always on the warmie side. Those that are most likely to believe in Roswell UFO’s, grassy knoll shooters, faked moon landings, 9/11 WTC inside job by Cheney and the Jews, will also believe in Global Warming from the magic molecule. They are Roseanne Barr and occupy Wall Street IQ level. They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control. They are the AGW target audience.
… and the proofs abound. Let’s see if we cannot find more stuff from this bitter malcontent “SecularAnimist”. Hmmmm, at YouTube he seems to have his own page ( asterisks added by me ) …
Is it any surprise that this cretin called “SecularAnimist” regularly comments at RealClimate? A website that moderates out almost all skeptic commentary regularly accepts and publishes the mindless rambling of this ugly child.
This is the type of person attracted to AGW. They know full well it is the expressway to Socialism which they adore and are working towards 24/7/365. These are the kinds of cretins you want to keep away from your daughters and everything else you care about. Needless to say, these are the types of people to keep out of elected office, they are President DingleBarry’s core constitutency. Never, ever vote for a Leftist, Socialist, Neo-Marxist, Neo-Communist, Green Watermellon or any combination thereof!
P.S. I posted this to both current PBS threads.
Blade says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
My posts containing scientific links and NO vitriol get deleted and this piece of human excrement gets to post garbage like that makes me worried for the world. PBS check yourself.
Thank you for the time you spent Blade.
[Reply: I don’t know why, but I rescue and post all of them. It just may take a little more time. I suspect WordPress is responsible. — mod.]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pbs-newshour-lambasted-by-complaints-for-including-climate-skeptic-perspective/
I think from a skeptical perspective, this story with Watts is may not necessarily be a turning point, but rather an acknowledgement from “authority” that there are many people in america and around the world, that are good democratic citizens (what more could you want?) that don’t buy into this global warming scam, and rather than ignoring them, or ridiculing them (which they have been doing), the authorities have worked out (like just the other day) that it is far better to engage constructively with the skeptical public. That way if CAGW ever did occur, the skeptical mind would more likely concede defeat, or in the case CAGW was found to be false, the skeptical mind would be more forgiving towards those who wanted to decarbonise and as a result destroy civilization /democracy as we know it.
It’s called a win win scenario.
Its is a win win . being posted on the Blaze where there is 3 million hits daily mostly from skeptics like myself .
To — mod.
I believe that David Ball [September 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm] was referring to the moderation at RealClimate where he cannot get any posts through, yet they do allow that malcontent called “SecularAnimist” to post regularly.
Blade is correct. I have to remember to be more clear. Thank you for your attentiveness. I have never had a problem with moderation on WUWT?. You guys kick a** !!
TomRude says:
September 18, 2012 at 8:51 pm
I am surprised that among questions this one did not come out: The bandage on Muller’s head…
———————————-
Current climate theory has it that, “A piece of the sky was involved”.
Have not received posts since 18th Sept. You are much missed!