Bizarre reactions to my PBS interview continue – PBS Ombudsman to publish criticism of my inclusion into PBS Newshour

UPDATE: 1:50PM – The PBS News Hour Ombudsman has posted his essay, you can read it here.


For the record, just now, I’ve called PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler to give him an opportunity to ask me questions before he publishes his article. I got voice mail, so we’ll see if he’s interested in hearing anything about my side before condemning me. I predict he will not return my call, but if he does I’ll report it here. UPDATE 11:50AM: Mr. Getler HAS returned my call and we had a pleasant conversation.

Via Tom Nelson:

PBS Ombud: NewsHour Climate Change Report Worth Criticizing | Blog | Media Matters for America 

A PBS NewsHour global warming report that allowed a climate change contrarian to “counterbalance” mainstream scientific opinion is worth criticizing, according to PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler, who said he received hundreds of emails and calls about the program.

Getler said he is penning a column on the issue that is likely to be posted late today or Monday, and hinted it will be critical.

“There’s just a lot of…hundreds of emails about it,” Getler said when asked why he is writing about the issue. “Commentary about it all over and it’s interesting.”

Getler declined to offer specific views on the NewsHour report, which aired last Monday. But when asked if he has found elements to criticize, he said: “Oh yeah, of course there’s material to be critical about.”

When Media Matters first called this morning, Getler said he had been contacted by many viewers since Monday about the issue: “It’s what everyone’s calling about, the global warming thing.”

Former CNN science reporter Miles Obrien:

PBS NewsHour Science Reporter Miles O’Brien: Climate Denier Segment A ‘Horrible, Horrible Thing’ | ThinkProgress

The general public has spoken out as well, with over 15,000 [aren’t there a lot more than 15,000 people in the general public?] people signing a Forecast the Facts petition to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler demanding an investigation of how this violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast.

And here’s some thinly veiled hate:

Warmist Doug Craig: You know what Anthony Watts is like? A dark figure with no wood who tears your home down every night Blogs: Doug Craig’s blog

Imagine you are building a house and at night while you are sleeping someone destroys all your work. Each day you return to build your home and each night, dark figures tear it down. Anthony Watts and others like him have nothing to build. They have no scientific “wood.” They create nothing while they destroy everything.

…Like the cancer victim who refuses treatment because they deny they are sick, Watts is that voice of denial that prevents us from decisive action on behalf of our children and their future. The lie lives. The saboteurs are free and in control of this false debate.


For the record, this is what they are upset about:

Here’s the story/transcript from Spencer Michels, along with video that follows. I have not seen the piece that will be airing nationally yet, and I don’t know how much of me they use, but this just appeared on the PBS website.

One note: when they talk about “heat sync” they really meant to say heat sink. – Anthony

Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts  – Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message

From PBS:

It was about 105 degrees in Chico, Calif., about three hours north of Sacramento, when we arrived at the offices of one of the nation’s most read climate skeptics. Actually, Anthony Watts calls himself a pragmatic skeptic when it comes to global warming. Watts is a former television meteorologist, who has been studying climate change for years. He doesn’t claim to be a scientist; he attended Purdue. He’s the author of a blog, Watts Up with That?, which he calls the world’s most viewed site on global warming. For a story I was working on for the PBS NewsHour, Watts was recommended by the Heartland Institute, a conservative, Chicago-based non-profit that is one of the leading groups that doubt that climate change — if it exists — is attributable to human activities.

Watts doesn’t come across as a true believer or a fanatic. For one thing, he has built a business that caters to television stations and individuals who want accurate weather information and need displays to show their viewers. He has developed an array of high tech devices to disseminate weather data and put it on screens. He has several TV stations around the country as clients.

But Watts’ reputation doesn’t come from his business — IntelliWeather — but rather from his outspoken views on climate change. He says he’s been gathering data for years, and he’s analyzed it along with some academics. He used to think somewhat along the same lines as Richard Muller, the University of California physicist who recently declared he was no longer a skeptic on climate change. Muller had analyzed two centuries worth of temperature data and decided his former skepticism was misplaced: yes, the earth has been warming, and the reason is that humans are producing carbon dioxide that is hastening the warming the planet.

Watts doesn’t buy Muller’s analysis, since, he believes, it is based on faulty data. The big problem, as Watts sees it, is that the stations where temperatures are gathered are too close to urban developments where heat is soaked up and distorts the readings. So it looks like the earth is warming though it may not be, he says.

Read a transcript below.

SPENCER MICHELS: So let’s start out with the basic idea that there’s this debate in this country over global warming. There’s some people who call it a complete hoax and there are some people who completely embrace it and so forth. Where do you stand in that spectrum?

ANTHONY WATTS: Well, I at one time was very much embracing the whole concept that we had a real problem, we had to do something about it. Back in 1988 James Hanson actually was the impetus for that for me in his presentation before Congress. But as I learned more and more about the issue, I discovered that maybe it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. Some of it is hype, but there’s also some data that has not been explored and there’s been some investigations that need to be done that haven’t been done. And so now I’m in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.

SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

SPENCER MICHELS: What are you saying? That they’re biased essentially or motivated by something else? What?

ANTHONY WATTS: [T]here’s a term that was used to describe this. It’s called noble cause corruption. And actually I was a victim of that at one time, where you’re so fervent you’re in your belief that you have to do something. You’re saving the planet, you’re making a difference, you’re making things better that you’re so focused on this goal of fixing it or changing it that you kind of forget to look along the path to make sure that you haven’t missed some things.

I started looking into the idea that weather stations have been slowly encroached upon by urbanization and sighting issues over the last century. Meaning that our urbanization affected the temperature. And this was something that was very clear if you looked at the temperature records. But what wasn’t clear is how it affected the trend of temperatures. And so that’s been something that I’ve been investigating. Anyone who’s ever stood next to a building in the summertime at night, a brick building that’s been out in the summer sun, you stand next to it at night you can feel the heat radiating off of it. That’s a heat sync effect. And over the last 100 years our country, in fact the world, has changed. We’ve gone from having mostly a rural agrarian society to one that is more urban and city based and as a result the infrastructure has increased. We’ve got more freeways, you know more airports, we’ve got more buildings. Got more streets, all these things. Those are all heat syncs. During the day, solar insulation hits these objects and these surfaces and it stores heat in these objects. At night it releases that heat. Now if you are measuring temperature in a city that went from having uh maybe 10% of um, non-permeable surface to you know maybe 90% over 100 years, that’s a heat sync effect and that should show up in the record. The problem is, is that it’s been such a slow subtle change over the last 100 years. It’s not easy to detect and that’s been the challenge and that’s what I’ve been working on.

SPENCER MICHELS: Well in a way you’re saying that the records aren’t accurate, the data isn’t accurate.

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?

SPENCER MICHELS: I want to go back to what we were talking about a little bit earlier, the idea that there is, there are people who are sort of invested in promoting the fact that there is global warming. There’s money involved and grants. Is that what you were saying? Maybe explain that.

ANTHONY WATTS: Well global warming had become essentially a business in its own right. There are NGOs, there are organizations, there are whole divisions of universities that have set up to study this, this factor, and so there’s lots of money involved and then so I think that there’s a tendency to want to keep that going and not really look at what might be different.

SPENCER MICHELS: Now Dr. Muller at the University of California Berkeley had similar concerns. Went back and looked at the data, took much more data than anybody else had, and concluded, well maybe there was some problems, but basically the conclusions were right. There is global warming and it comes from carbon dioxide which is meant, made by man. Do you buy that?

ANTHONY WATTS: Unfortunately he has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review. They had some problems. Some of the problems I identified, others have identified problems as well, for example, he goes much further back, back to about 1750 in terms of temperature. Well from my own studies, I know that temperature really wasn’t validated and homogenized where everything’s measured the same way until the weather bureau came into being about in 1890. Prior to that thermometers were hung in and exposed to the atmosphere all kinds of different ways. Some were hung under the shade of trees, some were on the north side of houses, some were out in the open in the sun, and so the temperature fluctuations that we got from those readings prior to 1890 was quite broad and I don’t believe that provided representative signal because the exposure’s all wrong. And Dr. Muller did not take any of that into account.

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.

SPENCER MICHELS: I want to ask you a little bit about attitudes towards this among the public. We talked to a public opinion specialist at Stanford who says there’s been 80 percent belief in global warming and man-made global warming consistently over at least the last 15 years in this country. Do you buy his theory?

ANTHONY WATTS: Well I look at a number of opinion polls. You’ll find a lot of them on my blog and that we’ve covered. And depending on how you ask the question we’ll sometimes give you a different answer. My view is, is that the view of global warming peaked about at the time that Al Gore came out with his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. But ever since then other factors have kicked in. Climate Gate for example. And it has become less of an issue, in fact you hardly see politicians talking about it anymore, or pushing it as an issue. What’s been happening now it’s just become a regulation issue. It’s gotten away from the political arena and into the bureaucratic regulation arena. And so people I believe based on the polls I’ve seen, aren’t quite as believing as they used to be. And I think the trend is downward.

SPENCER MICHELS: What do you think is the upshot of your attitude toward this? Should the Congress, should the American public say, you know nothing’s been proven yet. We should wait. Or should we go ahead with trying to solve what many people consider a really scary problem?

ANTHONY WATTS: Hmm…You mentioned a really scary problem and I think that’s part of the issues. Some people don’t respond well to scare tactics and there have been some scare tactics used by some of the proponents on the other side of the issue. And that’s where the overselling of it comes in. But this is a slow problem and it requires a slow solution I believe. For example, our infrastructure for electricity and so forth and highways didn’t happen in 5 years or 10 years. It happened over a century. We can’t just rip all that up or change it in the space off five, 10 or 15 years because it’ll be catastrophic to our economy. We need a slow change solution, one that is a solution that changes over time at about the same rate as climate change. More efficient technologies, new technologies, the use of more nuclear for example. There’s a nuclear type of a reactor that’s more safe called a, a liquid thorium reactor that China is jumping on right now. And we should be looking into things like that.

SPENCER MICHELS: Has this issue, I know you think it’s been oversold and scare tactics have been used. Do you think it’s become too politicized?

ANTHONY WATTS: Oh, it’s definitely become too politicized. In fact, some of the scientists who are the leaders in the issue have become for lack of a better word, political tools on the issue.

SPENCER MICHELS: One final question, do you consider yourself a skeptic when it comes to global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: I would call myself a pragmatic skeptic. Yes, we need to make some changes on our energy technology but more efficient technology’s a good thing. For example, I have solar power on my own, you know, I have done energy reductions in my office and in my home to make things more efficient. So I think those are good things. Those are good messages that we should be embracing. But at the same time I think that some of the issues have been oversold, may have been oversold, because they allow for more regulation to take place. And so the people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren’t rooted in science, but more in politics.


This article appears online here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joe Postma
September 21, 2012 10:52 am

Anthony stay strong man. You don’t deserve this vitriol and it just goes to show how sick and degenerate these alarmists are. Their behaviour saddens me. Their hatred of science and those who espouse it scare me.

September 21, 2012 10:55 am

Anthony! You tear down their houses every night? You are suppose to be taking it easy!
Actually, when you build your house out of straw, on sand, it tends to fall down on its own. But I suppose they have to blame someone.

September 21, 2012 10:56 am

You never know, maybe Getler will pull a Shatner and demand the alarmist crowd get a life. I’m not holding my breath for that, but it would interesting, and hopeful, if someone who I presume has an opinion on this issue would tell his own side to dial back the BS.

September 21, 2012 10:56 am

It seems that those screaming loudest haven’t even seen or heard the PBS thing. Or even read the transcript. That’s completely new behavior. Oh wait, no, it’s not. It’s standard behavior. Scream first, and don’t read, listen or watch, not even afterwards. Just scream. The favorite past time of green fascists and leftists.
There’s a term used in Germany to describe such people: “Berufsempörer”, literally meaning people who seem to have made being outraged about something a profession.

September 21, 2012 11:00 am

In true warmist fashion, it sounds like Mr. Getler will be drawing conclusions and trying to influence policy from a limited and biased set of data.

Lady in Red
September 21, 2012 11:00 am

*I* sent Getler a rather complicated thank you. Sometimes, PBS surprises me, in a good way.
….Lady in Red

September 21, 2012 11:01 am

[snip over the top – mod]

Andrew Mackenzie
September 21, 2012 11:02 am

That the response has been so loud and angry just shows how on-target you are =)

September 21, 2012 11:03 am

Newt & Dole should have defunded PBS when they had the chance in 1995. If I want to watch shows from the BBC, I’ll pay for a Brit channel on cable. If I want to read Communist propaganda masquerading as news, I’ll subscribe to Pravda.

September 21, 2012 11:05 am

Interesting article, I note they not only refer to sync when they mean ‘sink,’ but refer to solar ‘insulation’ warming buildings when they surely meant to say ‘radiation.’ I presume the so-called Ombudsman must publish a full report and identify the specific ‘inaccuracies’ his supposed 15,000 complainants have identified? Or is the US system different to the UK one?

September 21, 2012 11:06 am

Your interview is very well reasoned, Anthony. It is absurd the level and content of criticism leveled at you; never addressing the specifics of your talk. If anything, it shows their “noble cause corruption” in action.

Rosy's dad
September 21, 2012 11:06 am

What is the surprise? Regular PBS viewers expect nothing but the party line so
PBS really shocked their comfortable beliefs. Too bad.

September 21, 2012 11:07 am

The more they try and silence dissent the more they undermine their standing with the general public.

Steve Oregon
September 21, 2012 11:07 am

The hate filled mob screams.
“There’s just a lot of…hundreds of emails about it,” Getler said when asked why he is writing about the issue. “Commentary about it all over and it’s interesting.”
That’s what angry mobs of lunatics do.
Especially when they’re demands are not met and they keep getting defeat rubbed in their faces.
Occupy Wall Street, global warming alarmism, environmental extremism, anarchy will never go away quietly.
And in this age of instant world wide distribution everything they they do is recorded for history made available to anyone who wants to see it.
Have a nice day Anthony. Because of guys like you they are not 🙂

September 21, 2012 11:08 am

This is just beyond belief. I expected a rapid and hostile reaction but nothing on this scale.
It’s actually quite frightening.
I hope you know Anthony that you’ve got a lot of support across the globe and there are certainly plenty of us here in Old Blighty who have your back.

September 21, 2012 11:08 am

It seems that ‘science’ has been replaced by ‘political correctness.’
PBS asked me to be on a show about the military because of my experience. When I told them about my experience, they never called back ….. If you do not fit their narrative, they silence you as quickly as they can.

September 21, 2012 11:08 am

There is no more sacrosanct topic on PBS and NPR than “Climate Change”.

September 21, 2012 11:09 am

When people react to hearing opinions with which they disagree by saying “It’s like dark figures tearing down your house in the night,” what they’re defending is not science, it’s mythical religion.

September 21, 2012 11:10 am

To abuse the metaphor; with the number of errors their starting data-sets have and how often they fudge around with their bias I wouldn’t be surprised if they never go home to the same address.

September 21, 2012 11:11 am

I can’t believe all these ‘outraged protests’ aren’t being orchestrated.
It’s unbelievable!

September 21, 2012 11:12 am

PBS has journalistic standards?????
Minimum 100% propaganda, guaranteed.

Dave G
September 21, 2012 11:12 am

This response by the warming community show they are on their back foot doing a moon walk off the cliff of global warming.
Good work!

September 21, 2012 11:12 am

“When Media Matters first called”…………………………………
Yeah, nothing biased there.

September 21, 2012 11:15 am

They appear to be running scared Anthony, it seems clear to me they fear you greatly.

September 21, 2012 11:16 am

Anthony as the Big Bad Wolf who is going to huff, and puff, and blow the house down!
The good thing about the PBS show is that it apparently reached a bubble of people who live very comfortably totally within that bubble. There will be a subset of those who actually reach out to get more information.
Another thing it exposed was the large group of people who follow PBS who live in that bubble who do not think critically, but who instead seek a tidy narrative. It does not say much about PBS’ programming, does it?

September 21, 2012 11:16 am

Anthony you really are over the target.

“There’s just a lot of…hundreds of emails about it,….”

Getting lots of emails does not mean Anthony was wrong about anything he said. I thought he was rather reasonable and mild. I history shows Anthony to have been right then the Ombudsman would have failed and ‘succeeded’ in his duty.

September 21, 2012 11:17 am

How about someone examining PBS transcripts over the years to see how many times they have extolled the need for “diversity of opinion.” And exactly on what basis have they refused to
allow alternative theories and evidence? Why does PBS imagine themselves qualified to make decisions about scientific “truthfulness.” I saw a recent poll that claimed only 13% (I think of Gen X) were concerned about climate change.

September 21, 2012 11:18 am

Just emailed the Ombudsman with my point of view concerning un-American attitudes of certain Warmist pressure groups…

Steven Kopits
September 21, 2012 11:21 am

The vitriol of the reaction to what is a pretty neutral interview is just remarkable.
I find it even more interesting that Spencer Michels says that “Watts was recommended by the Heartland Institute”. That’s truly remarkable. It would be as though he said, “we contacted the BBC because it was recommended by CBS as an interesting media outlet”. If you’re even remotely interested in climate topics, pro or contra, you have to know WUWT. It’s as though a skeptic reporter would say, “Real Climate was recommended by the Center for Progress.” Even if you don’t agree with them, you at least know who they are.

Jeff D.
September 21, 2012 11:22 am

I am hoping for the best from the Ombudsman but being a pessimist I fear for a collective slap in all our faces. Strong arm tactics from well funded groups like Forecast the Facts is an outrage. Looks like we all need to be told when to eat, what to eat, when to think, and what to think. Anthony received what 2 minutes of air time? Are the warmist really that scared? Based on vile denigrations being projected at him and Skeptics they must be “VERY” scared.
Guess all of our big oil funding is making it all possible. OH wait doesn’t PBS get huge donations from big oil?
ps. Looks like no more donations to PBS for Doctor Who…..

September 21, 2012 11:24 am

The increasing signs of desperation exhibited by the alarmists show that the end of the scam is getting nearer. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Man Bearpig
September 21, 2012 11:24 am

Has anyone from the skeptics side put emails, phone calls to PBS ?
In the UK there has to be balance in reporting otherwise people can complain – it is the editors’ job to ensure balance (just have to keep reminding the BBC about that though) – I have never heard of complaints for being too balanced before.
I would imagine that a number of those complainants hadn’t even watched the video they were just doing as they were told.
Desmog encourage people to complain here:
and another one here:
So the alarmists seem have the hump about their ‘science’ failing, models melting, people like Gliek being exposed as climate-criminals and their general inability to add 2 numbers together and get the correct answer.

September 21, 2012 11:25 am

Every night, some guys who can’t get wood try to tear down my house.
Every night, some guy like Anthony shines a light on them.
So far.
Thanks, Anthony.

Harry Trent
September 21, 2012 11:26 am

Anthony, keep fighting the fight. This isn’t even about climate change; it’s about the right of people to have opinions and to air them freely. I’m saddened and disgusted at the bile that has been thrown your way simply for giving an opinion. There’s no other word for the people that are dishing the dirt on you except ‘fascist’. They are trying to silence you for having the temerity to challenge their views. Keep going!!

September 21, 2012 11:27 am

Anthony, do you realise that the more they scream the more fence sitters and even some passive Warmist believers are likely to look more deeply into the issue and turn? That’s how many of us former Warmists (including myself) turned from accepting the scientists fabrications and fairy tales to harden sceptic.

medieval mob
September 21, 2012 11:30 am

A witch! We’ve found a witch! May we burn her?

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 11:33 am

I sent an email to the PBS ombudsman. It was easy:

September 21, 2012 11:35 am

So, when are you going to post a form letter we can send praising PBS for being semi-impartial for a change? Maybe 20,000 emails from sceptics would convince him that PBS did a good thing.

jim lander
September 21, 2012 11:36 am

What amazes me is the intensity of the hate by the warmers to your statements.
My God, has it gotten that far away from actual science?
To reference you to a house destroyer(+)? How utterly lame, and, insulting to not just you, but science in general.

cui bono
September 21, 2012 11:38 am

NewsHour editorial guidelines (read out by Jim Lehrer in December 2009) includes: “Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.” This is a good guideline.
Unless you’re with Eff the Effing Facts.
Anthony, you bravely have spent years putting your head above the parapet. What they are firing at you now goes beyond any semblance of debate – it is vicious and sick.

September 21, 2012 11:39 am

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi.

These rabid people are currently in the fighting stage and rapidly reducing minority in the polls. The winning stage has begun while they are still fighting.

September 21, 2012 11:40 am

Observational evidence and analysis in peer reviewed publications is unequivocally on the side of the so called “skeptics”. I challenge PBS to have an open discussion of the facts concerning global climate change.
Attacking a messenger does not change the truth.
The extreme warming paradigm pushers have not acknowledged that the “skeptics” refute extreme AGW, not benign, beneficial AGW.
The science (observations and analysis in published papers) does not support extreme AGW. That is the reason why there has been no public debate of the scientific evidence which unequivocally refutes extreme AGW.
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. Spending trillions of dollars on “green” scams (an example if the conversion of food to biofuel which results in higher food prices and massive loss in virgin forest as there is a limited amount of agricultural land and competing expanding population that require food) which will not significantly reduce CO2 emissions which is not a problem.
The planet is not warming in accordance with the IPCC predictions. The IPCC extreme AGW warming, general circulation models amplify CO2 warming (positive feedback). Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation from satellite vs ocean surface temperature indicates the planet resists warming or cooling changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics.
The extreme warming IPCC predictions of 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2 require that the planet amplifies the CO2 warming which is positive feedback. If the planet’s feedback response to a change in force is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitude regions of the planet which will cause the biosphere to expand.
There is no extreme AGW warming problem to solve.
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity…. ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)…. …This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.,9171,1725975,00.html

September 21, 2012 11:42 am

Not that I want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but don’t you think its plausible that PBS *knew* that Anthony’s inclusion in the special would make the most fervent warmists ‘freak out’, and will now use this as a way to publicly tar and feather Anthony within the PBS/Warmist group sphere? To me, the reactions are a bit over the top, and seem heavy handed. If PBS winds up publishing some kind of rebuttal which calls their inclusion of Anthony a “mistake”, then it will just confirm the fact that PBS ultimately will have no intention of fairly reporting this topic.

September 21, 2012 11:46 am

“Doug Craig was an Air Force brat born in Germany, grew up in L.A., Northern Virginia and Dayton, Ohio. Obtained a B.A. in Journalism and a Doctorate in Psychology. Employed as a clinical psychologist in private practice in Redding for 24 years. One wife, two daughters, two cats, two dogs, 36 solar panels and three hybrids. ”
(information he gives about himself on his blog)
Journalism and psychology… Do I need to comment further….

September 21, 2012 11:46 am

It is rather frightening to see free speech under such vitriolic attack. Unfortunately extrme left wingers have never had much respect for it.
I’m writing to the ombudsman too as D Boehm suggests.

September 21, 2012 11:46 am

PBS is no less part of the propaganda machine as FOX or the NYT. My wake up call was the hard sell for the 1999 balkans war.
As long as the global banking feudal aristocracy expects to make $$ on it, the CAGW scam is not going to go away.

September 21, 2012 11:49 am

Getler is getting a first hand view of the fanatical ways of the “believer” crowd. I don’t know where he personally stands as to bias or controlling the message in his reporting but he’s certainly getting a good example from those that do. If he has any credibility he will see just what is occurring within the ranks of the left and basically ignore their shrill cry. They remind me of the Islamic extremists. Maybe they will take to the streets and riot and protest that someone doesn’t share their extreme views.
Regardless of the outcome with Getler, the “name that should not be spoken”, Anthony Watts, is being plastered all over the internet and will unquestionably bring new viewers to WUWT to see the perspective from other than the mainstream media (MSM) and extreme “believers”. Some posts over the next several days should perhaps include some more focused on the newcomers to the issues. Those of us that have followed the issues closely forget that we had to start out with little knowledge and in a confused state with regards to the issues concerning the big Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) scam.

Harry Kal
September 21, 2012 11:50 am

I did not know you are that dangerous.
Tearing peoples houses down and all.

September 21, 2012 11:50 am

Re-reading the measured, steady, honest and respectful tone with which Anthony conducted himself in his PBS interview, and comparing it with the hate filled invective of the baying mob who are attacking him, it’s easy to see who will be coming out of this with his head held high.
Stand fast Anthony, we’re right with you.

Myron Mesecke
September 21, 2012 11:53 am

Because you aren’t rabid foaming at the mouth proclaiming CO2 as the only cause they want to burn you at the stake. But wouldn’t that release CO2? These people want total power, total control. They want no questions, no discussion, no confirmation, no rechecking of the facts, figures or data.
Any reasonable person would read the transcript and see that you are for energy efficiency, energy saving, clean air, land and water. You only say that it has to be done in a careful and well thought out way. That we need to make sure that how we go about doing it makes sense than are sure that it will work.
You only say that we need to have accurate data to make sure the results will be as expected. And they bitch about it?

Craig Moore
September 21, 2012 11:54 am

Media Matters??????? Aren’t they the same propaganda operation with an all too cozy relationship with the DoJ?

September 21, 2012 11:57 am

Thanks Jimbo, that makes me feel better. I was starting to feel like the brown shirts were winning.

Theo Barker
September 21, 2012 11:58 am

Sent a message to Getler from the PBS web site. Pointed out that the readership of this blog is on average graduate-school educated (according to Alexa). Also pointed out that if he bowed to Media Matters and Forecast the Facts, he will confirm the suspicions of anyone who leans right that PBS is merely a mouthpiece of the rabid left.
I suggest readers write your own message to Mr. Getler.

A Marks Powers
September 21, 2012 11:58 am

I added my two cents worth in the PBS commentary…
“Anthony Watts presents a credible case as a climate skeptic. He does not deny climate warming, just that climate alarmists overestimate the extent of this warming. He wants to debate the science of global warming which is exactly what PBS viewers should also desire. But after wading through these 379 comments, it is obvious that most have an agenda rather than wanting to debate the facts.”

cui bono
September 21, 2012 11:58 am

Note for Brits: PBS UK includes 4 broadcasts of the PBS Newshour per day, but delayed by a day. Sky channel 166; Virgin Media channel 243.
Though with all these 2-minute hate sessions against Anthony, no doubt it will be on YouTube before that.
“A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.” Orwell, 1984.

Paul Westhaver
September 21, 2012 11:59 am

Sounds like MOB-RULE.
So what is new, PBS bends to the Mob screaming.
It would be much better if PBS would bend to science and facts and stand against the nutty MOB.
So what did Anthony say that was wrong?
Answer that. Mr Ombudsman.

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 11:59 am

A psychologist, eh? Brings to mind this bill introduced in the New Mexico legislature:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than eighteen inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding the defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong.


September 21, 2012 12:00 pm

The parallels between the hat on display by warmist cult members and the mobs in the middle east, who also don’t really understand what’s going on, is frightening.

Sam the First
September 21, 2012 12:02 pm

“The general public has spoken out as well, with over 15,000 [aren’t there a lot more than 15,000 people in the general public?] people signing a Forecast the Facts petition to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler demanding an investigation of how this violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast.”
I went to the Forecast the Facts page on Facebook. There was no option to disagree with their petition, or to register a vote against their proposition. I posted a comment but it was removed, or course.
These people are very sick, and have no understanding of science, let alone of common decency or the principle of free speech.

September 21, 2012 12:05 pm

From a Brit who gets it ….
Way to go Rosewood!

Joe Postma
September 21, 2012 12:06 pm

Okay, seriously. How long until the alarmists just outright call for the murder of real skeptical scientists?
They’re playing this game of trying to pretend and make it appear as though real science doesn’t exist…they’re trying to “disappear” real science discussion and independent thought on the matter. Not too much further, and they’ll begin disappearing real skeptical scientists in body, via murder. Witness the hate and vitriol in their attacks and in their personal comm’s. That’s not healthy. They WILL be the ones needing so-called “re-education camps”…for themselves.

September 21, 2012 12:07 pm

There is a form on the PBS site where you can express your opinion on the issue. I did.

September 21, 2012 12:08 pm
September 21, 2012 12:08 pm

“If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!” –Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
They really do fear the “one”

Ed Moran
September 21, 2012 12:10 pm

Your answers were nuanced, non-inflamatory and balanced. I just can’t see a reason for the hate mail.
Orkneylad was spot on when he said “running scared”.
But… the mob has spoken. “Burn the witch!”
Stand strong, Mr Watts, your voice is needed.

David Ball
September 21, 2012 12:10 pm

tallbloke says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:50 am

Jason Calley
September 21, 2012 12:11 pm

I don’t think that Anthony’s short interview could have possibly caused such a furor; he was calm, measured and accurate. (Good job, Mr. Watts!) Is it possible that someone took a version of the recent trailer for “The Innocence of Muslims” and re-dubbed the dialog with climate-hate-speech? That would at least explain the vitriol from the CAGW crowd.

Ed Moran
September 21, 2012 12:13 pm

@ Tallbloke.
I sent my text before I saw yours. Honest, Mister, it’s not plagerism, just two people who think alike.

Jeff D.
September 21, 2012 12:14 pm

I sent an email off to the Ombudsman as well.
I simply asked that if he was going to be critical of Mr. Watts that he should reserve any opinion until he sat down with Mr. Watts and let him explain what is so incredibility clear to us Skeptics.

September 21, 2012 12:15 pm

I just posted an eight-paragraph screed (with more than one sentence per paragraph) to Mr. Getner wondering where the righteous anger was coming from, considering the mildness and truth of what Anthony had to say. Hopefully he’ll fact-check Anthony’s remarks rather than just responding to the hate e-mail he received. Whether or not people liked what he had to say, they remarks were accurate and do not demonstrate any breach of journalistic standards (hard to type that with a straight face) on the part of PBS or the host of the piece.

Berényi Péter
September 21, 2012 12:19 pm

And is this Doug Craig guy still running free? Astounding. An arch-saboteur he is, meticulously destroying the future of our children, while accusing others with the crime.

September 21, 2012 12:19 pm

Anthony probably doesn’t tear down their house at night, it falls apart while he is installing solar panels on the roof because of the shoddy materials they use to build it.

September 21, 2012 12:22 pm

Just a point. It’s difficult to steal wood from castles in the air.

September 21, 2012 12:22 pm

Anthony keep tearing their play house down.

September 21, 2012 12:24 pm

Why not propose to PBS that the warmists present their case, point by point, against the skeptics, point by point. If the warmist point of view is so strong, it will be a great opportunity for them to “destroy” the skeptics. If not then…

Steve P
September 21, 2012 12:24 pm

The self-righteous green weenies don’t like to be told they really aren’t saving the planet by dismantling Western civilization, for that means they must abandon the (imaginary) moral high ground they thought they occupied, along with their (imagined) moral superiority.
The vitriol being hurled at Anthony will open many eyes, I think, and cause no few fence-sitters to re-evaluate the entire AGW conjecture, so it’s not all bad. You don’t get to be “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” or the Web’s Best Science Blog (2008) by mere chance, or by faulty science either, for that matter.
To be a valid theory, AGW must be falsifiable, and the Null Hypothesis (natural variation) must be overturned without resorting to special pleading.
It’s always worth mentioning that warmer is better for agriculture, and that CO2 is plant food. There is a reason greenhouse owners burn propane to elevate CO2 in their structures. That’s the real greenhouse effect.

September 21, 2012 12:25 pm

That would make for great television!

Doug Allen
September 21, 2012 12:26 pm

I emailed Michael Getler the following-
Dear Michael Getler,
I’m a long time PBS viewer and contributer these last few decades. I recently retired to SC, but remain an educator. Every day at 6 PM I watch the News Hour. I congradulate the News Hour on always voicing opposing sides to controversial issues. The interview with Anthony Watts was consistent with PBS policy. I am a life long conservationist, s social liberal, and usually vote Democratic, which I tell you only because of the stereotypes in the climate change controversies. I ALSO TEACH A COURSE ON GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE at a local university. There is much misinformation and disinformation about the so-called consensus, about the so-called settled science, about the important difference between AGW (anthropogenic global warming) which virtually all climate scientists endorse and CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) which is controversial in the science community. Most journalists, and you too, my friend, it seems, do not understand this important distinction. AGW is based on atmospheric science, the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and is a foundational principle in climate science. CAGW is based upon models (computer simulations which are hypotheses) which assume mainly positive feedbacks (water vapor and other feedbacks) and assume attribution for warming is mainly greenhouse gas “forcings” and not natural variability. Though critically important, neither of these assumptions on which CAGW is based can be proven or is even testable with present climate science understanding. There are many informed disagreements in the science community about these issues which are referred to as “climate sensitivity” and “attribution.” You do climate science, the PBS viewers, and yourself no favors by censoring or condemning informed points of view. As ombudsman, you have a responsibility to understand the scientific controversies before weighing in with an opinion. It appears you have some homework to do.

Jeff D.
September 21, 2012 12:27 pm

Off Topic… Anyone else hate the auto-complete on their smart phones as much as I? Those things can take a good post and make you look out right stupid…

James Ard
September 21, 2012 12:27 pm

I eamiled the omsbudsman congratulating PBS for finally breaking free of their one sided coverage of the issue. Although most likely he will come out saying inviting Anthony was a mistake, surely in his heart he discovered what thugs the warmists are.

September 21, 2012 12:27 pm

Sherlock Holmes channeled by Anthony Watts:
“On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything.
You fail, however, to reason from what you see.”
“Data! Data! Data!
I can’t make bricks without clay.”
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
“We must look for consistency.
Where there is a want of it we must suspect deception.”
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.
It biases the judgment.”
“One should always look for a possible alternative, and provide against it.
It is the first rule of criminal investigation.”

Sun Spot
September 21, 2012 12:33 pm

The cAGW clergy will soon be issuing Fatwa’s, maybe even getting Hassen out to whip up the suitable frightened masses to burn a few well sat surface stations.

D. Patterson
September 21, 2012 12:33 pm

The self-appointed foes of Anthony Watts have added a posting with comments to YouTube:
PBS NewsHour Features Climate Denier Anthony Watts, ‘Science Has A New Home’

Anyone wish to add their own comments?

September 21, 2012 12:34 pm

Science by Email how novel, oh wait did someone say climategate 🙂

lurker, passing through laughing.
September 21, 2012 12:35 pm

The AGW true beleivers are bigots in the smae vein as racists and eugenicists.
They are not seeking to be reasoned with. They are seeking to stop those who dare to disagree.

September 21, 2012 12:39 pm

Media Matters: Isn’t that the same group that has been recently exposed as conspiring with the Justice Dept to discredit critics of the Obama administration?

September 21, 2012 12:40 pm

It never ceases to amaze me the way some people, almost exclusively liberals, actually believe that people who don’t agree with them have no right to be heard.

Fred Allen
September 21, 2012 12:42 pm

I have a great deal of respect for PBS. They do a great job with limited resources. My level of respect just went up because they included another view (Anthony’s) on the climate change discussion and they would have had a good idea about the expected reaction, but included the discussion anyway. I would hope this leads to more questions about this global warming “consensus”; a greater look at the so-called “evidence” and a discussion of the politics.

September 21, 2012 12:43 pm

Paul Westhaver says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:59 am
So what did Anthony say that was wrong?

This is where the problems will start for the Ombudsman. He will have to find fault which won’t be easy. Anthony also gave his very mild opinion about what’s driving the alarmist scientists. What’s faulty about that? Ha the Ombudsmand seen the billions being pumped into this religion?

September 21, 2012 12:44 pm

PBS seems to follow the principle that truth & scientific fact are determined by the volume of emails & protestations.

September 21, 2012 12:46 pm

Stand fast Mr Watts, you have people all around the world backing you.
We all benefit from your excellent work.

Theo Goodwin
September 21, 2012 12:52 pm

To Doug Craig: please visit the website of Roger Pielke, Sr. He is the best among practicing climate scientists and has yards of peer reviewed publications. He endorses much of Watts’ work. Then, Mr. Craig, ask yourself why you do not know about Pielke, Sr?

September 21, 2012 12:54 pm

Well the reaction is pretty much absolute proof that this is not about climate, but all about the destruction of capitalism to make the world safe for the much desired marxist utopia. Just look at the list of attackers!

Theo Goodwin
September 21, 2012 12:54 pm

Will the ombudsman be publishing PBS’s relevant guidelines from PBS, explaining their application, and encouraging debate? I really, really look forward to that.

Mark Wagner
September 21, 2012 12:55 pm

I found the PBS report well done, and have emailed the ombudsman to say so.

September 21, 2012 12:57 pm

I wrote to PBS and relied on many of your observations here–thanks. I wonder if he’ll look at all sides? I hope so. Here is what I wrote:
Dear Mr. Getler,
How many times has PBS extolled the need for “diversity of opinion?” I do not want to see journalism at PBS turn ‘science’ into ‘political correctness.’
I know your more vocal followers were shocked out of their comfortable mime when PBS showed an interview with Anthony Watts, but as one blogger stated at Anthony’s site, “Re-reading the measured, steady, honest and respectful tone with which Anthony conducted himself in his PBS interview, and comparing it with the hate filled invective of the baying mob who are attacking him, it’s easy to see who will be coming out of this with his head held high.”
I too am a published researcher, albeit not a climate scientist, but I know that science, real science, welcomes scrutiny–that is how science advances. Remember that in the 1950’s scientists said salt caused high blood pressure, in the 1960’s they said it didn’t, in the 1970’s they said it helped lower it–and so on to today where they say if you are salt sensitive, maybe you should restrict it but nothing has yet been conclusively (scientifically) settled.
Please read Richard N. Fogoros, M.D.s update of salt intake here:
I am hoping that if you read Dr. Fognoros’ non inflammatory review of salt science and in your mind substitute “C02” for “salt,” and “runaway global warming” for “hypertension” and “planet” for “population” you will get a measured view of how to look at a balanced science debate.
I challenge you to go to the comment section of Watt’s blog on your upcoming piece about the balanced presentation of global warming that is upsetting many of your viewers–after reading our comments there–I don’t think you can escape the obvious intelligence of the professional people, scientists, and concerned citizens for the future of our planet.
Please, give it a fair shot–and if you don’t agree–then point out in your piece how we (the climate realists) fall short of being reasonable, informed, respectful and open to learning from science… and Anthony will publish that for us. (Actually he’ll publish whatever you say, but that is his integrity.)
Thank you

September 21, 2012 12:58 pm

The text of my letter to Mr. Getler:
Mr Getler,
I understand you will be doing a piece on PBS’ recent story on the subject of global warming. I want to express my disappointment with PBS’ handling of the criticism it has received. Today, with the public’s trust in media at an all time low (as reported this week on NPR), one would like to think of PBS (and NPR) as one of the last bastions of reliable, honest, information. Instead both organizations have recently shown that journalistic integrity and plain courage is discountable in the face of disgruntled viewers and listeners.
A week ago NPR ran a story on the Stanford research study indicating there was no decernable health benefits from eating organic food. While I missed the original story, there was no missing the immediate backpedalling which occured the next day.
As I recall, normal practice is to air listener feedback to the weeks stories over the weekend. In this instance a followup story was broadcast the very next day. While that in itself is not extrordinary, the content was. The host and reporter went to great lengths to appease all the upset listeners by refocusing the story to being one of insufficient time having passed for impacts to manifest themselves, rather than the crux of the study. It was almost funny, if it hadn’t been so sad.
Then this week PBS decides not to be outdone when it comes to pandering to its viewers and issues an immediate followup piece to the global warming story that was almost entirely focused on undermining the credability of a single member of the participants in that story.
I will be interested in seeing if you find fundemental flaws with how PBS went about producing and presenting this piece. To be honest, I suspect it will be a CYA exercise to appease.
I will end this with a plea. Please show us that PBS values its integrity above any blowback it might receive from viewers unhappy with the news and information you report. The loss of a few subscribers is a small price to pay.

September 21, 2012 1:00 pm

I just sent an email to the ombudsman saying I was looking forward to seeing his article so I could understand how a supposedly unbiased news source could apologize for airing both sides of an issue and not come off like a propagandist.

September 21, 2012 1:01 pm

My advice. Ignore this nonsense. Hundreds of emails? 15,000 people? PBS, Media Matters, Forecast The Facts, etc, etc are all just embarrassing themselves by making such a big deal about this.

September 21, 2012 1:02 pm

I think your comments were very mild, Anthony. I can think of many who would have accused the purveyors of the CO2 hoax as being junk scientists, liars and cheats.

September 21, 2012 1:05 pm

Listen everyone,
As a journalist, I can tell you straight out that one of the reasons why they are attacking Anthony Watts is because he MADE the critical points that needed to be made on the NewsHour Interview on climate change. He was seen QUESTIONING – in public, in an interview on PBS.
That is why the AGW scaremongers are so upset demanding retractions, petitions, etc., etc., as they ‘complain’ to a PBS Ombudsman.
And I say, LET them be upset. They deserve it after all the BS they’ve put so many people through over the years. It’s PAYBACK TIME. I’m loving it all. Every second of it.
The more they scream and cry like the spoiled children they are, the BETTER, as it brings more coverage to the lie of man-made global warming that was never true from the very start.
What they did NOT want, those who think that they can silence any contrarian view, is ANY comment from Anthony at all, since it is obvious that ‘man-made global warming’ is OFF the policy tables of national governments worldwide.
So, what is really happening is a reactionary response attacking Anthony Watts, whom, let’s remember is METEOROLOGIST, and should know a little something about the climate and weather, don’t you think?
Whether he is considered a ‘scientist’ is simply pure bunk from those who claim that they can forecast anything akin to a hot bowl of soup on a cold winter’s day.
What they are afraid of is that Anthony Watts and those like him who strongly question ‘man-made global warming,’ that is human-caused climate change – will gain MORE coverage in the mainstream media – and THAT is what is happening here.
Of course Anthony will get more interviews and that’s a GOOD thing since it is quite obvious that the media is now more seriously questioning the fallacy of man-made global warming more than they ever did over the past 25 years – which isn’t saying much since the mainstream media has done such a piss poor job of it to say the least.
And, there has been NO violation of journalistic standards.
Every journalist knows to get as many sides of any subject as is possible. It is PART AND PARCEL of the principles of journalism to include ANY and all views as equally as possible and to let the reader, or listener decide for themselves what to think.
The media is not in the business of telling people what to think. But you wouldn’t believe that that has been the case with ‘man-made global warming.’
Those who go about raising silly petitions to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler demanding an investigation of how this ‘violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast’ obviously have NOT a clue as to what journalistic standards are.
There isn’t anything in the code of conduct and principles of journalism that says a reporter – ANY REPORTER – cannot interview anyone – no matter what their views may or may not be.
It is standard to interview whomever you want and let the chips fall where they may. I’ve done it thousands of times as a reporter myself.
The whole point of journalism is to enlighten, to explore and to expand on ANY TOPIC – no matter where it may take you. That’s what freedom of thought and expression is all about and I am all for it. Anyone who is not for this is an ideologue and a fascist.
I’m having a grand time watching all of this. I think it’s great. More people have been coming to Anthony Watts site to see for themselves and are learning the TRUTH about the FACTS behind the Earth’s climate. I think it’s a wonderful thing.
So let them scream, jump wildly up and down, pull out their hair, rant on, attack personally, sign petitions and on and on like the spoiled ignorant babies they are, because all that does is bring even MORE ATTENTION to what Anthony Watts has been saying and writing about for years – that man-made global warming does not exist. It can’t because the laws of physics say so.
We didn’t write those laws of physics that govern our planet’s climate and weather.
We did not create the first and second laws of thermodynamics that say man-made global warming is impossible and cannot exist on Earth.
We just work here. Let the Good Times Roll. Good Work Anthony. Party On Man!

September 21, 2012 1:06 pm

This is a news item on PBS about the oil, coal and gas industries in the US. It is a fair debate between differing points of view.
Does Forecast The Facts want to censor speakers from the coal, oil and gas industries? Perhaps FTF should petition PBS to allow them to vet all their content before it is allowed to air?

Chris D.
September 21, 2012 1:09 pm

In my best Johnny Cochran voice:
If the data don’t fit,
You must admit:
Your models are s***!
Put that in your Ombudsmanbag and smoke it.

September 21, 2012 1:17 pm

There’s a saying that if you’re getting a lot of flack, you’re probably over the target. You’re obviously over the target, Anthony.
But really, if the term “Catastrophic” were removed from CAGW, the vast majority of funding for this “science” would see drastic cuts. Yet nobody has a clue what that tipping point is, when it will occur, or can offer any proof. It’s time somebody owned up and quit serving up platitudes and assertions.
Quit hiding behind this lame “Catastrophic” term, Warmistas–you’re wasting a lot of time and money with your foolishness.

September 21, 2012 1:25 pm

I am reminded of the First Gulf War in 1991 during which the loudest the Saddam government screamed was when we hit something particularly valuable – including but not limited to the infamous Baby Milk Factory. Their loudest screams took place when someone tossed a couple bunker busters thru the roof of a building used to house Baath Party families.
The volume and vehemence we are getting out of the warmists against PBS on this tells me that you have hit and seriously damaged something very close to their hearts and minds Nicely played. Cheers –

September 21, 2012 1:26 pm

There most certainly are things in the PBS report that the Ombudsman can criticize.
For instance, the assertion that Richard Muller ever was a legitimate skeptic cannot stand up to even 10 minutes of internet research. Ok, maybe he was a skeptic for an hour. But 20 years ago he was a believer on a CO2 tipping point. 10 years ago, too. Today he believes that 100% of all warming is CO2 driven. His skepticism has been lacking throughout his career.
So much emphasis was given to Muller’s self-professed conversion. Yet nary a word of Anthony Watts own conversion to pragmatic skepticism after Anthony did the very scientific action to evaluate the quality of the temperature measurements by physically visiting the thermometers. This editorial decision is also something the Ombudsman should criticize.
Bias is far more about what is not said than what is.

September 21, 2012 1:29 pm

Fascinating. Notice how the PBS crowd claims to be sophisticated, educated, tolerant, inclusive and dedicated to fairness, openness, freedom of expression and discussion (especially discussions of the round-table type). And yet as soon as their particular ox is gored, they react in the most vile and objectionable manner possible.
Some day a team of psychologists, operating at pay-scales well above mine, will analyze this event and probably come up with a unique chapter in the book of the human psyche.
(shaking my head)

September 21, 2012 1:30 pm

Here is who we are dealing with.

Doug Craig
As a result of this process some call the enhanced greenhouse effect, the climate is steadily warming and glaciers are melting and seas are rising and coasts are flooding and in the future, millions of people will need to migrate away from the coasts. Droughts and floods will both increase. More heat waves, more extreme weather, more plant and animal extinctions and the decline of all ecosystems on Earth that support the miracle of life.
This is what science has reported.

How is it possible that so much misinformation and out and out fabrications and speculation can be packed into one paragraph.
“climate is steadily warming”
It has been doing that since the mid 19th century as we came out of LIA.
“glaciers are melting and seas are rising”
It’s been doing that for well over 10,000 years.
“coasts are flooding”
3mm per year???? Head for the hills!!!!
“millions of people will need to migrate away from the coasts”
Bangladesh has gained land mass over 30 years. Most coral island atolls have stayed steady or grown.
“Droughts and floods will both increase”
Future prediction, no evidence of a current worsening trend.
“More heat waves, more extreme weather,”
Oh boy!
“more plant and animal extinctions”
Yeah, right.

September 21, 2012 1:32 pm

Since climate science did not work, they try social science; once it fails, they’ll try camps.

John West
September 21, 2012 1:35 pm

What tools would that be that Anthony Watts uses to tear down their work? Reason, logic, facts, and truth are the tools of that particular trade.

September 21, 2012 1:41 pm

“PBS journalistic standards ”
Haha, hahaha, hahahaha, BWAHAHAHA.
I feel better. Hang in there Mr. Watts…

Steve P
September 21, 2012 1:42 pm

What the heck is a “climate denier”? Even “climate change denier” makes no sense; few of us doubt that climate changes. The doubt, the skepticism resides in the cause of the changes, which remains obscure.

September 21, 2012 1:48 pm

If the science was airtight, the reaction by the warmists would be “oh yea?. Who cares what he thinks.” On the other hand if their views are based on a belief system, as in a religion, then they lash out at those who threaten their belief system. I see a lot of parallels with the viewers reaction to Anthony and the reaction by others in the world whose belief systems are being threatened.

Christoph Dollis
September 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Wow, I thought your responses to the questions were mild and if anything slightly nervous in the beginning. Could be wrong on that.
You hardly staked out an extreme position … you began by saying there has been some warming, in fact, and went on to talk about surface-temperature measurement problems.
This has provoked such fear/hatred?
How bizarre — and pathetic.

September 21, 2012 1:51 pm

The PBS Ombudsman’s approach:

Rather, it is to add an autonomous voice when it comes to questions about editorial content and whether PBS is living up to its stated standards. The intention is to sort out those viewer comments and criticisms that go to the journalistic standards and mission of PBS, to make sure those questions are put in front of PBS producers, to gather explanations in response to viewers, and to make independent assessments when necessary of disputed issues.
The PBS Editorial Standards:

A. Editorial Integrity
PBS’s reputation for quality reflects the public’s trust in the editorial integrity of PBS content and the process by which it is produced and distributed. To maintain that trust, PBS and its member stations are responsible for shielding the creative and editorial processes from political pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources. PBS also must make every effort to ensure that the content it distributes satisfies those editorial standards designed to assure integrity.
The ombudsman must therefore find that the political pressure to silence CAGW skeptics goes against stated PBS standards.

September 21, 2012 1:52 pm

I really like Your ‘PBS-show’ and (above all) the ‘reactions’ from the drowning side which have deFacto prooved (w/o Lew-‘science’) how immensively right on track You are, Sir!
I’m getting a lot of ads from TED – quite a number of Swedish ‘scientists’ have gathered a ‘floor’ there, i.e. the doctor with his graphs…, and it would be of great interest if there’s a chance for You to appear/speak on a ‘TED’-session – which, hopefully, could/would be aired here in Sweden… We kind of have an acute lack of balanced reporting in the SVT (=Swedish Television), SR (Sveriges Radio, Swedish Radio) as well as in the ‘common’ other media, especially the print.
(No bit away from what’s going on in Australia at present).
Brgds from Sweden

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 1:52 pm

Feel the hate. The alarmist crowd is consumed with hatred. But what if someone gets into power who feels the same way about them?

Perhaps the worst modern threat to free speech is this notion that “hate speech” is somehow a class of speech that should be banned. Well, I would ask advocates of this position to remember that nearly every bit of political speech is hate speech to someone. Those who advocate for such a restriction generally imagine themselves defining what is hateful. Which leads me back to my #1 legal test: if one supports some sort of government-rule-making legislation, imagine the politician you like the least making the rules. If that makes you queasy, you shouldn’t be supporting that legislation.
~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

September 21, 2012 1:54 pm

Theodore White says:
September 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm
I think you got it covered in your own words. Call it like it is and let the crybabies cry.

Steve from Rockwood
September 21, 2012 1:56 pm

LarryS says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:42 am
Not that I want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but don’t you think its plausible that PBS *knew* that Anthony’s inclusion in the special would make the most fervent warmists ‘freak out’, and will now use this as a way to publicly tar and feather Anthony within the PBS/Warmist group sphere? To me, the reactions are a bit over the top, and seem heavy handed. If PBS winds up publishing some kind of rebuttal which calls their inclusion of Anthony a “mistake”, then it will just confirm the fact that PBS ultimately will have no intention of fairly reporting this topic.
The problem is you can play back Anthony’s responses over and over and they still make sense. I think this is the problem. Denialist anti-science is supposed to be easy to deconstruct. For PBS to retract or publicly regret their earlier decision would only make them look foolish. I think the denialist argument was supposed to sound stupid on television and that didn’t happen.

September 21, 2012 1:56 pm

This is what happens when a religion–such as the cult of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming–believes it is under attack. It lashes out.

September 21, 2012 1:58 pm

“The general public has spoken out as well, with over 15,000 [aren’t there a lot more than 15,000 people in the general public?] people signing a Forecast the Facts petition to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler demanding an investigation of how this violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast.”
A lot more than 15,000 in the general public? Heck! there are w-a-a-a-a-y more than 15,000 people who pay a dollar to have someone guess their age or weight at the carnival. I’m surprised only 15,000 of them wrote in to PBS.

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 2:01 pm

Word is getting out. Anthony made the Coyote blog:

September 21, 2012 2:03 pm

All the storm about this show is likely to draw even more media attention to the subject. The media feeds on controversy.
Anthony may get asked to speak again on another show.
Skeptics could not have hoped for a better reaction from fanatic eco-zealots.

Phone Ringing: Ring Ring Ring……”Anthony. There a guy on the phone called Jay Leno. He says he wants to speak to you?”
Later that evening, Jay Leno says, “So Anthony, you seem to have garnered a lot of attention lately. Tell me, if you meet a women, do you ever start talking about global warming?”
Anthony, “Sure I do. You know it’s actually a real icebreaker.”
….roars of laughter….
Jay continues, “But seriously, yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water.”
Anthony, “yeah and the bad news is that this is all just hype”
Jay, “What do you mean bad news?”
Anthony, “Well unfortunately parts of New Jersey won’t be under water!”
….roars of laughter…..

Steve P
September 21, 2012 2:03 pm

Theodore White says:
September 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Excellent post, Mr. White; you make many good points, but I must contest this critical one:

The media is not in the business of telling people what to think.

I suggest: Ideally, telling people what to think should not be the media’s business. However, whether or not that is the MSM’s primary mission remains to be determined.

September 21, 2012 2:07 pm

Ah, yes. Tolerance and open-mindedness: the hallmark of Leftists and Cultists.
Tell me again why NPR merits any kind of public funding.

September 21, 2012 2:09 pm

I also particularly enjoyed the ombudsman’s response (allow me to paraphrase): “I’m ignorant, I haven’t researched any of the facts–I simply listen to the media. On that basis alone, I think we screwed up by having Watts on.”
PBS should be commended for daring to air the skeptic position, not pilloried.

Dr Burns
September 21, 2012 2:10 pm

Great work Anthony ! Keep shaking up the nut cases, scammers and the ignorant..

September 21, 2012 2:11 pm

I guess it can be quite a shock to the viewership, when an opinion contrary to the stories they have been fed is aired.

September 21, 2012 2:17 pm

Dear Anthony,
A well balanced interview that you gave, with good answers. Also kudos to Mr Michels for raising the proper questions. I cannot see what has been the cause for outrageous reactions. It was a clear, concise and factually correct interview, with also the politically correct remarks from you on climate change, energy efficiency.
Keep on the good work! Up to position 1!

September 21, 2012 2:18 pm

What was stunning to me as I watched this program is that the NewsHour and Michels had picked Watts — who is a meteorologist and commentator — rather than a university-accredited scientist to provide “balance.” I had never heard of Watts before this program and I’m sure most viewers don’t, as part of their routines, read global warming blogs on either side of the issue.

They have heard of him now. Now, what if they had invited Lindzen or Spencer, would that have made it OK for the Ombudsman? Of course not, they would still howl and scream. It’s all about shutting down the debate that allegedly never was. I hope the Ombudsman comes over and reads the comments here. He and his ilk have no idea how they have been fooled by the great catastrophic global warming swindle.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
The world has warmed.
Man’s co2 has had a part in that warming.
How much is mainly what divides most sceptics and warmists though there are other issues.

Mike Mangan
September 21, 2012 2:18 pm

Keep pointing out to these media types what the vitriol actually means. “Do you think the world is going to be saved by people who demand that voices be silenced?”

September 21, 2012 2:19 pm

How much is mainly what divides most sceptics and warmists though there are other issues.

September 21, 2012 2:28 pm

Now, the ombudsman, and with him, 10 of thousands potential new readers for Anthony’s blog will be reading about the facts of climate science and the data corruption that has been going on for years. At least some of them will start asking questions when they see their next electricity bill. W*F am I having to pay more for less electricity? I installed all those lousy CFL’s, I am sitting in the dark when I switch them on, and they last only half as long as my old tungsten wired bulb? And the the EPA comes with this ridiculous mercury mandate? I have now 10 times more (highly toxic) mercury in my home due to those silly CFL’s, which are mandatory after the complete ban of tungsten bulbs in my country, part of the EU.
Thanks, greenies

John V. Wright
September 21, 2012 2:35 pm

Well said, Tallbloke. Anthony, they hate the science. They can’t abide that the concentration of CO2 is rising but the average global temperature is not; they cannot stand the fact that the left wing conspiracy has been well and truly outed; most of all, they are filled with rage that you calmly, responsibly, discuss the science and remain a gentleman throughout. That is the hardest thing of all for them to deal with. And it is why, in the end, you and the truth will prevail.

Tom B.
September 21, 2012 2:37 pm

I’m still struggling with the warmist assertion that ‘there is overwhelming evidence man-made CO2 is causing the warming’…. As far as this layman (albeit a Computer Geek with 33 years in a technology field) can tell there is actually Zero EVIDENCE that man-made CO2 is the cause of our current warming. Is there a high likelihood it is partially responsible, absolutely, but there is no proof that I can find…. Very discouraging.

F. Ross
September 21, 2012 2:39 pm

I recently posted the following to the PBS Ombudsman:

Regarding the tempest of complaints about the recent PBS climate change segment, may I point out that most of those so upset did not respond to Mr. Watts points but rather resorted to ad hominem attacks against him because he does not have the letters PhD after his name.
May I suggest that you interview Dr. R. G. Brown at Duke University for his well reasoned essay on the subject of global warming/climate change. I do not know this individual and have no other motive to recommend him other than having read his essay. His email address [via Google and WUWT] is —@—.—-.—
May I also thank you/PBS for including a sceptical point of view in the segment and express the hope that you will include more in the future.

It was particularly enlightening to read such a volume of unreasoned venom as is on display in the PBS comments. One can only suppose that the majority of the cadre of viewers has been well indoctrinated in the rites of climate change/global warming.
I do hope PBS will follow up and do an interview of Dr. Brown.

September 21, 2012 2:39 pm

Did anyone know that ‘ombudsman’ is a Swedish word? We have ‘ombudsman/-män'(plurasis) all over here, doing (?) ombud (?) in more than less every corner of society… ‘Ombudsman’ = prime coating for further painting = shiver & reject, strongly!
Brgds from Sweden

September 21, 2012 2:45 pm

“UPDATE: 1:50PM – The PBS News Hour Ombudsman has posted his essay, you can read it here.”
Wow, just wow.
Are they giving us the news, or just the news that they think (by viewer feedback) we want to hear.
It seems they haven’t figured that out, yet.

Gunga Din
September 21, 2012 2:45 pm

“ Blogs: Doug Craig’s blog
Imagine you are building a house and at night while you are sleeping someone destroys all your work. Each day you return to build your home and each night, dark figures tear it down.”
Perhaps if the foundation of the house wasn’t sand it wouldn’t be so easy to tear down?

September 21, 2012 2:45 pm

I have left the following feedback for the PBS ombudsman (I hope they let it appear)
Watts Up With That recently had an article about how the ‘97% of scientist say’ quotation, is misused by politicians and environmentalists. This figure was from a survey completed for a students MSC thesis (cited by the Doran Paper) entitled The Consenus on the Consensus.
This paper, where the 97% figure is quoted from by Doran, includes a great deal of feedback from the scientist that participated, much of it very sceptical.
Additionally Richard Muller was never a ‘climate sceptic’ this is according to Prof Muller in a recent interview with the CarbonBrief website appear to be more of a media construct:
“But I also just don’t hear you protesting very much against the media storyline that seems to have emerged that you were somehow a ‘sceptic’ beforehand, a sceptic in the way that…”
Prof Muller:
“Come on, you know you can’t really counter the media. That would be a full-time job if I were to simply try to respond to everything, you know, write letters to the editor… I just hope that some people like you will read my books and read my papers, and read what I say – and not what people say I say…. “

John West
September 21, 2012 2:47 pm

Perhaps to correct their oversight PBS should air another climate change special with Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Watts, McIntyre, and RGB (if he’d be so inclined) debating with Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Romm, Lewandowsky, and Cook.

Peter Plail
September 21, 2012 2:56 pm

I am not familiar with PBS, being a Brit. Could someone in the US explain if the “general public” actually tune in and listen? I have looked at the demographics of PBS and it broadly matches the US population in general in terms of income, education and ethnicity, but nowhere can I find anything of a political or lifestyle nature.
I note that 67M people watch PBS in a typical week which puts 15k into context.
Much of the contrary comment appears to be completely irrational. I doubt if these people actually listened, and I suspect many are responding to the promptings of warmist blogs to petition PBS. They appear to be objecting to the fact that Anthony appeared, not to what he actually said.
The trouble with playing the man rather than playing the ball is that they could easily find the ball in the net behind them – game over.
On a more positive note, it is conceivable that a large proportion of the viewers did actually listen to the reassuring and rational statements that Anthony made, and will be completely oblivious to the storm raging in the blogsphere.

September 21, 2012 2:57 pm

So PBS will frame future sories depending on ‘feedback!’ Hell! What happened to telling the truth and honest journalism?

September 21, 2012 2:58 pm

Jimbo says:
September 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
The world has warmed.
Man’s co2 has had a part in that warming.

The ocean heat content rose
The surface air temperature rose (UHI caveat on amount)
The troposphere temp rose
Outgoing longwave radiation increased
CO2 and water vapour can’t create energy.
Therefore extra energy entered the system via diminished cloud cover.
Therefore any extra heat from additional ‘greenhouse gases’ ‘trapping’ energy’ can only be a secondary factor, otherwise Outgoing longwave radiation would have decreased.
Therefore the majority of the warming has been caused by other, natural factors.

September 21, 2012 2:59 pm

Watts doesn’t come across as a true believer or a fanatic.
Now you see what you are doing wrong here Anthony?
FFS forge some imaginary ‘enemy’ documents, publish a ridiculous Internet survey as ‘science’ in a ‘science’ journal or threaten to charge everyone who thinks you’re a complete w****r with ‘crimes against humanity’.
‘Tis easy and the scope is endless…

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 3:00 pm

Tom B.,
Correctomundo. Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that CO2 causes global warming?
I suspect CO2 does have a slight effect. But without empirical evidence it is a SWAG. There are credible scientists who think that CO2 causes no warming at all, and they know more about the subject than I do. Others put the effect at well under 0.5ºC per 2xCO2. And any such warming would occur at night, and in the winter, and in the higher latitudes. And any warming raises the low temperatures, not the high temperatures. What’s not to like?
Prof Richard Lindzen estimates some small CO2-caused warming, based on satellite observations. But I am not so certain that constitutes sufficient evidence. There is a wide array of estimates about the climate sensitivity number, from zero [or even negative; CO2 causes cooling], to above 6ºC. If there was definitive scientific evidence showing the response to a doubling of CO2, then the question of the sensitivity number would be answered. But there is wide dispute — and the planet itself seems to be telling us that the rise in CO2 is completely harmless.
I hope no PBS viewers read the above. I don’t want to be responsible for exploding heads. ヅ

Green Sand
September 21, 2012 3:02 pm

Bebelplatz? If you don’t like the message use authority to burn the words.
Will we ever learn?

Dave Worley
September 21, 2012 3:03 pm

There are lots of folks who draw some sort of comfort in the belief that science is settled.
I’ve had the same issues with an acquaintance who claims that aerodynamics is fully understood. When i ask who is this person who fully understands aerodynamics, I get a blank stare. I’m pretty sure that this acquaintance harbors the belief that he knows all there is to know about aerodynamics, and that to challenge that is to challenge his security.
For myself, I draw comfort knowing that there is much more to learn about everything.

D. Patterson
September 21, 2012 3:09 pm

An ant fell into the sea.
The sea level rose.
Ants had a role in causing the sea level to rise.
Welcome to Insectoid Global Warming (IGW).
Abate the ant population.

September 21, 2012 3:11 pm

Anthony, you have been standing on some 15,000 sets of Global Warming toes and they are getting very uncomfortable about it. Your interview response was very reasonable and mild. even overly moderate, and yet they cannot listen to it. They are professional Offence-Takers not Listeners over there at PBS.

September 21, 2012 3:11 pm

Well done Anthony, Despite the vitriol you are receiving from the AGW bletheren, you have succeeded in bringing to the fore, the fact that so-called climate science has MANY issues, and is far, far from settled.
Hopefully many more people will OPEN THEIR MINDS and realise the truth, that CO2 is ONLY a beneficial trace gas and not the boogey-man that the alarmists would have us think.
The question I have is how to kill the fraud portrayed in the “97% of climate scientists agree”.
This lie should have been well and truly put to bed by now.

Jimmy Haigh
September 21, 2012 3:15 pm

As I have said before, there are a lot of sick puppies on the CAGW side. I have also said that we are now in Gandi’s 3rd stage: “…and then they fight you”.
History will show that Anthony is one of the good guys.

September 21, 2012 3:17 pm

I just posted this at the base of the Ombudsman’s report.
“As the scientific evidence piles up against CAGW, and the machinations and corrupt behaviour of its lead proponents become widely known, the ‘believers’ are understandably shocked and dismayed.
Remember when the Catholic paedophilia scandal emerged? For many years the Faithful howled down any and all complainants. Of course we all know how that turned out in the end!”

September 21, 2012 3:17 pm

tallbloke says:
September 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm
In fact, discuss it here, so we don’t derail this thread. (sorry Anthony)
Mods: add this URL to my previous please

jonny old boy
September 21, 2012 3:18 pm

one only has to see how Galen’s view of anatomy was initially challenged to see how supposed “scientists” behave scientifically when challenged about their science…. its not just climate, 100s of years ago it was anatomy…. its all been done before….

September 21, 2012 3:19 pm

From the Ombudsman’s response:
“It was not the PBS NewsHour’s finest 10 minutes.”
“Watts did not seem to get more time than some of the other major figures but he seemed to dominate the program.” – WTF??
This just makes me sick, sick, sick.
As someone said in another comment – “they’re worse than we thought!”

September 21, 2012 3:19 pm

I asked this in another thread, but didn’t see a reply. Is there any reference for California now being 4-5 degrees hotter? I’ve e-mailed Dr Collins and Spencer Michels (assumed he fact checked his program) but have not received a reply. I did find one report that had around 1.5F warming for California. There was another one that had 4-5 degrees as a prediction for S.California, but Collins is not talking about a prediction.
“WILLIAM COLLINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: This timeline is showing how the temperature all over the globe has changed since the beginning of the 20th century. Look at how warm California has gotten, four or five degrees hotter than our historical climate.”
Does anyone know of any reference for the claim of “four or five degrees hotter” for California? I’ve never heard of it before.

Robert of Ottawa
September 21, 2012 3:20 pm

The ombudsman cannot argue with a legion of crimatologists who are paid by governments to say that AGW is real.

Gunga Din
September 21, 2012 3:25 pm

Peter Plail says:
September 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I am not familiar with PBS, being a Brit. Could someone in the US explain if the “general public” actually tune in and listen?
I don’t know how many people watch it but it basically started before cable TV. At that time in the US there were on 3 networks, ABC, NBC and CBS. They got their money from commercials. Some claimed that their news coverage and programming was influenced by money. They demanded more “balance”. So PBS was formed at the taxpayers’ expense. They also get viewer donations and corporate sponsors. They did (and still do) have programming you won’t find on the “The Big Three” networks. (The original “Doctor Who” and “Are You Being Served?” could only be found on a PBS station.)
Now, with cable and the internet, there is no excuse for the taxpayer to keep funding them.

Gunga Din
September 21, 2012 3:27 pm

PS “PBS” stands for “Public Broadcasting System”.

David Ball
September 21, 2012 3:27 pm

That is some “ombudsman” they got there. Same old logical fallacies to boot.

September 21, 2012 3:32 pm

katabasis1 says:
September 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm
From the Ombudsman’s response:
“It was not the PBS NewsHour’s finest 10 minutes.”
“Watts did not seem to get more time than some of the other major figures but he seemed to dominate the program.”

Strong words, softly spoken.

September 21, 2012 3:35 pm

Jimbo says:
September 21, 2012 at 11:27 am
…It seems that those screaming loudest haven’t even seen or heard the PBS thing. Or even read the transcript…
I haven’t seen it, I haven’t heard it, and I sure as %#$$ not going to turn on PBS. If I want to listen to high minded idiots babble, all I have to do is find the nearest mental facility. They have hundreds of more people with semi-intelligible dialog than the buffoons at PBS.

David Ball
September 21, 2012 3:36 pm

I’m not holding my breath that anyone other than skeptics are going to understand what the problems with the science are until, say, 2050 (lol). They cannot bring themselves to even look at what we are saying. The “ombudsman” clearly did not even attempt to try to understand. He did not even look.

A Lovell
September 21, 2012 3:38 pm

Peter Plail says:
September 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm
I’m British too, and was also wondering what the viewing figures for PBS are. My understanding (supported by various sarcastic comments about it over the years on American TV programmes I have seen), is that it is not that well regarded outside its fairly limited viewership. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If my understanding IS correct, surely the sensible thing for those who are making such a fuss would have been to ignore the whole thing? By reacting with such vitriol they are only bringing attention and huge publicity to Anthony and the sceptic/realist side. They just can’t seem to see their reaction is an enormous own goal. The old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity is particularly relevant here. Although this must be personally distressing for Anthony, the gain for our side through this egregiously overwrought response will only turn out to be a good thing. Let’s see how this all pans out in a few weeks. It should be very interesting.
A question I always ask of anyone who is upset by hateful jibes is ‘Do you value this person’s opinion?’ The answer, after a little thought, is almost always ‘No………’
And Anthony, you must know by now how well regarded and admired you are by the people who matter.

Fred 2
September 21, 2012 3:42 pm

Anthony: Just remember when you’re getting flack, you’re over the target.

Greg Cavanagh
September 21, 2012 3:51 pm

Quote: As ombudsman, Michael Getler serves as an independent internal critic within PBS.
It was not the PBS NewsHour’s finest 10 minutes. In my view, and that of hundreds, even thousands of others, the program stumbled badly.
I think of myself as open-minded and believe strongly in hearing opposing views. But I do believe in the assessment by the vast majority of climate scientists and U.S. and international scientific organizations that the threat to our planet and future generations from global warming and the human contribution to it is real and needs to be addressed.
End quote.
I always though Ombudsmen were truely independent. As in, not part of the corporation they are assessing. Mr Getler is clearly biased and he says so in his report. It’s a shame he can’t even see it, let alone assess it.

David Ball
September 21, 2012 3:51 pm

I am correcting my post. We are not going away. We are getting stronger. Without “oil money”, without sucking from the academic grant trough, without the MSM behind us, and yet there are more skeptics now than I would ever have believed possible 10 years ago. I’m NOT going away. Refute our evidence if you can.
Suck on that CAGW!!

John West
September 21, 2012 3:53 pm

Posted to the ombudsman’s feedback:
Perhaps to correct the oversight PBS should air another climate change special with John Christy (Al State Climatologist), Roy Spencer (Climatologist), Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Physicist), Anthony Watts (Science Blogger), Joanne Nova (Science Blogger), Steve McIntyre (Statistician), and R. G. Brown (Duke University Physicist) debating with James Hansen (NASA Scientist), M. Mann (Penn State Prof. & Science Blogger), G. Schmidt (NASA Scientist & Science Blogger), Joe Romm (Science Blogger), S. Lewandowsky (Psychologist), R. Muller (Physicist), and John Cook(Science Blogger).
Just for fun you could throw in Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr. since they’re not entirely in agreement on the subject.
If replacements for some of the skeptics above are needed I’d suggest any of the scientists Pat Michaels, Bob Tisdale, or Tim Ball or perhaps even commentator Christopher Monckton.

He basically opened the can of worms saying Anthony wasn’t qualified to have an expert opinion and that that was the “real” problem; as if we skeptics don’t have any qualified scientists. I say we push publically for a debate on PBS; either we get a debate or the public will see who’s afraid to debate! They’ve opened this door with this ombudsman comment, let’s take advantage.

Rich Lambert
September 21, 2012 3:57 pm

Thanks Anthony – Remember that all ombudsmans know who sign their paychecks.

September 21, 2012 3:57 pm

On your side, Anthony !
Curiously enough, I recently read a book by the man who was the ‘Voice of the Weather’ on the French radio station, Europe 1. Although the book was labelled ‘provocant’, I’m willing to bet that Laurent Cabrol did not have to endure the vilification that you’re currently suffering … the French are far more relaxed about such things!
Cabrol’s message is not too far from what you said in your PBS interview … this is from the introduction to “Climat. Et si la terre s’en sortait toute seule?”, followed by a rough translation:
Le débat est ouvert Oui la terre se réchauffe, je ne le conteste pas. Je réfute simplement que l’on accuse l’homme de tous les maux sans prendre en compte la variabilité naturelle du climat et l’approximation des recherches actuelles. Les chercheurs font un travail remarquable, mais la mécanique climatique est d’une complexité rare… c’est ce que je démontre dans mon livre. Il est malhonnête de culpabiliser les habitants de notre pays. Cessons de nous asséner des leçons de moral et souvenons-nous des leçons du passé car la terre s’est réchauffée dans des proportions bien plus brutales au début de l’an 1000.
Climate. And if the Earth pulls through by itself?
The debate is open. Yes the earth is heating up, I don’t dispute this. What I refute is the idea that humankind is responsible for all the harm without taking into account the natural variability of the climate and the rough estimates of present research. The researchers are doing remarkable work, but the climate mechanism is unusually complex … this is what I show in my book. It is dishonest to blame the inhabitants of our country. Stop assailing us with moral lessons and let us remember the lessons of the past, because the earth heated up much more severely at the start of the 11th century

September 21, 2012 3:58 pm

2008: WUWT: “Sustainability” runs amok in my town of Chico
papertiger commented: The only answer is for good people to stand for election. Anthony Watts for Mayor of Chico…
so Doug Craig was on the case already:
Feb 2007: ClimateTruth Blog: Mayor and City Council Redding, California
On Tuesday, February 6, 2007 I will stand before the Redding City Council in Shasta County in Northern California and ask the Mayor and the Council to sign the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement for the second time…
Hello, my name is Doug Craig. It has been almost exactly ten months since my last appearance on this stand when I requested that the council authorize the signing of the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement…
***Since I stood before you 10 months ago, 169 more mayors have signed the agreement including the mayor of Chico…
In the year since you last considered this issue, each of us has produced the equivalence of a large elephant—6 tons—of carbon dioxide emissions and placed it in our atmosphere where it will outlive us all. For every gallon of gasoline we burn we add another 25 pounds of CO2 to our air where it will trap heat for at least a century.
Scientists tell us that there is more CO2 in our atmosphere right now than has been there for 650,000 years, that eleven of the last twelve years rank among the twelve hottest years on record and that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent…

September 21, 2012 4:00 pm

What we are experiencing is really a rather typical reaction by any sort of “fundamentalist” when one of the foundations of their belief is shown to be potentially flawed. They must immediately silence the source of the information then work diligently to explain it away. Same thing happens in any such community when you point to a flaw in the logic.

Northern California Bureaucrat
September 21, 2012 4:07 pm

I find it interesting that Getler linked to many blogs in that article… with Anthony’s being the notable exception. Conscious decision or subconscious bias? I’ll give Getler the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

September 21, 2012 4:07 pm

Theodore White says:
September 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm

As a journalist, I can tell you straight out that one of the reasons why they are attacking Anthony Watts is because he MADE the critical points that needed to be made on the NewsHour Interview on climate change. He was seen QUESTIONING – in public, in an interview on PBS.

I didn’t have a good chance to say this before, and this isn’t the best forum, but Anthony did a great job with what he said. In my experience with in testifying at New Hampshire legislative hearings, it’s too easy to go into too much detail. Instead of touching (scoring) on five points, you might get only two in, and then go into detail that people will not remember.
This is one of the places where being “just” a TV meteorologist is a huge benefit, the years of doing that gave Anthony the sense what the keys points are, and he got them across. So what if attackers will point to the concrete walls next to the temperature gauges, had Anthony addressed some of that, he would have lost out making another point. Besides, that criticism is really amusing – it will take more than bluster to blow away the images Anthony provided.
Great job.

X Anomaly
September 21, 2012 4:12 pm

Some of the most exciting scientific discoveries involved with climate have been brought to my attention by reading WUWT.
And while there is a lot of garbage to also laugh at, I don’t think I’d visit as often if there wasn’t the prospect of some ground breaking research discovery.
I think some of the commentary by Watts may have been misinterpreted (and rightly so given what you said about funding) as being anti -research.
With hindsight, I would of clarified by stating that while there is a lot of garbage published, and many scientists have crossed the line into advocacy, there’s a great deal of research that is really important, and in some cases ……underfunded!
You could have also gone on to say how the funding could be better spent. More observations and better data access for the public at large (it’s your money).
Would probably be a four hour interview……but I hope you get my drift. Well done all the same, you said what a lot of skeptics have being wanting to say.

Chuck Nolan
September 21, 2012 4:16 pm

Caleb says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:55 am
Anthony! You tear down their houses every night? You are suppose to be taking it easy!
Actually, when you build your house out of straw, on sand, it tends to fall down on its own. But I suppose they have to blame someone.
Yeah, he and Willis have a deal. Anthony breaks ’em so Willis can fix ’em.
It keeps the economy going.

September 21, 2012 4:16 pm

I am reminded by this reaction by PBS viewers of the current Muslim reaction to the little amount of criticism getting the small play that it did on you tube.
Clearly we are seeing the same religious fervor and fanaticism by the climate alarmists. This is a religion for them.
Also, after reading the ombudsman’s letter, it reeks of bias and he is not at all a good Ombudsman. I have chosen to stop my contributions to my local PBS station as a direct reaction to the Ombudsman’s letter.

Chuck Nolan
September 21, 2012 4:23 pm

There are a few subjects which will cross the line of their religion. Try the second amendment or birth control. Now there’s some fighting words.

Paul Westhaver
September 21, 2012 4:24 pm

The ombudsman was white washing in favor or their leftist viewership.
I posted a comment which is ranked 3rd on PBS’s own site (84 likes). It was favorable to Anthony but Getler wouldn’t mention this comment. Here is is below.. Blatant bias not to include it to contrast all the disparaging comments against Watts. Not that I care from my perspective, but it makes the point that PBS is a one sided hack herd including the so-called ombudsman.
PBS comment:
” Paul Westhaver • 4 days ago
Watts was balanced. Noteworthy was Michels’ use of the term “Scary” and the appropriate categorization by Watts of such usages as over hyping. The earth temperature may be going up, depending of the level of contamination of the data, and what epoch you are referring to. The middle ages were warmer than now. Watts appropriately, again, questions how much, if any, is man made. What percentage? If it is just a little, it may be good for us in the long run. If. The science hasn’t even started yet. The politics is nearly burned out and that is good”

September 21, 2012 4:25 pm

“…..Michels had picked Watts — who is a meteorologist and commentator — rather than a university-accredited scientist ….”
So only university-accredited guests may speak on PBS about their subject.
By that criteria the PBS ombudsman would have disapproved of PBS interviewing Michael Faraday about electricity, or William Herschel about outer space, or Gregor Mendel about genetics; or Mary Anning about dinosaurs; or indeed anyone about anything if they do not have the correct “accreditation”. Welcome to academic fascism.
Still at least no politician will be allowed to claim on PBS: “….my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet…..”
“It is, in other words, time for a national oil change. That is apparent to anyone who has looked at our national dipstick.”

September 21, 2012 4:27 pm

Great job Anthony!

September 21, 2012 4:31 pm

I am amazed at the controversial events of the last week or so.
Besides this flap, there’s the Lewandowsky affair, noises from Antarctica, a partial “Never mind” from soot, and another from Nature.
The collateral damage from some of these, e.g. the NOAA Janus moment of the PBS story, makes it all look like a neighborhood street battle with people unclear of what they’re attacking.
I bet the strongly organized response to the PBS story is a spin-off of the Lewandowsky affair via John Cook and then leaping across the Pacific to NOAA and everyone with ties to those data sets.
The vitriol says they simply don’t have a reply to Anthony’s interview that they can’t deliver without taking more time than people will give them. The same holds with the Lewandowski affair and it’s familiar “you can’t argue against Steve” theme.
The warmist camp should be in a tight wedge formation running the new arctic ice record through the skeptics camp, but they actually managed to oversell that last spring (15 hours to go!). News items about recent warming turn out to be 4th warmest August, a plateau to us, an impotent headline to reader. Bill Appell visits friends at WHOI, but comes back and writes from a completely different point of view.
Yep, I think the climate is changing.

September 21, 2012 4:32 pm

What do you expect from a Marxist. Marxist indoctrination causes brain damage. Marxist are insane. PBS proves that.

September 21, 2012 4:34 pm

Consensus makes reality. A large audience, that I would classify as like-thinking a group as you could find (I used to be a listener but as PBS has become more and more an advocacy-based platform…). No small wonder that so many of “their” listeners/viewers would write in the way they have. That’s what happens when group think prevails.
I found it tragically ironic that “…..demanding an investigation of how this violation of PBS journalistic standards made it to broadcast” isn’t exactly the problem. There can be no dissent.

September 21, 2012 4:40 pm

PBS Ombudsman: Michael Getler: Climate Change Creates a Storm
I had never heard of Watts before this program and I’m sure most viewers don’t, as part of their routines, read global warming blogs on either side of the issue…
Here are the letters.
Here Come the Judges…
Edgar DeMeo, Palo Alto…
Auden Schendler, Basalt, CO…
Edward P. Hummel, Garland, ME
Joan Savage, Syracuse, NY
Mark Boslough, Ph.D., Albuquerque, NM
Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Ron Spross, Ph.D., Humble, TX
Michael Courtney, Saugerties, NY
(those with easily searchable names selected – pat)
National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (c/o RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 875, Washington, DC 20037)
The mission of the NWCC Wildlife Workgroup is to identify, define, discuss, and through broad stakeholder involvement andcollaboration address wind-wildlife and wind-habitat interaction issues to promote the shared objective of developing commercial markets for wind power in the United States.
Federal Agencies
Patrick Gilman, U.S. Department of Energy
(Edgar DeMeo, Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc.)
RESOLVE Wind Energy
How Stuff Works: Meet Auden Schendler, Author of Getting Green Done
by Jessica Root, Planet Green
Sometimes sustainability isn’t so easy, neat, or simple enough to be achieved in six green steps. Auden Schendler would know. His experience as trying to green Colorado’s man-made, artificial ski destination, Aspen Skiing Company (he’s their official Executive Director of Sustainability)… All addressed in his recent book, Getting Green Done: Hard Truths from the Front Lines of the Sustainability Revolution…
But Auden’s audacity didn’t actualize over night. Prior to his current ski slope stint, the consultant worked for the Rocky Mountain Institute, helped research Paul Hawken’s book Natural Capitalism…
And whether or not you agree with him, he’s certainly being recognized. In 2006, Auden was named Time Magazine’s “global warming innovator” and since covered by Businessweek, Fast Company, Travel and Leisure and Outside…
What is your ultimate green goal?
We have to solve climate change—actually, reverse it in our lifetimes. And it’s going to be a bitch. But when you solve climate, you solve all these other pressing issues like poverty, and disease, and air pollution, and clean water availability. It’s really an incredible opportunity to endow our lives with core human desires like meaning, and grace…
What is most important to you, ecologically speaking?
I think you can tell from my answers that while my work is on climate change, I don’t see this as an environmental issue any more than it’s an issue of politics, of psychology, of marketing, of religion, of, business, of equity. It’s the everything issue…
I’m fighting, every day, against outright denial of the problem, which is absurd because there isn’t a single peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything but that climate change is happening and it’s human caused…
29 Aug: BangorDaily: Edward Hummel: The environment can’t afford an east-west highway
One of the most important consequences we see today is the growing climate disruption caused by the continuous release of fossil carbon. Another major consequence of our expanding economic, industrial and agricultural activities is the increasing degradation of ecosystems around the globe leading to a dramatic increase in species extinctions. But many people, especially many in business and politics, continue to ignore, or even angrily deny, that there’s a problem, even while the problems become progressively worse and probably unsolvable
Edward Hummel is a retired meteorologist and science teacher who runs a small weather forecasting business from his home in Garland
Sept 2011: Think Progress: The Passing of Nobelist Wangari Maathai: “You Cannot Protect the Environment Unless You Empower People”
comment: Joan Savage says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm
When Wangari Maathai spoke at Syracuse University, she gave a radiantly warm-spirited and earthy address about the development of the Green Belt Movement and broadening of the definition of peace making. At that time, she indicated she might run for public office in Kenya. Had she been able to do so, Kenya might have been able to take a smoother path than where it is today. She is seriously missed…
Joan Savage says:
September 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Green Belt created a basis for greater economic status for women in Kenya, so necessary for a lower birthrate, and a much more fundamental task than talking about it. Kenya has had a declining birthrate per woman in recent years, although that is not all attributable to women’s economic status…
(google Joan Savage + thinkprogress = stopped looking after 30 pages of results with Savage comments)
Wikipedia: Mark Boslough
Mark Boslough is a physicist. He is a member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, an adjunct professor at University of New Mexico, and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry…
He has made frequent appearances on television science documentaries,[3] including the award winning programs “Tutunkhamun’s Fireball” (BBC)[4] (recipient of Discover Magazine’s Top 100 Science Stories of 2006 [5]) and “Last Extinction“ (Nova) [6] (recipient of AAAS Kavli award for best science documentary of 2009 …
Boslough is a vocal critic of pseudoscience and anti-science and has written about climate change denial in the Skeptical Inquirer in reference to “Climategate” conspiracy theories…
May 2012: Waterspouts Blog: Mark Boslough to Heartland: Stop Using ‘The Robinson Ruse’ to Hide the Temperature Incline
Mark Boslough, one of the smartest guys in the room when it comes to atmospheric (or any kind of) physics and the like, recently posted over at Climate Progress and Skeptical Science regarding misuse of SST data, apparently dating back to a paper by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson et al.
Huffington Post: Mark Boslough
Boslough is a passionate advocate for objective assessment of all risks to humanity–including those that are self-inflicted. He is a vocal defender of climate science from political attacks, and is a debunker of extraordinary claims of global warming deniers…
Blog Entries by Mark Boslough (2)
Houston’s Climate Debate (Hundreds respond to Neil Frank’s Op-Ed, ‘Climategate: You Should Be Steamed’)
by Robert Bradley Jr.
January 10, 2010
Appendix: Letters to the Editor (Houston Chronicle)
Voices in the wilderness
I see that the distinguished meteorologist Neil Frank has joined industry advocacy groups like Heartland Institute in claiming that global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by tens, even hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world. Nevertheless, Frank and his industry colleagues remain voices crying in the scientific wilderness — dozens and dozens of scientific and professional societies around the world agree that global warming is real, that it is caused by humans, and is potentially catastrophic. For example, statements to this effect are available from the National Academy of Science (, and the American Physical Society ( There are really smart people in these organizations, and they should all know better. Why, even the Texas A&M Meteorological Department has been snookered, saying it believes in human-caused global warming… Stupid Aggies.
Ron Spross, Humble
TransitionInAction Social Network:
Michael Courtney is now a member of TRANSITION IN ACTION SOCIAL NETWORK
Saugerties, NY
Profile Information
How are you currently involved in the Transition movement?
Through Green Jobs-Green NY we are promoting home energy audits and energy efficiency retrofits…
Mr. Getler – are these your average PBS viewers who don’t “as part of their routines, read global warming blogs on either side of the issue”? (disclosure: i am a former Greens voter and a former CAGW “believer”)
however, i actually read most of the Climategate material, (did you, Mr. Getler?) soon after reading:
9 Oct 2009: BBC: Paul Hudson: Whatever happened to global warming?
A version of this article also appears in the Science & Environment section of the BBC News website.
(from Wikipedia: Although most BBC forecasters are not directly employed by the BBC, but by the MOD’s Met Office, since 2007 Hudson has been a full-time member of BBC staff, not the Meteorological Office, acting as an environmental and climate change expert.)
many thanks to Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Joanne Nova and many others in the CAGW sceptic community for their tireless efforts to defend the scientific method, and for welcoming questions and comments from scientists, professionals, and curious persons with no scientific background like myself, including those who believe in CAGW, but who no longer dare to name it as such. btw to suggest that ANY human being denies “climate change” is so absurd, it makes one question the sanity and motive of the accusers.

ursus augustus
September 21, 2012 4:42 pm

Just let it wash over you Anthony. The civility and rationality of what you said in your interview is what terrifies the Team and its fan base. Their worst fear has come true in that you sounded and appeared like a normal person whose opinion will be listened to by other normal people.
Gosh, the heat must be on Michael Getler. I hope he has more guts or less cynicism than Pontius Pilate. We already know what a nest of trolls the warmisphere is infested with but at least it will be of some passing interest to see what Mrgetler is made of. Will he wield the sword of integrity like his namesake?

September 21, 2012 4:53 pm

I feel a great disturbance in the force, the force giving grants to many “scientists”.

September 21, 2012 4:59 pm

Could the reaction to Anthony’s mild and eminently reasonable remarks have been worse if he had pulled out the stops and denounced the Alarmists and Watermelons as some of us would have?
I’d have liked to hear someone on PBS point out that there is no empirical evidence that supports the speculation that anthropogenic global warming is leading the Earth to climactic disaster. I’d have liked to hear someone point out that ‘belief’ in that speculation is nothing more than religious fanaticism in the service of totalitarian socialist political aims.
I don’t expect our judicious host to indulge in such stormy commentary, but I’m sure the reaction would have been the same. You can’t rock the boat of ideologues even a little without causing them to fear they’ll be tipped over. I expect the ‘ombudsman’ is just as afraid of a ripple in the calm sea of belief as the rest of them.
/Mr Lynn

Michael in Sydney
September 21, 2012 4:59 pm

Well done Anthony – I find this type of vitriolic emotional reaction to reasonable discussion encouraging as it clearly serves to warn the general population about the nature of believers in CAGW.

September 21, 2012 4:59 pm

1. Can anyone produce a document or interview by Dr Muller in the prior ten yers before he started the BEST study that show he was a climate warming skeptic?
2. If UHI is adjusted for in the temperature anomalies and if the stations in the concentrated population areas are so good, why not take them out of the mix and see what the rest of the stations reflect for temperature change?
3. Is it time for congress to reconsider the public funding for PBS?

September 21, 2012 5:04 pm

I read the essay — what an incredible display of ignorance.
Climate Change Creates a Storm
By Michael Getler
September 21, 2012
Michael Getler would be right at home in the CBC (Canada). They have people just like him who know nothing — but can judge everything.

September 21, 2012 5:19 pm

I’ve read several articles recently about “manufactured rage”. The PBS Ombudsman ought to consider carefully the similarity between recent world events and the (over) reaction to even the slightest and most obscure criticism. He needs to chose what kind of culture he wishes to bow to. So far, he is bowing to fanatacism that lashes out with hatred when confronted with even a hint of dissent.
When criticism, valid or not, meets with “manufactured rage” Mr Ombudsman, you have a responsibility to stand up for freedom of speech, tolerance, and civil discourse. Instead you are an apologist for rage. Shame on you and shame on PBS.

Peter OBrien
September 21, 2012 5:22 pm

Two things come to mind. The unquestioning acceptance of the 97% myth and the myth of Muller’s ‘conversion’. Perhaps Anthony, you could repercharge at least on these two issues?

lurker passing through, laughing
September 21, 2012 5:37 pm

This is just another nice piece of evidence to justify the ending of all tax payer support of the CPB, PBS and NPR.

Tom in Worc (US)
September 21, 2012 5:43 pm

Wow, was just reading though the Ombudsman’s post and some of the positive and negatice comments he posted, when I saw this gem:
By me..
Well done to you including Anthony Watts in your piece about “Global Warming.” I along with many other “skeptics” applaud your bravery. I am sure that your inclusion of him in the piece is causing you no end of grief with the “alarmists” on the other side of the issue. Well done.
Worcester, MA
~ ~ ~

September 21, 2012 5:51 pm

You know what they say Anthony, you can tell how close to the target you’re getting by the amount of flak you’re drawing – and in the case of your PBS interview the flak is so thick you can walk on it.
You’ve really rattled some cages there sir, keep up the good work, they’re getting desperate and it shows!
Oh, and to continue the aviation metaphor – watch your six!

September 21, 2012 5:58 pm

Well Anthony, there’s clearly heat in the kitchen. You must have cooked their goose.

Brian S
September 21, 2012 6:00 pm

Many thanks to D Boehm for the link to the ombudsman. I posted the following:
I live in Africa so I have no background knowledge of PBS. Being nearly deaf I cannot listen to the video clip provided. But having read the transcript of Mr Michels’ interview of Anthony Watts on I can only observe that the obviously well-orchestrated and vitriolic backlash of the global warming scaremongers paints a very poor picture of the American people, just as the current well-orchestrated outrage against America paints a very poor picture of Islam.
I am an engineer, not a scientist. As an engineer I have to make rational assessments of situations that I am confronted with. I managed to work out for myself that Archimedes Principle denies that the melting of Arctic ice cannot possibly have any affect on sea levels. I managed to work out for myself that since coal is fossilised vegetation that vegetation grew under ideal growing conditions in which the trillions of tons of carbon that it sequestered whilst it was growing was at that time in the atmosphere, so putting it back there cannot possibly be harmful to life on Earth. In fact, the ONLY scientifically proven effect of warmer temperatures is higher crop yields, something that is desperately needed here in Africa. The natural warming that is currently happening is GOOD for everybody, not just the few fat cats over there in America who are supporting the biggest scam ever to line their own pockets at the expense of the world’s poorest. Shame on them!
Congratulations to Mr Michels on trying to present a balanced programme. He deserves your support, not criticism. So what DOES PBS stand for actually? Partisan B***S**t? Do your viewers a service – recommend that they spend some time at and learn to think for themselves instead of being led by the nose.

September 21, 2012 6:06 pm

Remind me now just why some poorly-informed journalists are qualified to present a story on the climate change controversy and Anthony can’t contribute because “he isn’t a scientist”.

September 21, 2012 6:12 pm

My own contribution:
Mr. Getler,
I take the time to send you this only because you came across as an earnest gentleman. Contrary to the mass protest organised by the likes of forecastthefacts and Media Matters, it is a relief to see some actual balance in reporting on “Global Warming.” Bear in mind that the former organisations are mass funded by large corporations who stand to profit by enforcement of a carbon market.
Firstly, the whole Muller conversion fiasco is simply a staged propaganda stunt. Mueller, by his own account, was never a skeptic:
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – December 17, 2003
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic…. I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”- November 3, 2011
Not only was Muller never a skeptic, the entire BEST affair is junk science by press release… Muller may be an accredited scientist but his BEST paper has failed peer review! Meanwhile, the junk science and the fake conversion have been sold, unquestioned, around the world to a mostly unsuspecting public. The problem is that these days, 2 minutes on internet is all it takes to debunk the propaganda machine…is it any wonder no one trusts the media anymore?
Further, it doesn’t take an accredited scientist to realise that station location and quality affect the data. And even NOAA documents the poor quality of their stations –
As if bad station are not enough…The measured data is then adjusted upwards….by their own account fully .6 degrees of modern “warming” is generated by their own statistical shenanigans –
“The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940’s until the last decade of the century.”
The most recent adjustments add fully 3 degrees relative to 100 years ago, or 2 degrees to current measure temperatures:
Again, these days all of this is easy enough to find on the internet. Is it any wonder no one trusts the media anymore? And this barely scratches surface.
So my recommendation is to take the punches, and keep putting the other side on the air…maybe you will build some credibility and with it, some audience.
Peter Hodges
June Lake, CA

September 21, 2012 6:12 pm

I had heard about it, but never seen it, until watching Bloomberg recently.
One of the “anchors” was absolutely giddy, in anticipation of reporting the source of the Mitt Romney video.
They don’t want the story.
They want a sound bite.
Be careful out there, Anthony.

September 21, 2012 6:26 pm

Anthony. The supportive comments above hearten me as they must you. That my tax dollars are used to fund NPR makes me ill. I’m pasting the following comment so that these wise words regarding this tempest might be read again:
ursus augustus says:
September 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm
“Just let it wash over you Anthony. The civility and rationality of what you said in your interview is what terrifies the Team and its fan base. Their worst fear has come true in that you sounded and appeared like a normal person whose opinion will be listened to by other normal people.”
Amen, Ursus.

Daniel H
September 21, 2012 6:32 pm

Anthony, the “Forecast the Facts” petition was a fraud. I know this because I saw the link to it on the Media Matters smear piece and decided to check it out a few days ago. It was simple to add the names of ridiculous people and animals. Basically it accepted anyone and everything and there was never any attempt to verify anything.
It’s about as legit at the “10:10 Campaign” and the Lewandowsky survey. Which is to say that it basically has ZERO credibility and I’m shocked that PBS even bothered to dignify it with a response.

Bernie McCune
September 21, 2012 6:33 pm

I am also struck by how often these folks repeat that “97% of scientists say that there is global warming”. Well so did Anthony and so do I to a very limited extent. But catastrophic global warming from human produced CO2 is another issue. And that is one of the the big issues with this poll that indicates 97% of “all” climate scientists “believe” in global warming. Of course we all know that polling data has nothing to do with science. A friend of my who is also a meteorologist always says to me “show me the data”. He never ever says show me the model runs.
Something else about “science and scientists”. And in particular climate scientists. Can Muller or his daughter be considered authentic climate scientists? I remember in the 1970s a group that worked at the Laboratory where I also worked, were supporting the Army Atmospheric Science Lab. These people were busily collecting data and working on atmospheric science. They included computer programmers, engineers, chemists,physicists, and meteorologists. In fact they were involved in doing science at its most fundamental level. And their work was in the atmospheric science field. There were many science issues that they worked on that at times touched on climate science, but one of the big issues that came up in their daily efforts and in the many symposiums that they held was the question of “how do you measure and characterize temperature”? This has short and long term consequences in atmospheric (climate) science and in my opinion it remains a huge question mark in the field of climate science. If we do not get the fundamental issues straightened out, then the science is junk. Garbage in, garbage out! And Anthony the scientist has rightly focused on this very important issue for land based measurement.
PS- I now think it is much more important to measure and characterize energy budgets as they relate to long term (climate) trends whether they are driven by natural or human events.

September 21, 2012 6:34 pm

The really funny thing about these climate charlatans changing their meme from “climate change” to “sustainability” is that having raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere is probably the BEST WAY of creating world wide sustainability.
None is so blind as those who WILL NOT allow themselves to see.

September 21, 2012 6:39 pm

I’m just waiting for the release of Anthony’s paper, Watts et al. 2012, which will document how U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments. The PBS denizens will regret their ugly comments.

September 21, 2012 6:43 pm

The true believers in the religion of AGW at PBS need a “Great Satan”.
Someone has to be held responsible for climate evil. Anthony will do! LOL

Richard Keen
September 21, 2012 6:46 pm

The big question I get from many the comments to PBS is….
What’s a Scientist? In particular, a Climate Scientist?
Someone who studies climate, and comes up with a theory and data on this scientific issue – like station siting?
If Anthony isn’t a scientist, as many commenters stated, then there must be more to being a climate scientist. Perhaps you have to reach the correct scientific conclusions. Maybe you need to publish in “approved” journals. Perhaps you have to be paid by the taxpayer to do this work. Perhaps you can be paid by anybody, or not even paid at all – as long as you’re not “associated” with Heartland.
By some of these definitions, Kepler and Einstein weren’t scientists when they did their greatest work. Einstein, then, didn’t become a scientist until he became a professor in 1909 (4 years after special relativity was published) and became “official member of the guild of whores”, as he phrased it in a letter to Jacob Laub (see: ).
Anthony is a true scientist, just not a member of the guild.

Aussie Luke Warm
September 21, 2012 6:50 pm

Anthony, your approach to the argument is like watching Muhammed Ali at his peak. No wonder some of the antagonists are rope-a-doping themselves with their over-selling responses to you.

September 21, 2012 6:59 pm

I sent this email to the Ombudsman. I hope it does some good.
I heard of an aphorism only yesterday which is very relevant to the brouhaha created by Anthony Watts’ inclusion in the recent debate about understanding the climate that you aired on PBS. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said words to the effect that, you are entitled to your own opinions but you can’t have your own “facts”.
The polarization of debate in the USA is such today that no reasoned debate seems any longer possible either on political matters or on climate science because there are no shared understandings and few shared “facts” any more. People abroad in countries where it is possible still to debate the pros and cons of issues rationally are alarmed by the ever more polarized nature of political discourse in your country. I myself am British.
The organised hate-filled outrage over Anthony Watts mere appearance on your show is typical. All the man has done is state in a reasoned and reasonable way the known facts about the inadequacies of the world’s means of measuring the land surface temperature. Far too many of the measuring stations which are supposed to sample the planet’s land temperature are situated in cities, urban areas and at airports. Even in rural areas urbanism in the form of brick, asphalt and concrete encroaches. The Urban Heat Island Effect is well known and experienced by everyone. It is not an outrageous concept at all. It needs explaining thoroughly not dismissing as some sort of propaganda.
The WMO itself has standards for siting surface stations which three quarters of the USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) surface stations do NOT meet. Why are the public unaware of this? Why do the media not publicize this? We who are aware of the problem learnt of it from weblogs like WUWT not from the mainstream media. Why is this? You have missed a journalistic scoop! It is a fascinating story of inadequate data from misplaced stations fueling misguided apprehension about the future. I know scare stories sell papers and advertising but, really, PBS should have different standards of reporting and should be rolling back the misconceptions instead of feeding them.
It is certainly not the case that the science is settled over the question of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Everyone knows that the climate changes and that the world has warmed slightly since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 19th century but what we do not know is why and how. It is very likely, as increasing amount of research is revealing, that almost all of the warming is accounted for by natural variations of one sort an another. Anthropogenic CO2 may play a small part but there are negative feedback loops, like increasing cloud cover which blocks incoming sunshine, that couteract the “greenhouse effect” with an almost thermostatic effect.
I hope you are going to stand up to the strident know-nothings whose criticism of Watts seems to an outside observer to be an organised political lobby by people who seriously don’t like their views challenged, who have some inexplicable (to me) agenda to protect and are not interested in the least in inconvenient facts that challenge their beliefs.
Please be part of the solution, Mr Ombudsman, not part of the problem, and support freedom of expression and debate on this important matter of understanding the climate.

September 21, 2012 7:00 pm

When the early 20th Century publisher of yellow journalism, Wm. Randolph Hearst was asked about his newspapers’ interest in social issues, slaughter house filth, etc, and whether he had acquired a moral conscience, he replied: Muckraking sells newspapers.
We need to be careful that NPR media reporting the output of climate scientists, as questioned and including the opinions of Anthony Watts, is nothing more than “yellow dog journalism” and view the “investigative reporters” with that perspective: muckraking journalists; i.e., their priorities are to sell, sell, sell.

michael hart
September 21, 2012 7:02 pm

It happens too often to be seriously bizarre any more: An apparently “non-scientist” journalist/ombudsman pontificating about other people’s scientific credentials, or lack thereof. Should he wish to educate himself on the topic, Mr Getler will at least now be aware of one place where he might make a start.
On an equally positive note, if it was indeed his “longest ever” ombudsman’s post then we all have cause to be grateful, and pleased by the prospect of shorter ones in future.

September 21, 2012 7:04 pm

In Australia we have a political group GetUp! (they prefer the !). They have thousands of what they call members (people on a mailing list) and when they want ‘action’ on some kind of left wing topic they’ve nominated for said ‘action’, they just send an email out to all the members with boilerplate How To Voice Your Offence instructions. It’s all very easy and requires little effort from anyone involved, but it can result in what looks like a ground swell of protest. I’m sure something very similar has happened here; just robots action on instruction.

September 21, 2012 7:06 pm

Thank you Anthony for taking the body blows from these rational, open minded folk. I am not surprised at the views expressed by PBS viewers (at least the ones pubished by Getler et al.). However, I do find it funny that these enlightened progressives can now be legitimately described as reactionaries! I guess that the desire to achieve diversity in all things does not extend into the realm of opinion.

D Böehm
September 21, 2012 7:07 pm

Richard Keen,
Right on. My handy desktop dictionary defines “scientist” as: a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Anthony Watts certainly qualifies. And being a published, peer reviewed author makes it hard for reasonable folks to disagree that Anthony fits that definition.

September 21, 2012 7:29 pm

Peter OBrien says:
September 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Two things come to mind. The unquestioning acceptance of the 97% myth and the myth of Muller’s ‘conversion’. Perhaps Anthony, you could repercharge at least on these two issues?
For all the good it did, I wrote the Ombudsman about just that and included some details to their 97% -98% claims.

September 21, 2012 7:30 pm

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the Warmists can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the Warmists to use all of their power to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Warmists.” – Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Nazi Propaganda
I substituted ‘Warmists’ for ‘State’ but it seems to fit well!

September 21, 2012 7:33 pm

LOL….. Those that build their houses out of pseudo scientific straw with no observable foundation, will have them fall down every time. The dark figure is just Mr Watts telling them that they are doing it wrong.
For the self deceived, those who bring the truth, are terrifying.

September 21, 2012 7:34 pm

Anthony, I say again, job well done.
I wrote something to Mr Ombudsman – don’t have any expectations it will penetrate his thick head but I tried.
This whole climate thing has been a gigantic wake up call to me as I didn’t pay any attention at all until Climategate 1.0 and it took me a while to even find WUWT. My initial response was that MSM would play it up for all it was worth; but nothing. It just isn’t that hard to do a little research and find that there is no catastrophe from the mild, so mild in fact it can hardly be measured, warming of the last 100 years or so. It isn’t hard to figure out that climate models are not ready for prime time. It isn’t hard to figure out that predictions of world-wide monotonic warming in response to monotonic CO2 increase were wrong.
I don’t think there is any kind of media conspiracy – I think people in the media are just lazy – maybe even lazy bums. To me they appear too weak-minded to be actually evil. Just stars in their eyes from Al Gore’s Oscar, Nobel Prize, all the wonderful people at the UN, celebrities on cruises to the North/South Pole to photograph ice bergs, polar bears, did I mention celebrities?
Then some meteorologist guy shows up and starts talking about thermometers, and measurement uncertainty, and data integrity. Big Buzz Kill. Call the Ombudsman.
Hope America doesn’t get too much more like this:

September 21, 2012 7:47 pm

I guess we will get to see if you float when tied and thrown into water.

September 21, 2012 7:55 pm

alan says September 21, 2012 at 6:43 pm
The true believers in the religion of AGW at PBS need a “Great Satan”.
Someone has to be held responsible for climate evil. Anthony will do! LOL

Yes, a bogey man in the imagination is useful for both recruitment and fund raising!
It could be said and is very close to the expression “If Anthony Watts did not exist, they would have to ‘invent’ him” for those purposes …

September 21, 2012 8:01 pm

The ombudsman accepts unhesitatingly the claims that Watts is not a scientist, while similarly accepting the claims that Muller was a skeptic. An ombudsman is a trusted intermediary, and this ombudsman can be trusted by PBS as its intermediary.

September 21, 2012 8:01 pm

fhsiv says:
September 21, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Thank you Anthony for taking the body blows from these rational, open minded folk. I am not surprised at the views expressed by PBS viewers (at least the ones pubished by Getler et al.). However, I do find it funny that these enlightened progressives can now be legitimately described as reactionaries! I guess that the desire to achieve diversity in all things does not extend into the realm of opinion.
Care to condense that into a meaningful comment, I’m lost.
“reactionaries”, is a new word.
I don’t think it will take, but…..

September 21, 2012 8:03 pm

Anthony, the link which you’ve posted to the column is the temporary link to the ombudsman’s page. You should use the permalink to this specific article, which appears in the recent articles area on the right side of the page:

September 21, 2012 8:04 pm

Imagine you are building a house and at night while you are sleeping someone destroys all your work. Each day you return to build your home and each night, dark figures tear it down.

Or the maid opens the door and the house of cards collapses.

September 21, 2012 8:05 pm

James Sexton says:
September 21, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Peter OBrien says:
September 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Two things come to mind. The unquestioning acceptance of the 97% myth and the myth of Muller’s ‘conversion’. Perhaps Anthony, you could repercharge at least on these two issues?
For all the good it did, I wrote the Ombudsman about just that and included some details to their 97% -98% claims.

I wonder if said Ombudsman will have the curiosity to read this thread, and the temerity to reply and address the concerns of the many thoughtful commenters, e.g. those of Brian S from Africa (September 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm). I won’t hold my breath.
/Mr Lynn

September 21, 2012 8:07 pm

Thank You Anthony!
You have spoken for many of us who have no voice that will be heard. PBS seems to be a very politically left organization. Not much science in the anti realists arguments. Just the 99.9% of all scientists think that AGW is real.

Gunga Din
September 21, 2012 8:08 pm

David Ball says:
September 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I am correcting my post. We are not going away. We are getting stronger. Without “oil money”, without sucking from the academic grant trough, without the MSM behind us, and yet there are more skeptics now than I would ever have believed possible 10 years ago. I’m NOT going away. Refute our evidence if you can.
Suck on that CAGW!!
I know I was “there” 10+ years ago. Now, thanks to blogs such as this, we can “see” each other. Real “Freedom of the Press”.
(Side note: Anthony, don’t forget to take care of your family. We’re with you even if we don’t see your name pop up every 5 seconds.)

lurker passing through, laughing
September 21, 2012 8:11 pm

In 2006 If I recall) I was interviewed by some BBC putz passing through Houston on his return from a Mexico City climate conference of some sort.
I made the point then, while out on the town enjoying some good Mexican food and wine at BBC expense, that AGW was really a social movement. He parsed the interview so as to distort my points and make me a shallow foil for his BBC climate orthodoxy. His dishonesty accidentally made my point, but I do not appreciate my words being put through a cynical Cuisinart.
You were, in a way treated better in the sense that at least your words were left intact.
The reaction of the AGW faithful is unpleasant but does underline my point from over five years ago:
AGW is a social dysfunction. It is not getting less rancid with time.
You were great, Anthony. Do not be disappointed or surprised that the shallow reactionary bigots of AGW cannot even stand that you are allowed to speak in public or for yourself. They are the direct descendants of the cowards who in earlier ages ran witch trials or burned people for wanting to publish the Bible or challenge the Vatican.

Gunga Din
September 21, 2012 8:13 pm

Gunga Din says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 21, 2012 at 8:08 pm
David Ball says:
September 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I am correcting my post. We are not going away. We are getting stronger. Without “oil money”, without sucking from the academic grant trough, without the MSM behind us, and yet there are more skeptics now than I would ever have believed possible 10 years ago. I’m NOT going away. Refute our evidence if you can.
Suck on that CAGW!!
I know I was “there” 10+ years ago. Now, thanks to blogs such as this, we can “see” each other. Real “Freedom of the Press”.
(Side note: Anthony, don’t forget to take care of your family. We’re with you even if we don’t see your name pop up every 5 seconds.)
(Mods, sorry if this pops up twice. MS IE just did an update and I was asked for my “details” again. I thought I had a typo in the first “detail” stuff so I redid it.)

September 21, 2012 8:13 pm

Oh, well, Anthony, consider it a backhanded compliment. If your appearance in a brief segment, where you remained calm and truthful, caused such wailing and gnashing of teeth, you are one heck of an effective TV performer.
As for the Ombudsman’s mealy mouthed, long-winded, pompous and grovelling apology to a few activists who orchestrated an email campaign – it says a lot more about him than it does about you.

Howling WInds
September 21, 2012 8:21 pm

Here’s what I want PBS to do; try to survive in the Free Market. Then, they can say or promote whatever they wish……

September 21, 2012 8:40 pm

Hey u.k.(us)! A couple suggestions:
1. Read the viewers comments included in Getler’s report.
2. Reactionary is not a new word. Though my use of it in desciribing those on the left may be new to you! Per Wikipedia “A reactionary is an individual that holds political viewpoints which cause them to seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society.” Do you get it now?
3. Laugh once in a while, you’ll live longer.

Bill Parsons
September 21, 2012 8:47 pm

The Existential Dread of The Second Little Pig

Imagine you are building a house and at night while you are sleeping someone destroys all your work. Each day you return to build your home and each night, dark figures tear it down. Anthony Watts and others like him have nothing to build. They have no scientific “wood.” They create nothing while they destroy everything.

The huffing and puffing was largely on Muller’s part, imo, but I did note a rather lupine glint in Anthony’s eye. ; – )

September 21, 2012 8:47 pm

I find it interesting that scientists who believe in CAGW and claim to be skeptics do not accept that the temperature trend data may be fatally flawed.
They also blindly accept the official trends even though adjacent cities show disparate trends, one shows warming while its neighbor is not. Entire regions can show opposite trends, as the US Southeast has not warmed in 100 years. Physics is not arbitrary like that.
It is also a matter of belief, not science, to ascribe all the recent warming to CO2 but admit that a natural cycle brought on the little ice age, and a natural cycle ended the little ice age.
This entire debate is becoming hilarious.
I’m watching the freeze tonight in the northern US Midwest with great interest.

Roger Carr
September 21, 2012 8:51 pm

     My conclusion:
     The PBS reactions can be safely ignored. The show had an overall positive effect as can be determined by the violence of the reactions it generated.
     The message for me is to press home the contribution of man made CO2 in the present world CO2 level. Once successfully demonstrated that man (in particular with power generation) is making a very small contribution to the overall rise, then the serious debate will necessarily change to a sounder footing.
     When Evil Man is removed from “climate change” then the realities of natural climate change can be studied with some balance and even wisdom.
     Remember “wisdom”? That is the old fashioned way of spelling “wi$dom”.

September 21, 2012 8:51 pm

This is the second time an event with Muller has resulted in a back stabbing. The puppeteers at PBS own the strings and are pulling them to backfill the story they want to put out. Why do I think David Suzuki burned up all his minutes since that airing?
And why in hell to they think they’re going to easily find scientists willing to risk their grant requests to show up and counter a topic that is a cash cow for researches? Well obviously they’re sure they won’t but by using a non-academic they retained the “non-peer reviewed” option owned exclusively by the Pal Reviewers. Its not like climate science requires a lot of training – even Michael Mann can do it, and he will and has used upside-down data to make a point. And we know Trenberth is confused by the climate and it is a travesty he’s still paid to work in the field.

September 21, 2012 9:17 pm

Here’s a comment made to me by a poster on face book when he discovered I was a climate skeptic – it demonstrates that it’s all about society and politics and has nothing to do with science.
“, the only ones who strike me as being hysterical are the deniers. Everyone else seems to me to be heeding eminently sensible warnings about the dangers of overpopulation, over-industrialisation and over-exploitation of natural resources. Protecting access to that “Huge Money” is the real mission of climate change deniers. As long as we continue to turn a blind eye to runaway industrialisation, wholesale destruction of natural habitats and unchecked poulation growth, we will continue careening towards destruction. This is not a “Chicken Little” scenario – this is a broad consensus of the most reputable and experienced scientists in their field, warning us that we are in grave danger. And the bottom line is common sense – if someone says the sky is falling, isn’t it the wiser course to at least look up and check?”

September 21, 2012 9:19 pm

fhsiv says:
September 21, 2012 at 8:40 pm
2. Reactionary is not a new word. Though my use of it in desciribing those on the left may be new to you!
3. Laugh once in a while, you’ll live longer.
I haven’t stopped laughing.
I sure got your attention, or was it a reaction ?