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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Joe Postma

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.


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.

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.


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.

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

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

[snip over the top – mod]

Andrew Mackenzie

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

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.

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?


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

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

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

Steve Oregon

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 🙂


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.

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.


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

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.


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.


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


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

Dave G

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!

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


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


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?


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.

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.


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

Steven Kopits

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.

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…..

Phillip Bratby

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

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.


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

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!!


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

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

D Böehm

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


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

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

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.


“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.


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


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.


“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….

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.


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.


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

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

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

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?