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
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
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.
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.
/sarc
cn
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.
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.
cn
OK..
The ombudsman was white washing in favor or their leftist viewership.
Example:
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”
84 likes
“…..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…..”
or
“It is, in other words, time for a national oil change. That is apparent to anyone who has looked at our national dipstick.”
Great job Anthony!
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.
What do you expect from a Marxist. Marxist indoctrination causes brain damage. Marxist are insane. PBS proves that.
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.
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
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2012/09/climate_change_creates_a_storm.html
(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.)
http://www.nationalwind.org/issues/wildlife.aspx
RESOLVE Wind Energy
http://www.resolv.org/blog/casegallery/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…
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/changemaker-auden-schendler.htm
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
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/29/opinion/the-environment-cant-afford-an-east-west-highway/
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…
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/26/328405/wangari-maathai/?mobile=nc
(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…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Boslough
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.
http://water-spouts.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/mark-boslough-to-heartland-stop-using.html
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)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/
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 (http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/), and the American Physical Society (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm). 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
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/01/houstons-climate-debate-hundreds-respond-to-neil-franks-op-ed-climategate-you-should-be-steamed/
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…
http://transitioninaction.com/profile/MichaelCourtney?xg_source=activity
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml
(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.
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?
I feel a great disturbance in the force, the force giving grants to many “scientists”.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
This is just another nice piece of evidence to justify the ending of all tax payer support of the CPB, PBS and NPR.
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
~ ~ ~
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!
Well Anthony, there’s clearly heat in the kitchen. You must have cooked their goose.
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 wattsupwiththat.com 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 wattsupwiththat.com and learn to think for themselves instead of being led by the nose.
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”.