From her blog –
Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller set this story down a certain path that turned out to be unfortunate.
…
IMO, Watts handled himself very well in the on-air interview and also in the extended written interview. Nothing that he said was unreasonable. It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ and Watts as the ‘lukewarmer.’
The outrage over Watts seems to be not so much what he said, as over his being given any airtime at all. On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not. However, on a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center. His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa). As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.
==============================================================
Thank you, Dr. Curry. Read the entire essay on her blog.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The PBS ombudsman sounds like a hypocritical drone compared to Curry’s candid analysis.
Muller, skeptical of the Hockey Stick, biased and true believer in much of the rest.
=================
Thanks, Dr. Curry, for again being a voice for reason in an uncertain field, let the debate continue in search for climate explanations and mechanisms.
I think the work done on bad siting of weather stations is good science. You don’t need a PHD in global warming to qualify for a PBS segment.
It’s defining moment at the equinox, my thoughts are with all my fellow sceptic bloggers, especially Jo Nova at this time.
On a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center. His blog WUWT has far and away the largest traffic of any climate blog in the world (as per Alexa). As such, Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.
Absolutely!
A completely off-topic comment merely to alert fellow skeptics to the presently disabled condition of JoanneNova.com.au. The site presently says “This Account Has Been Suspended.”
It may be just a temporary glitch, perhaps not, but it was not a scheduled outage to the knowledge of regular readers.
Let’s hope warmist activity has nothing to do with this incident. The site was the target of a hack a month ago, certainly a sign that she is making progress.
Presumably fans can watch for an explanatory tweet at http://twitter.com/JoanneNova
Judith:
It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ and Watts as the ‘lukewarmer.’
====================================================================
If you are not with them 100%, they are against you 100%
I see Anthony Watts, as the true scientist.
Anthony: I saw your interview some days ago. All I can say is “Gosh he is so balanced” The warmists seeing you there would have made their blood warmer, as as far as they are concerned NO ONE disagreeing with then should be reported one by the MSN
As far as I am concerned in your field and particularly in the area of land based temperature readings and the politics of global warming you are an expert. All supporters of WUWT will agree with me here. The warmists think: “Better watermelon than expert” BTW I wonder what happened to Al Gore?
I see there are the usual hateful comments over there claiming that this site is only successful because Anthony “tells his audience what it wants to hear”.
Why oh why is it that these same people get away with such claims yet run a mile when offered the chance to debate publicly? Do they think sceptics have some kind of magic powers to sway audiences? It’s not as if rhetoric is an unknown tactic to the alarmists. They even run screaming from me on my own campus when I offer to have it out in a public debate and I’m just a lowly humanities/computing PhD student…..
OT, but still…
Happy (Practically) Sea Ice-Free Arctic Day!
Let the carbon-neutral biodegradable confetti fly!
As I type this, 8 minutes ago Jo tweeted an explanation, and it turns out it was another hack.
Wishing her blog a speedy recovery.
With due respect to Judith Curry, just as you don’t have to be a gourmet to recognize tainted food, you don’t have to have a PhD to recognize tainted science. Obstruction of replicability is rife in “climate science,” along with a wide assortment of unscientific behaviours clearly evident to the layman. It stinks like a week old mackerel.
But Judy, there is no debate. Things were settled long ago. Al said so. And since then no one from the warmist side has had the courage and conviction to open it back up for debate, certainly not Muller, not Mann, nor any of the folks in Colorado, or East Anglia or wherever else they choose to hide.
“is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
I completely disagree with Curry – IMO Anthony is the perfect spokesperson. And, for what it is worth, I think he was incredibly restrained in that interview. Even showing such restraint he can attract the vitriol of the fanatics, simply for stating a perfectly reasonable view in a courteous manner. It is about time that scientists got off the fence and exposed this fraud for what it truly is.
“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
I totally, 100% disagree. I believe that people as educated on the subject as Anthony Watts are actually more qualified than ‘climate scientists’, whoever they are. What does it take to be a climate scientist? Well, you have to live in the make-believe world of academia or government, where science is secondary to ones ability to garner grant money. That is the real job of the modern day, climate scientist. On campus, they don’t say “science or perish”, they say “publish or perish”. It doesn’t have to be good science. It just has to be published science that adds to the prestige or notoriety of the scientist and university.
Consequently, the university scientist lives in a strange environment where they study reality through the lens of grant acquisition. Somehow, these otherwise intelligent people, do not believe this process changes [their] work or effects their conclusions, but it obviously does. There is a strong incentive to describe the world in such a way that will produce more support for the university, while not biting the hand that feeds them. This often results in strange language that does not contradict what the scientist truly believes or what the ‘grant-givers’ need to hear, even if they are two different things. So reports are filled with meaningless jargon that implies a lot, but says almost nothing at all.
Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in [their] area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science. They may become ‘experts’ in one narrow aspect, but remain fairly ignorant of the rest of climate study.
People like Anthony Watts, who developed their opinion without a stake in the outcome, and have studied a more complete spectrum of the available science, are the MOST qualified to address the public on climate change. I would bet that most regular readers of WUWT could win a public debate on removing the ‘crisis’ from man-made climate change over most ‘climate scientists’, provided the moderator came down hard on ad homenim attacks and appeals to authority.
The real science is squarely against the crisis argument, and that is the only argument that has ever mattered in the climate change debate.
As there is precious little science in “climate science”, I believe that the opinion of every educated, thinking adult is relevant to this subject. Indeed, the dishonesty that exists within this subject stems, to a great extent, from the creation of “climate science” a separate branch of science. This enabled the believers to isolate themselves from the rest of the scientific community, peer review themselves and hand out degrees, professorships and fellowships to each other as they please. Most of the real scientists initially involved with the IPCC have either been forced out or resigned in disgust with the process. Every aspect of the work done by the closed shop climate community should be overseen by top scientists, engineers, programmers, etc from every discipline, not just generalist climate scientists.
P.S. If the Earth has a climate, would someone kindly define it for me. Thanks.
I’ve been engaged in a rather straightjacketed discussion over on the funny farm that is SkS.
The gist is that the NOAA measurements are fine, no problemo in situation at all; the biases are removed by some very clever boffins. Basically, I was rounded on for even doubting it. But the paranoia is really palpable….
I posted: “Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis – Galileo went down that path under duress.”
Later I found…
“Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis. (-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.”
I’m still trying to get my head round that! It seem’s I’m persona non grata there now, what a very sad and insecure bunch they are.
“…On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not….”
Why not?
It cannot be repeated too often that there is NO SUCH THING as a ‘qualified scientist’.
There are qualified medical doctors. There are qualified plumbers. There are qualified teachers. But science is a ‘way of thinking’. If I approach a problem ‘scientifically’, I am being a ‘scientist’. And so is anyone who follows this process.
Of course, some people are better at this process than others. Some have studied a problem longer, and know more detail about it. I would say that Watts has a good track record in this regard. He is not a ‘spokesperson’, of course – spokespeople are appointed to represent a particular clientèle, and there is no such thing as a single authoritative body ‘running’ climate science who could appoint such a person. No matter how much the warmists may wish there was.
The warmists, as a last ploy, are trying to argue that only their opinions are entitled to be heard, and dissenting voices must be silenced, because they are not ‘qualified’ to think about this problem. Wherever this attitude is found it must be attacked and silenced at source – it is an open attempt to enforce a dictatorship of thought.
It’s difficult to know how anyone could have been more reasonable and considered in their statements than Anthony Watts was in that interview. I thought it was a text book example of how to calmly present a rational argument to an unbelieving audience, and as such AW was an ideal spokesperson for the show.
Watts has co-authored 2-3 papers in peer reviewed journals. He has cred.
Before everyone starts thanking Dr Curry for her kind comments toward Anthony, I would urge everyone to think carefully about what she said.
On the one hand, she endorsed him as being front and centre in the public debate, but on the other hand she excluded him, and deliberately so, as a “scientist”. This is an egregious comment in my opinion, not because is excludes Anthony’s observations regarding science, but because it by default excludes the opinions of anyone not defined by Dr Curry as being a scientist.
This is utter cr@p for the simple reason that the bulk of the issues surrounding the CAGW debate are well within the grasp of common people. The CAGW meme isn’t failing because the person in the street rejects out of hand some esoteric aspect of quantum physics that only a tiny select priesthood understands. The person in the street rejects the CAGW meme because they find out that Briffa’s 1000 year reconstruction is based 50% on a single tree that doesn’t even match local temperature measurements. Because they find out that Michael Mann used Tiljander data even though he knew it was upside down. Because they find out that Jones used a “trick” to hide the fact that the prescious tree ring data that is supposedly accurate for 1000 years actually goes the opposite direction of the temperature record for nearly half the instrumental record. Because it takes virtually no education at all to compare different versions of the GISS temperature record and see that the oldest records have been adjusted downward for no apparent reason. Because it doesn’t take a degree to look at the graphs of Total Cyclone Energy and conclude that extreme weather events are declining, not increasing. It takes very little education to look at sea ice extent and see that it is declining in the arctic and increasing in the antarctic.
In fact Dr Curry, the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of climate science is well within the grasp of most people. “Scientists” like yourself lose all credibility with me when you define the opinions of the rest of us to the trash heap out of hand.
The fact of the matter Dr Curry is that there are very FEW aspects of “science” as it applies to the climate debate that CAN’T be understood by someone with just the basics in calculus, physics and statistics. That you attempt to reserve valid discussion of these things to yourself and your science priesthood is pretentious, arrogant and self serving in the extreme.
What the alarmists fear most from the discussion of climate science is not that Anthony Watts may have some valid points. What they fear is that the common person will cease drinking whichever flavour of cool-aid they happen to be most comfortable with handed out by what ever priest has been blessed with that task in whatever forum they happen to be most comfortable with, and instead spend a few hours getting themselves up to speed on the facts which are easily found in forums such as WUWT and verified in any number of ways with very little effort.
By attempting to define climate science as something out of the grasp of the common person Dr Curry while at the same time spinning a slightly different view (lukewarmist) you are revealing what you believe. That you are simply a sect within the priesthood, and the rest of us the great unwashed.
I agree that Anthony was a good choice for the segment & not just because he conveniently lives in N. CA & has Heartland’s Good Temperature Housekeeping Seal of Approval. His survey of instrument siting is an important contribution to genuine climate science, still in its infancy.
However I feel that another skeptic should have been interviewed on camera in order to balance out the other consensus interviewee besides Muller. IMO Curry would have been a good choice, thanks to her prior collaboration with Muller & her own honest conversion to skepticism (excuse me if the good doctor doesn’t believe she’s a convert). She could have pointed out the problems with BEST, or Muller’s interpretation of the data, & maybe even have noted that he was never much of a skeptic in the first place.
But I guess even showing a real, live skeptic in the form of Anthony was a breakthrough for PBS. They may in fact have preferred him because he’s not an academic, to reinforce the false perception that skeptics are hicks from the sticks & kooks clinging to God & guns, in his case a shotgun, slaughtering defenseless skeet, probably while on their fall migration toward rapidly evaporating tropical rain forests.
Anthony,
It would seem that this PBS kabuki has given you an opportunity. I hope you take advantage of it.
The Ombudsman wrings his hands over their lapse in “editorial integrity” – which they define as having aired an interview with you. There is a huge failure in editorial integrity present here, but has nothing to do with you. PBS needs to be called on it, and the massive attention that this event is currently receiving gives you a window of opportunity to do that.
The problem of editorial integrity here is that PBS lied about Richard Muller. They said on the program, and Ombudsman Michael Getler repeated in his “Mea Culpa” essay, the following:
“Physicist Richard Muller had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, but he made big news last month when he broke with his allies and published an op-ed in the New York Times saying not only was he no longer a skeptic but that “I’m now going a step further.
That statement is a lie.
Richard Muller has never denied that climate change was happening, let alone for a long time. We have quotes from him promoting global warming in the late 1900’s and the first decade of this century. We have quotes of him supporting Algore’s methods. We know that he and his daughter have a consulting business promoting “solutions” to global warming problems. We all know this stuff, but we have become jaded to Muller’s mischaracterization of himself as a “sceptic” because it is difficult to do anything about it. Muller fabricates by equivocating on the term “sceptic”, which makes it hard to render his lies actionable.
PBS has done something different. In repeating Muller’s lies, they embellish. They make statements of fact that are not true. They say that Muller “… had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, …”. Muller’s faux sceptic period was a little over a year. That is not long by any measure relevant to this topic. He has never denied that climate change was happening. PBS made those things up. They took his equivocations, and turned them into plainly stated lies.
These are the sort of issues that an Ombudsman should be addressing as violations of integrity, not whether they should have interviewed an author of peer reviewed scientific publications and prominent voice on the topic.
Call them on it.
Climate science has lost all credibility. It’s scientists act like high priests of cult churches and it’s supporters act like blind-faith followers. Reason is beyond thier capabilities: fear and self-righteousness rule their minds.