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.
Jim Clarke says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am
“Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in there(sic) area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science.”
The difference between “climate science” and climatology right there.
Insightful post. Thx.
I have climate science fatigue. I’ve just been reading comments over on the PBS and they are all impassioned and weird. There is hardly any middle ground, not one of the contributors could be swayed by science, debate or oratory, why do they bother to post? Should I care? I did care but I don’t think I do anymore. I expect not caring is either a crime against my children or against the taxpayer, depending on which camp you happen to be in, and that makes me a horrible person one way or the other. Luckily that doesn’t worry me either. Perhaps I will get over it, I may just be having a bad climate science day.
Judith:
It is rather bizarre that on this particular show, I came across as the ‘denier’ …’
============================================================
I think they are just setting you up as an eventual turncoat against said deniers.
If they would only put as much energy into gathering objective evidence about what the actual climate is doing as they put into trying to silence debate, then we could call them climate scientists.
But instead, most of their energy is going into acting like 12th century inquisitors.
Anthony,
Much like the goings on in the Middle-East, you insulted their prophet by speaking heresy and you did not come across as Rasputin or Charlie Manson (which BTW, some of their own, Hanson, Gore, etc.do fit that image.) Your calm demeanor and point-on narrative connects with us “commoners” which invades the believer’s already marked territory. Thus, they launched a terrorist attack in an attempt to intimidate not only you, but anyone of their flock who might dare stray off the reservation.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the similarities of the emails PBS posted, as though all were written from some back-channel template circulated among the “true” believers? The obligatory “97% of scientists” and “thoroughly debunked” (or discredited) shows up in almost every email, leading one to believe they were written by a single person or a very small group of guerrilla fighters. I believe the “15,000 people” figure is a red herring.
In my book, Anthony, you are the perfect “voice” of skepticism. The term “scientist” is earned. I have yet to see it posted on anyone’s sheepskin. It is something earned through hard work, perseverance and dedication to one’s avocation. You have slogged in the trenches and earned that distinction, much to the consternation of those megalomaniacs who seem to believe their PhD automatically entitles them to be so-called (pun intended.)
Keep up the good work. You have tons of support from us skeptical commoners! The war is being won, one battle at a time.
People who use the label “Climate Change Denier” are more inclined to initiate a shouting contest than to engage in a scientific debate. For them, there is no debate. Anthony & Dr. Curry, (and the readers of their sites) on the other hand are “Climate Change Debaters”, which explains the backlash against Dr. Curry. It’s ‘Guilt by association’. Because she is willing to debate the science with “Deniers”, she’s one of us. And while we don’t always agree with Dr. Curry, we appreciate her impeccable integrity. She’s a breath of fresh air emanating from the sewer of climate science.
Dr Currie’s and the PBS ombudsman’s point appears to be , Mr Watts is not a member of the priesthood of CAWG and thus is not qualified to speak to the theology? How is this relevant to science?
This represents the danger of basing a decision or a conclusion “on a case sample of one”; had 5% or more representative number of the ‘skeptic’ community ‘turned’ then it might have some basis and validity as a ‘basis’ for a program (me thinks) …
He (Muller) was what – an outlier of 4 or 5 sigma relative to the base (the statistical population of ‘skeptics’)? … someone should have run the statistical significance of one lone questionable wolf ‘turning’ before placing as much prominence upon his pronouncements …
.
Anthony does not ‘speak for me’ nor did I appoint him as my representative nor as my delegate. It happens I agree with everything he said in the interview. The fact that PBS chooses to refer to a ‘spokesperson’ for [some group they create in their minds] does not change reality.
There are not ‘two sides’ to truth, even if one speaks from a different paradigm. The sum of knowledge is the only basis from which we can speak. Partial knowledge creates partiality in view.
I and many other share Anthony’s view on the issue of the temperature record and quite a lot of other things. There are no doubt things we do not agree on which matters not at all when discussion turns to the temperature record on which he is an acknowledged expert.
This whole ‘scientist’ qualification/naming hogwash is nothing other than priestcraft. For CAGW supporters it means there are those who are annointed with the Holy Spirit of Climate and those who have not gone through the prescribed rituals and initiations. That is how those who have attacked Anthony on PBS see it – he is not one of the ‘very elect’.
Interesting from the perspective that there appear to be hundreds, nay thousands, who will blindly accept anything from a climate priest but not from a truth-speaking man. That is the very definition of fanaticism.
Dr. Curry, this is why arts and sciences are separate from engineering. As we have witnessed with nutrition and climate, science can easily transmogrify into art.
My father (mathematician, electrical engineer) could easily have been interviewed about the biology, chemistry, physics, and geology he picked up in high school and college. He knew much more chemistry than me, and I have the chemistry degree.
Anthony is more than qualified to discuss climate science.
Add my two cents worth to the Ivory Tower “clique” comment. If it weren’t for lowly mothers speaking out against the scientific “consensus” on autism, they would still be accusing mothers of being “cold” towards their children. Judith owes you an apology and needs to come down out of the Ivory Tower. She’s not all that (no scientist is and they would do well to remember that), and as soon as she realizes it, we can finally make headway on this issue.
I’m a special educator. And I’m not all that. If my “pet theory” doesn’t work to improve learning rate, I try something else. And if that doesn’t work I try something else. What I have discovered is that off the shelf, bells and whistles, expensive curriculum touted by the publishers as being the best of the best, isn’t always the case. In fact, it seldom is the case, even though their own “PhD’ed” research on curriculum they are paid to promote appears to prove their case. Now where have we heard that before?
Judith, you should be thanking folks like Anthony who bring fresh eyes to research. Dismissing his ability to do so speaks ill of you.
World English Dictionary
scientist (ˈsaɪəntɪst)
— n
a person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods
So, just how is Anthony NOT a scientist?
It’s very noticeable that in the comments on the Curry blog thread, almost those trying to discredit Anthony and this blog do so under a pseudonym, and resort entirely to ad hominem attacks, with no attempt to provide any evidence for their assertions. Supporters of WUWT do try to do cite references, and do so politely.
Par for the course; but as we all know, only desperate people lacking the support of evidence for their cause behave in this manner.
“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”.
I agree with Dr. Curry in this. IMO Anthony is “merely” an excellent choice (and did a wonderful job); the perfect choice would have been Vahrenholt and/or Luning, who switched views in the opposite direction of Muller’s alleged flip. I’d love to see one or both of them debate Muller on PBS!
Further Dr Curry, the ultimate debate is not about the science.
Seriously.
This arrogant self serving petulant attempt by those such as yourselves to exclude the rest of us from the debate by defining us as “non scientists” fails to include the MOST important part of the debate which has NOTHING to do with science.
It has to do with economics.
The question we must answer, when all is said and done, is which is better for humanity, mitigation or adaptation?
OK miss high and mighty “scientist”, go ahead and dispute me on that. Think you can hold your own in a debate with me on the intersection of science and economics?
I dare you and your arrogant cohorts to even try. The only way that the whole lot of you can score a single point in the debate is to do what you arrogantly try to accomplish, which is to define the debate in terms which allow only you to claim expertise.
There’s the truth of it Dr Curry. You and your ilk can barely hold your own in a discussion of the science with well informed laymen. When it comes to the big picture, which includes who starves to death and who doesn’t based on what actions we do or do not take, you are collectively so far out of your league that you are complete jokes. You are worse than jokes. You suck on the hind teat of society as if the milk were free and only you are entitled to drink it while carefully explaining to the great unwashed that only you know what to do with the milk.
Its my milk you arrogant snob.
Gonna take my dare?
Muller on Watts
by Andrew W. Montford
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html
Quote:
[Dr.] Richard Muller is interviewed in the current issue of Physics World (H/T Jonathan Jones). The article is not online as far as I can tell, but there are some interesting comments that I will reproduce here :
lf Watts hadn’t done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he’s a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize.”
jim @ur momisugly 9:55 AM illustrates a nice point. Not only is Muller a false skeptic, but PBS is pushing a false narrative; the trend is toward skepticism about climate catastrophe. The astro-turfed petition that the ombudsman received is a symptom of the consciousness of the falseness of the narrative. I don’t think it was outrage over a ‘non-scientist’ at all.
========================
Jim Clarke says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am
“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.
It is interesting and informative to note that the CAGW theists (those who so viciously “defend” the so-called of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory) who most closely DEMAND we only listen to their “approved” scientific results and “scientists” and “government experts” are those who most fanatically fought AGAINST “government conclusions” and “MidEast experts” and “official government sources” and “intelligence analysis” of both parties …. when the Iraq War was being debated as necessary and important by their opponents, but denounced as “war for oil” and international disaster by their own side..
These same extremists who demand “only (CAGW-approved) scientists” can address climate change make up the same group … that claims engineering analysis and forensic investigations ‘cannot be trusted” in the case of the World trade Center terrorism. There, in that case that offends their sense of the world where true terrorism is present and innocents really are killed, it is the “911 Truthers” who have NO engineering knowledge or intelligence who are the “only ones” who can address the situation and “find the truth.”
PBS is deeply flawed, criminally at fault for destroying the world’s economy in their blindness to the “real” scientific investigations of the unknowns in our world. These supposed 15,000 are even more prejudiced, and yet so ignorantly but elegantly informed.
katabasis1 says:
September 22, 2012 at 7:45 am
The mythology of the global warmists is that even permitting non-alarmists to have air time is dangerous because it gives people the impression that there is no consensus, and that it gives us respect we don’t deserve.
On this I claim bunk. If our evidence is so bad, then publicly shredding it would discredit us, not give us more credit.
I never shrink from debating a young earth creationist, or a truther, or any of the weird conspiracy theorists out there. Precisely because their so called evidence is easy to discredit. Once people see both sides, and see who is able to defend their evidence, then they will make up their own minds.
The fact that the warmists refuse to debate at all, tells you all you need to know about how much confidence they have in their “evidence:.
One of Dr. Curry’s comments: “… discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”, seems to imply she does not consider Anthony a scientist. Let’s be clear. A scientist is a “seeker of truth” who follows the scientific method in his/her studies or practice of science. There is no doubt Anthony is a competent scientist contributing to the field of climatology. On the other hand, the public’s increasing mistrust of science is a direct result of the fact that far too many “…ologists” with multiple sets of letters following their names, fail miserably to meet this definition.
The most cogent comment in the interview was Watt’s “noble cause corruption.” If you’ve had any experience in science or in R&D you’ll know (for me remember) the temptation to fudge just a little because the “work” is that important.
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:47 am
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Completely agree. Anthony Watts’ surface stations project and his science papers on the quality of temperature measurement goes to the heart of the research into AGW. He is more of a scientist researching AGW than all the PhD’s who study secondary elements such as polar bears or coral reefs and in doing so make unfounded claims or inferences that CAGW is the cause of any changes in the assumed status quo.
Professors of climatology are in good company, Kermit the Frog has a Doctorate of Amphibious Letters awarded by Southampton College in New York in 1966. PBS should interview Kermit as an university-accredited scientist about CAGW.
On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.
Pretty much everyone has picked up on Judith’s faux pas, and she is entitled to her opinion, and she does go on to qualify her opinion, which is appropriate. Most of us just don’t happen to agree with her.
But there is a bigger reality: there is no appropriate spokesperson for climate science, just as there is none for any other scientific discipline. Science isn’t an agenda, its a philosophical process. There is supposition, there is inference, there is information, there is conjecture, observation and experiment, but there is no agenda. There may be spokespeople who may represent certain methodologies of science, there are spokespeople who may represent certain financing of science, there are spokespeople who may represent viewpoints concerning the use of the results of science, but there are no spokespersons for climate science, itself.
This is the heart of the argument missed by damned near everybody, most especially those labelling themselves “climate scientists”. Climate science isn’t an orthodoxy; its an unorganised, at times as chaotic-as-its-subject, multi-disciplinary train of research assembling data and testing hypotheses, from which ,eventually, some meaningful conclusions may be drawn. Eventually.
The absurd, fall-on-their-sword behavior of PBS management, especially that of their has-no-clue-what-his-job-is ombudsman, demonstrates how far from this reality modern mainstream media has strayed. The job of sceptics is huge: first, to return modern society to the tenets of rational thought, then, to teach a couple of generations how to think again.
“is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.” — let’s see… history profs said nothing about Bellesiles Arming America (other than heaping awards on it) until some guy on the internet pointed out it was total crap. And not one “scientist” bothered checking out the methods Mann used to create his hockey stick as it sat on the cover of the IPCC’s report until some guy on the internet thought it looked too pat and decided to try replicating it on his own dime. I think the “scientists” have demonstrated conclusively they’re too busy elsewhere and have nothing useful to add to any debate.
” On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
This is exactly the problem with “climate science”, and by the way, other branches of science as well, if one is not in lock step with “consensus” opinion or accepted theory, they are NOT to be included in the discussion. But then, this has always been the case and at least one is no longer burned at the stake for opposition views. However, Anthony, beware of people with torches and pitchforks approaching your home.