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.
I accidently typed this: [ambushman], when I was writing about the “ombudsman”. Getler needs to pull out his business card and re-read it.
The reason that heads are exploding is that the narrative got turned on it’s head by Anthony Watts. The PBS show was billed as ‘Climate Change Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role In Climate Change’ about Richard Muller.
It morphed before their eyes as Anthony Watts confesses to having been a True Believer Who now has Reasonable Doubts. Doubts not about the temperature trends. Doubts about WHAT CAUSES that trend.
Anthony stole the show. They can’t abide a scene stealer. Especially such a nice man, so reasonable, so absolutely persuasive.
Thus the reaction. Horrors. This Heretic Apostasy CAN NOT STAND. It is a mortal threat aimed at the heart of CAGW and Carbon demonizing. This religion does not tolerate apostasy. Reminds me of another religion that has been in the news lately.
And also thus NOAA’s response:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/noaas-janus-moment-while-claiming-the-american-public-can-be-confident-in-noaas-long-standing-surface-temperature-record-they-fund-an-experiment-to-investigate-the-effects-of-sta/#more-71281
…”There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.”…
There is only Doubt About The Cause of the trend.
Well done Anthony. “Ride through them, they are demoralized as hell.”
When did citizen-scientists become persona non grata? They have made huge contributions to the history of science.
It seems that a lot of alarmists (whether they have some sort of current academic accreditation or not) regard anyone outside of the mindless-groupthink-ivory-towers as being beneath contempt (although obviously not beneath vitriolic rants).
Mustn’t forget, though, that Anthony “has no scientific background (Purdue)”. /sarc
More importantly, and I believe, more accurately: “there must be no debate”. That someone even questions the basis for the policies that enable the global environmental “progressive” movement must be ridiculed, suppressed, stamped out. The voice that says the emperor has no clothes must be silenced.
Three men that were mostly self taught, that bucked the establishment, that were ridiculed by it and also marginalised: Albert Einstein (photoelectric effect, tensor calculus,etc), Oliver Heavyside (vector calculus, made Maxwell’s equations useful etc) Nicolai Tesla (AC induction motors,etc.}
They were granted honorary degrees by the establishment so that the establishment would not lose face.
Getler’s response to the recent climate change coverage on the News Hour is an example of how PBS has lost its journalistic ethical standards. Climate science is not as PBS has presented it. Inclusion of the Anthony Watts interview was not even close to being balanced because PBS’s overwhelming presentation of climate is one-sided coverage of the “world is ending” climate special interests. Clearly Getler has forgotten Jim Lehrer’s rules he described himself in December 2009. “Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.” http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/12/lehrers_rules.html. PBS is no better in presenting real science than the Iraqi Information Ministry in 2003. At least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf “Comical Ali” was entertaining. (emailed to the PBS Ombudsman)
I would add that the entire CAGW argument is based upon two logical fallacies. Argument from a False Premise, and Begging the Question. The false premise is not “the green house effect is real”, or “CO2 causes warming”.
The false premise is “Warming is Bad”. Begging the Question is that the false premise is assumed to be true. The discussion rarely challenges the premise or the assumption.
That, dear people, is where the argument is won. In a phrase: Cold Kills Crops and Animals, Enhanced Atmospheric CO2 Increases Crop Production. These can not be refuted. There are no weasel words like ‘may’ or ‘could’.
Ask any Farmer worth his crop support payment. 😉
The bottom line is that A Watts is better looking, more personable, more likeable, than Muller. The bandage on Mullers head made him look Frankensteinish All he needed was a big bolt sticking out of his neck… Uggg…
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” debuted on the UK’s Chanel 4 and it generated much Warmist heat and anger. Funnily there were 758 calls and emails about the programme, with those in favour outnumbering complaints by six to one.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/ofcom+finds+the+great+global+warming+swindle+breached+broadcast+rules+/2351767.html
http://www.digitalspy.ie/tv/news/a43959/global-warming-swindle-sparks-debate.html
Correction:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” debuted on the UK’s Chanel 4 IN 2007, and it…..
Following her laughable “debate” playing the role of a skeptic to “true” science Mikey Mann in the April 2010 issue of the Disney front, “Discover” science [choke] magazine, i wrote “Non Science Nonsense”, posted at Canada Free Press, and sent the professor a copy. There followed an email exchange where it was obvious that this “skeptic scientist” was clueless on Specific Heat, Thermal Mass Equations, and the two Laws of Thermodynamics necessary to once and for all defeat the GHE false meme. In May i had a lengthy telephone conversation with the professor and suggested she audit a Thermo class, she emailed back that an engineering professor was going to allow that during the climate professor’s planned summer sabatical. When i telephoned in the fall of 2010 to find out her progress, the professor stated that she ‘had attended one class, but did not understand the material’.
This “qualified” professor has been part of numerous online CC chats among diverse disciplines, including myself and others over the last few years. Rote capacity for citing the false paradigm of the GHE echo chamber does not qualify as science. In her desprate attempt to stay on the fence, this professor feels justified in beating all challengers with her balance sticks. Reading her ‘blog site’ always leaves me wondering the ratio of deluded hero worshippers and brown-nosing current students. Since i can be bullied by far greater foes, so i do not waste my time in Judy’s playpen.
Anthony Watts knows more about thermometers, their use and the proper siting of thermometers for weather and climate than most climate scientists. Anthony is out their with his volunteers getting their feet dirty while climate scientists throw in garbage assumption, press enter and make grave projections about the effects of co2. He is more than qualified to make his statement on PBS of badly sited stations. His livelihood depends on selling thermometers for goodness sake.
I wonder why so many here were in such a hurry to thank Dr. Curry, that they didn’t worry – about her insulting sentence saying Anthony wasn’t the best person to talk about the science of climate. That is a ridiculous claim and not hers to make. For sure, he isn’t the only skeptic that should talk about these issues; let’s include Lindzen and others too; but climate science is far from rocket science and there is room for many people to take part in this discussion if they know what they’re talking about.
Everybody here seems to forget that AW is a meteorologist, far more qualified about climate than a so called “climate scientist” maybe an “atmospheric physicist “would be most appropriate term for persons studying AGW which doesn’t exist anyway….
I am not a climate scientist. Can someone please let me know whether I require a PHD in climate science to tell whether a land based thermometer in a car park close to air conditioning vents is a good or bad method for measuring air temperature?
Had Dr. Spencer or Dr. Lindzen been on the show they would have talked about $4,000 one of them received 7 years ago for making an after dinner speech attended by one oil executive among many others. Yet they see no problem with the Sierra Club pocketing $25,000,000 from the gas industry or CRU receiving funding from Shell or BP.
This is why they don’t want a debate because they want the money to keep flowing in from the public purse. Money pure and simple.
In the rush to disagree with Judith Curry’s somewhat back-handed comment on Anthony, many have missed what i think is critical coming from someone who worked closely with the BEST team”
Centering this show on the faux conversion of Richard Muller
Judith states front and center that Richard Muller was never a skeptic and his “conversion” was false. This should be copied and pasted wherever the headline of ‘skeptic converted” is seen.
Who is “qualified” to speak about climate science?
The consensus of IPCC scientists is that the Level of Scientific Understanding regarding uncertainties in radiative forcing is ranked BY THE SCIENTISTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE IPCC REPORTS as being either “low” or “very low” in 9 of 14 categories. In only a single category is the LOSU described as “high”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
So Dr Curry, when are you going to get on your blog, or do an interview, where you tell the truth? Which is that the whole lot of you haven’t got a clue. By your own admission you don’t know WTF the bunch of you are talking about, but you have the umitigated gall to express an opinion as to who should be allowed to talk about it?
I hope I may be forgiven for defending Dr. Curry just a bit, contrary to commentors with whom I agree 97% of the time ;->. Her comment about Anthony’s virtues as a spokesperson may have other motivations than ivory tower elitism. For example, since a great many people do value credentials, however well- or ill-founded that prejudice may be, a skeptic with more “impressive” credentials (Lindzen? Pielke Sr.? the speakers’ roster of a Heartland conference contains many examples) might make a more effective spokesperson for skepticism on P(BS), turning the ensuing debate from ignorant credentialism to more substantial issues. (I do think Anthony’s deep first-hand knowledge of the station-siting issue and its relation to the BEST data may have been the thinking behind Heartland’s recommendation.)
I, for one, appreciate the respect with which thoughtful skeptics are received at Dr. Curry’s blog. And I think it inappropriate to take offense on Anthony’s behalf when he apparently took none.
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2012 at 10:19 am
Dear dear David, just count to ten and try again. You have valid points but you obscure them by ranting.
“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.” — Judith Curry
There’s a lot of umbrage over this remark. But if one wanted to present climate science, as one of Kuhn’s paradigms, then it is most certainly correct. Anthony is simply not much of a cheerleader for the approved narrative. Any disdain held out for Judith needs be on the basis that she is relying social norms, mores, and touchstones in making this statement; rather than on the scientific method.
After all, the entire point of the scientific method is that an experiment needs no spokesperson. The experiment speaks for itself.
Ha! NOBODY expects the Climate Inquisition! Our chief weapon is confirmation bias…confirmation bias and propaganda… propaganda and confirmation bias…. Our two weapons are confirmation bias and propaganda…and dodging FOIA requests…. Our *three* weapons are confirmation bias, propaganda, and dodging FOIA requests…and an almost fanatical devotion to research grants…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as confirmation bias, propaganda…. I’ll come in again.
[snip – snooty derisive comments about our host serve no good purpose – mod]
Judy Curry is ok
I read her blog every day
But I have absolutely no intention of replacing the false authority of the IPCC, with her authority
If Anthony is not fit to speak about the science of the climate, who is, and how do we know ?
I stopped watching and donating to PBS in 2004. I tuned in to watch a much advertised PBS commentary comparing George Bush and John Kerry. When I realized it was just a big political advertisement for Kerry and an attack on Bush, I emailed OPB and told them to cancel my membership. CAGW is a political argument as much as a scientific argument and obviously more than one viewpoint is uncomfortable and to be censored if possible. Whenever someone argues that people without climate academic degrees are not qualified for this discussion, I just comment that if we had waited until Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got degrees in computer science, we would not be having this discussion now. (Posted on JC blog also).
fretslider says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:41 am
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.
You won’t find many boffins at SkS.
Certain authorities differ and say that folk of Lewandowsky’s sort (for instance specialists in “Natural Preservatives in toiletries” and “Essential Oils”) really are scientists. As usual, we would advance our preferred term, “boffin”, for an actual real scientist (physicist, engineer, archaeologist etc) to differentiate from the trick-cyclists, sociologists and other marginal eggheads. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/21/lewandowsky_trick_cyclist_rides_again/