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.
Anthony:
You left out the last sentence of Dr. Curry’s summary paragraph (after she explains why it was appropriate to include you in the PBS segment).
[emphasis added]
What we have with internet blogs is in large part an updated version of 17th and 18th century Salons, where a host (or more often in France a hostess) would provide a venue for politicians, scientists, philosophers, writers and in general the educated and cultural luminaries to meet, discuss and debate the issues of the day. Invitations to the most desireable salons were coveted by those wishing to promote their ideas to both the powerful and the general public. A salon where everyone had the same opionion was boring. One where opposing groups merely tried to shout each other down was boorish. A good host(ess) would tolerate neither.
There is an inherent arrogance to the technological age believing that how people used to do things is no longer relevant. Sometimes true, but it is more often the case that the same underlying purpose is being served in another guise, or that we are missing it altogether. A well-run blog functions like the best salons of an earlier age (without, alas the added dimension of fine food and drink).
It is therefore no surprise to me that people who don’t understand this also fail to grasp that the way WUWT is run is the reason it is the most read climate blog on the planet.
Dr. Curry is exactly correct: those wanting to promote the “consensus” view of climate change are well advised to take some lessons here. They can’t say they weren’t told. And even if they believe that only “real” climate scientists are competant to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion, they simply have to accept that to get their findings enacted into public policy they must make a consistently convincing case to the lay public.
Time for another glass of wine.
Judith Curry is probably right in the context of the public understanding of science and scientists. For the general public, science is done by scientists, and scientists have PhDs in the area of their specialism. My guess that this is what she was getting at in her blog.
Now whether you need a PhD in your specialism, or whether you need a PhD at all, to be an expert on a subject is another point entirely.
What’s disappointing in the ombudsman’s statement is that he explicitly took a populist view of the state of the climate science debate, saying that his knowledge came only from MSM. With such a background he was hardly likely to go against AGW alarmists. But to come to a balanced opinion on Anthony’s (very mildly critical) contribution to the AGW debate would take him lots of time and effort which he didn’t wish to expend. Perhaps it wasn’t even in his best interests to expend them, given that the ire of the pro-AGW camp would be turned on him if he said anything other than that he agreed with the complainants. But as it is, he’s given them another victory, another opportunity to claim that ombudsman-reviewed science is on their side. That’s sad, but let’s fact it, we didn’t unexpect anything else.
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)
Could we cease to spread this myth please.
Albert Einstein was not “mostly self-taught”. His high school career was blighted by the fact that his father shifted a lot, but mostly he went to good schools. Then, at just seventeen, he went to the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich which, despite the name, is one of the very best universities in the world. His teachers there were first class.
His work soon after, far from being marginalised, was accepted almost overnight. He was published in top journals well before he got his PhD. He reached full professor at a speed most people could only dream of. Even though experimental proof for relativity was late coming he got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect because they knew how brilliant he was. It was the scientists who refused to accept his work, and there were some, who were ridiculed.
Nor did Einstein ever attempt to “buck the establishment”. He accepted academic posts in quick succession at top establishments.
If you are looking for a lone maverick against the world, Einstein is not your man. He was totally establishment. The number of true genius mavericks is very low, as it happens.
I am a retired BSEE/MS Chemical Eng… For 12 yrs since my retirement, I have been studying climatology… about 2hr/day. As an engineer I was intimately involved in process modeling and statistical control, so I appreciate the problems in model development, limits of modeling, the training of models, setting initial conditions and weighting of variables. I am also very familiar with the science of climate since of the 70’s (i.e., global cooling) since I was associated with a climatologist who had spent his entire career as a climate scientists.. very rare indeed.
The basis of my skepticism is not the science, physics, chemistry or material/energy balances, it is the jumping to conclusions on climate predictions whether through models or research based on so little data. The folks making gross claims based on so little accurate historical data are not true, scientists or engineers…. These folks know better.. Climatogy is the study of climates over 1000’s of years not 10, 20 or 30 years. Climate science is vastly complex… and as humans, we tend to over simplify it and constrain it… for modeling purposes.
Fortunately, we do have instrumentation in place now to measure and collect climate data fairly accurately… However, we perhaps have another 100 yrs or more of data collection, analysis and model TESTING & development before we can come close to making creditable future climate predictions. Do I consider myself a scientist… ABSOLUTELY… I have used straight-forward scientific principles, techniques and methods throughout my entire career…42 yrs and going strong. Keep up the good work Anthony… we’re behing you!
It’s interesting the contrast, Anthony speaking in a resonable voice, voicing his points articulately, carefully avoiding even the hint of an Ad Hominum; then the response from the alarmist rabble a loud hysterical outcry for even alowing a vile denialist a chance to speak.
If they’re thinking it’s a PR war, I’d say they lost that battle.
I think part of the problem, if there is such, between Judith and Anthony is the standard war in academia between the theoreticians and the engineers. The theoreticians have never accepted the engineers as anything other than wrench turners and table jockeys while the engineers look down on the theoreticians as nothing but impractical dreamers that couldn’t design a working lunch box… and never the twin shall meet.
The outrage at allowing someone to have a negative position on AGW show that the west is no more free from bigoted fanatics than the Islamic world. The only difference is the subject matter of their dogma.
Maybe a bit OT, but I just want some hard evidence of a tipping point from the Warmistas–anything scientific would be greatly appreciated.
If nothing is forthcoming in, say, 10 years or so, they are required to cough up all their ill-gotten gain and forever wear a large red letter “W” (for “Warmista”) on their fronts. Oh, and sign a public apology document, too.
It’s time to throw their silly accusations out so they can concentrate on science instead. What a revolutionary thought.
[snip – snooty derisive comments about our host serve no good purpose – mod]
I disagree. It reveals a great deal about the mindless, emotion driven, turd burglar that posted it.
Reg Nelson says:
September 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm…
Perfectly hilarious, Reg! Breathless thanks.
Don
It’s a tough crowd Judy – one litte slip and they jump all over you. 🙂
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Hulk smash any who try to hurt anthony. Hulk says delete (please).
Why didn’t the ombudsmen stand up to the PBS audience. The people commenting seemed to want PBS to suspend the first amendment when they say so. Of all networks PBS is obligated [to] offer dissenting voices. They are acting like magazine editors the way they kowtow when the TEAM says jump for the ’cause’. Is there a pattern here? Roll over for the bully. Where was their argument of the facts?
Reg Nelson says:
September 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm
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.
——————
still lmao
cn
The main commandment for NOAA seems to be — adjust the numbers as much as needed to show what you want. Honesty has no place in the “science” as done at NOAA. They are not the only ones of course, but just one example.
With all the out and out number cheating — why can the climate realists not get on TV and get that across? Why does the average Joe on the street not know that the governent agencies are engaged in massive, institutional fraud? We have them dead to rights on this issue.
Hi moderator,
That joke was not at our host’s expense. It was a double entendre where I played the fool & how unfairly fools judge our host’s science .
Play on words was how foolish commentators denigrate our host’s scientific capability when said fools discuss things (“letters”) which they can only process one way in their own minds (“alphabetize”) & despite revealing their own limitations use their perception to criticize our host’s science.
David M Hoffer,
+1 your comments. Dr Judith Curry has a Bachelor of Science in GEOGRAPHY !!!! If she was so sharp then why didn’t she do pure Physics, Engineering or Mathematics?
How PATHETIC. She has absolutely NO RIGHT to speak condescendingly of others and consider that she holds the “truth”. Geography and Psychology degrees are well known to be about as close to basket weaving as it gets in higher education. Absolutely PATHETIC.
The very problem with Climate Science is that it is actually cluttered with far too many second rate pseudo-scientists. Geography Students who have a poor grasp of statistics (mathematics) and physics.
Dr Richard Lindzen holds the kind of qualifications that would allow him to speak condescendingly of Geography graduates like Phil Jones and others.
OK, this statement has been on my mind, all day.
Dr. Judith Curry says:
“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
=======================
If not, who would it be.
And why is the media not talking to said spokesperson ?
I don’t see many people lined up, for the beating they are sure to take.
Besides, Anthony, of course.
Appropriate ?, its as good as it gets.
gringojay says:
September 22, 2012 at 4:22 pm
My apologies. I misunderstood as well.
BBC: Earth Watch
CE Journal
Climate Central
Climate Debate Daily
Climate Progress
Climate Science Watch
CNET Green Tech
DeSmog Blog
Grist
LA Times: Greenspace
Nature: Climate Feedback
NYT: Dot Earth
NYT: Green
Pew: Climate Compass
Real Climate
Science Blogs
The Climate Desk
The Daily Climate
Yale Environment 360
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/
That’s the blog roll at our local PBS affiliate’s climate watch.
Not familiar with all of them, but the ones I know,
BBC: Earth Watch, Climate Progress, DeSmog Blog
Grist, LA Times, NYT,
Nature, Real Climate, Science Blogs,
are all at least philosophically in agreement with the PBS audience about allowing open decent from skeptics.
Perhaps we are seeing a new PBS policy being birthed.
Curry is not the monster here, gentlemen. Systematic one sided reporting by sycophants is the monster.
KQED’s Desmog link is dead. heh
This man have been a “denier”, hey?
Reginald Newell, formerly of MIT, NASA, and IAMAP, on co2 and potential cooling
1 minute video
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. doesn’t often post on weekends. Today he posted this: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-pbs-overreaction/
Allan MacRae says:
September 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm
It’s a tough crowd Judy – one litte slip and they jump all over you. 🙂
=============
Wouldn’t have it any other way !!
“and never the twin shall meet.”
That’s, never the twain shall meet.