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.
BarryW says:
September 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm
At least the warmistas haven’t started storming embassies yet.
On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not………..
what a pompous load……..
Dr. Curry has demonstrated that she really doesn’t know much about how the earth’s climates work. That puts her in the boat with everyone else.
Andrew
Is anyone really surprised at this response? Anyone and I mean anyone, who dares to speak out against the consensuses will get their head handed to them. As for a debate, maybe in a root cellar with the lights turned out and the door closed. Dr Curry is consistently admonished on her own blog for allowing decenting views without comment and is placing her position amoung colleagues at risk with this stance.
Jim
The Ombudsman said:
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. replied:
So a university-accredited scientist would have made the sceptics case stronger? Weaker? Balanced????? Heh, heh. 😉
Goodnight all.
Roger Pielke, Sr. has a blog post about Getler’s response to rabid viewer criticism. He emphasizes that Anthony Watts is eminently qualified to speak about siting issues.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-pbs-overreaction/
Of course, to the bigots demonizing Watts, qualifications are irrelevant if ideology is incorrect.
If PBS were interested in balance, they would have also had a former CAGW believer who turned skeptic. Those are relatively easy to find.
“Watts is a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.” (emph added)
That is an interesting distinction. But anyone who looks objectively at the surface station project and the recent paper on NOAA adjustments will be forced to acknowledge that Watts has not merely provided a public forum. He has done excellent work in analyzing the locations, classifications, and histories of the thermometer sites. And the warming is <.15 decade – less if you look at Class 1 sites. So no, he is both “the appropriate spokesman for climate science” and “a figure of central importance in the public debate on climate change.”
Honestly, if Europe covers but 3% of the surface of the globe, this nonsense of blaming their way of life for a dinky 1.5C increase per century is criminal misuse of science and needs to stop right now.
Incidentally, I found the PBS Ombudsman contrary “even handed ” response to be reprehensible. This is supposed to be Public TV ? Not a politically active conclave of thought reactionism reminiscent of various propaganda regimes attempts to compel beliefs, Not “approved” dicta? Talk about “1984”, one wonders whether the Ombudsman ever read the novel, because he is a main player in its unfolding today.
Second, I believe that this response to contrary views to be quite compete:
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:47 am
True to form, the warmist objection to Watts is not anything he said, but that he was allowed to say anything at all. It is *all* about silencing alternative views, especially very sober and reasonable spokesmen, like Anthony. It is never about holding their own ideas up to critical appraisal.
A true scientist knows and accepts that his life’s work can be undone by a single experiment performed by an amateur, if that experiment proves his theory wrong. The warmists are a cult. They don’t practice science. They practicing silencing scientists who don’t toe their line.
It is interesting how after one individual turns the orthodoxy on its head is at first ridiculed and vilified, then sanitized and lionized. I am specifically speaking of Albert Einstein. He was mostly self taught with the help of Max Talmud and driven by his family’s tradition of education. Jost Winteler recognized Albert for his strengths and weaknesses, and helped him at his school.
Marcel Grossman helped him land a job at the Swiss patent office. Some at the patent office had the opinion that his appointment was a bad joke. He was quickly promoted over his peers and then quit.
What annoyed his superiors and some colleagues is that Einstein was able to fly over objects placed in his path and then land in a high place.
Some of his professors had a poor opinion of him. Prof Weber and Herman Minkowski specifically.
Albert Einstein was definitely not an approved product of the establishment. He was an outsider with his own agenda.
I absolutely cannot understand the critics here who jump all over Dr. Curry, Lucia, and others who are open-minded, respectful, and knowledgeable. There are people out there who are calling skeptics criminals against humanity and meaning it, and you’re attacking those who would give you an opportunity to speak? It’s easier to shoot those who are not pointing a gun at you than those that are, I guess. And stupid. And destructive. And discouraging.
(Besides which, as has been pointed out already, those criticizing Dr. Curry evidently ran out of reading power before reaching the end of the article.)
Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company.
I have only a minute.
Per Judith Curry:
“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.”
=================
Perhaps Anthony Watts can read through all the BS. He has a good track record. Attack the messenger? Sorry, but Watts has a handle on it. It’s that independent army of realists marching for the truth that is the real threat to the “cause”. That’s where the traffic is generated.
When I get time I will read the comments prior to this comment.
When I went to college they used to make fun of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the SAE on your oil can next to 10W-30. It seemed, at least at the time, that there was no college or university that gave a degree in “Automotive Engineering.”
Is there any college or university that gives a degree in “Climate Science” ? … or is it a priesthood ?
POST NORMAL SCIENCE AND ANTHONY WATTS
One hopes that Franziska Hollender of recent WUWT fame is monitoring this flap over Anthony’s appearance on PBS. It is the Post Normal Science that she advocates put to application.
Let a thousand flowers bloom!
Then cudgels and pitchforks raised against the dissenting voice! Silence all who disagree! The mob rules!
Post Normal Science is really nothing more than the politics of the mob. Nothing new — just a new name. First create the mob and then control it.
Your academic advocacy of Post Normal Science is a sophist’s attempt to legitimize mob rule.That’s all it is Franziska Hollender.You write in “big words” what history has writ in blood — thinking that thereby none will recognize it.
But wait! Could it possibly be that you really don’t understand what you are actually advocating –the rule of the mob? After all you do have a brain the size of a peanut.
Eugene WR Gallun
I agree with a number of comments here which hint at what I call the ‘Ph.D Club’. This is a club comprising those with a Ph.D who tend not to take seriously anyone without one.
Mr. Watts doesn’t have one, so he can be treated with varying degrees of disdain (excuse the pun) by those who have one.
I also agree with those here who have pointed out that a Ph.D is a very specific thing. It doesn’t mean you know everything about everything. In fact it probably only means you know every last excruciating detail about a very confined area of scientific enquiry.
This leads me to a question.
Dr. Judith Curry did her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. To my way of thinking this means she ought to know at least something about Arctic sea ice, even though it may not mean much else.
Here’s a quote from Dr. Curry : “In my most recent posts on the Arctic sea ice decline, I estimated that about half the decline could be attributed to human induced CO2, which is in line with the latest analyses from the CMIP5 climate models.”
I found that remark startling.
50% of Arctic Ocean sea ice decline, according to Dr. Curry, is due to human CO2!
How can that be possible, when all the evidence suggests CO2 is at best a minor factor in climate change?
And if it’s true, what proportion of the recent record increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to human CO2?
What am I missing here? Is Dr. Curry a reliable source?
So just what IS a “Climate Scientist”; and what is “Climate Science”.
Well as near as I can tell, the fundamental foundation of Climate Science, is Physics; so ergo, ANY real climate scientist should have at least a degree in Physics. Not necessarily a post graduate degree. The next feather one might need in one’s hat, or a next specialty to go with the Physics, would likely be Chemistry, which really is just applied Physics.
Now in my view, the ability to identify some species of pollen in sub ocean mud, that is of geologic age, is NOT climate science. Come to think of it, geology is also a nice arrow to have in the quiver, since how earth’s geology has altered over the millions of years has certainly affected the ancient state of earth’s climate, and volcanism has played its part in earth climate.
Lots of other branches of science are associated in all manner of ways, but the study of those is hardly climate science. How species adapt to climate change, is the science of how species adapt to climate change, it isn’t climate science.
Mathematics is simply a tool of all science; it isn’t climate science.
But you see the gravy train inside the big tent of climate science is just too well fed, so it seems almost anyone whose course of study is impacted by the weather, thinks they are a climate scientist. Certainly, the job listings in the daily newspapers, seldom will ask for skill in identifying sub-ocean mud pollens.
Even in Physics, it is reported that 65% of all PhD Physicists will never find full time jobs plying their trade, and only 5% will find even temporary jobs. The rest will likely be found inside the “climate science” tent getting post doc fellowships; by the way, what IS a fellowship, and do they have female counterparts ?
“””””…..pete50 says:
September 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company…..”””””
Before Chadwick, the Quantum Mechanics of matter knew of just 92 different sized quanta of matter, which changed Alchemy into Chemistry.
Then Chadwick had to come along and mess it all up, so now the Quantum Mechanics of matter involves maybe a thousand or so different quanta of matter.
Well we call them isotopes or something like that.
In a related area, Dr. C D Mote Jr, a PhD Mechanical Engineer (Cal Berkley) and past President of the University of Maryland, has just been selected to run opposed for a six year term as the next President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). The supposedly technically strong Dr. Mote was an eager drinker of the Global Warming Kool Aid and pushed many efforts at Maryland to respond to the threats of Global Warming and to control CO2. He never made any attempt to question the basis of the “science” of Global Warming. He just made sure that the school got some of the Federal gravy. His choice will mean that NAE will be pushing “politically correct engineering” for the next six years. Are there any readers out there who are in the NAE and can stop this.
Cant you be a climate scientist by doing good science??
Bill Illis says “inquistors”
Yeah–not warmists, or even scientists..”climate inquisitors” Perfect! (or is it inquisitioners?)
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
I can certainitly see you are angry and I might agree with your underlying premis somewhat if not reading the whole article, but certainly not your method of sharing your thoughts–Dr. Curry deserves respect as any of us do… and I hate to see you stoop to the level of the PBS drone (ah, audiance….) and the fact that she “appears” to talk down to us is not the point. The point is how we respond to each other.
Paul Coppin says “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.” Thanks for both that and your points on Judith Curry–much appreciated.
At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake. One should decide whether it has gone completely astray and falls into the same category of human endeavor as “astrology” or “homeopathy”, in which case genuine experts are the least qualified to deliver judgement, in spite of the fact these fields have their own educational institutions and peer reviewed journals.
Anyone, ANYONE!; who applies deductive reason and logic (within the concstruct of the scientific method) to observations, is a scientist, Meterology is a science, in fact the science of weather. Climate is composed of weather. Per Wik, ” Meteorological phenomena are observable weather events which illuminate, and are explained by the SCIENCE of meteorology. Those events are bound by the variables that exist in Earth’s atmosphere; temperature, air pressure, water vapor, and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Different spatial scales are studied to determine how systems on local, regional, and global levels impact weather and climatology.”
So according to Wik. Anthony is a climate scientist. Judith deserves both praise and scorn for her comments. The praise is due to the fact of her sincerity in desireing to be a scientist, to follow whatever the observations show, and to ovewrcome the prejudices which she knows exist in the “scientific/academic” institutions. The scorn she earns because her own prejudices are uncounciousely present . davidmhoffer makes some very valid arguments. However Judith fully deserves that the critical comments be framed respectfully.