UPDATE: PBS Admits to a “mistake” on my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature see below…
Live chat on now – join in (ended, my two questions were ignored, as were many others.)
The producer and host of the “Climate of Doubt” Frontline program will be on a live chat at 1 p.m. ET. Good chance to challenge them on their omissions and misleading “reporting.”
Login here:
UPDATE: Here are two messages placed side by side from the live chat showing that PBS has reacted to my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature. Catherine Upin is a co-writer of the program:
No mention as to the rationale of the “late stage production decision” only that it was a mistake.
A few more commenters have been allowed to trickle in:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
3:00 FRONTLINE:
3:01 John Hockenberry:
3:01 Elizabeth Kolbert:
3:02 Catherine Upin:
3:05 Comment From Jay Currie
3:05 John Hockenberry:
3:07 Comment From Gary Anderson
This chat is pointless. I wish I were in the “moderation room” watching them decide how/when things get posted. I’m done.
THE END:
– – – – – – – – – – –
3:08 John Hockenberry: USA not the only one. China has an institutional push-back on global warming related to the perception that it is a ruse for the industrialized world to hold China back.
3:10 John Hockenberry: Thanks everyone, I’ve got to go interview someone about the sensitivity of language in electoral politics.
see you next time
– – – – – – – – – – –
Was that it?
DaveE.
Farcical…
That was a waste of time
I actually think that the Teller thing wouldn’t have made any difference. One of the threads of the Merchants of Doubt appears to originate with Anti-Communism…Teller was very anti-communist. So I’m sure to these guys he’s the thread that proves their story.
the Anti-communist nuts had to go somewhere after the fall of the Soviets…so they went to the various Anti-eco-projects that were going on….i.e. they are market Fundamentalists who are reactionaries
Would have been nice if they could have got to some of them.
DaveE.
MieScatter says:
I wish a larger variety of scientists had been interviewed, but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.
No, we don’t know that. Among the reasons we shall never find out, is that Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc are the ones that get the airtime. That is their designated role in the propaganda effort.
But they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second which …
… is another content free warmist talking point, that in no way demonstrates the validity of the ‘global warming’ conjecture. When do you think an honest examination of that topic will make it to the MSM? You know, hypothesis testing, falsifyability criteria, comparison of predictions to observations, assessment of error bands, etc, etc, etc?
<i…. clearly shows to me how ridiculous the ‘warming has stopped’ meme is.
The ‘warming is stopped’ meme rests on precisely the same metric as the ‘global warming is going to kill us all’ meme. Too bad that metric it isn’t going your way right now, and hasn’t for nearly two decades. You might have picked a more robust parameter on which to base your fairy tale, but then there wasn’t one, was there?
I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?
Yes, the message is the matter, is it not?
The funny part is that John actually addressed a comment I made without the comment itself appearing…snort!
Jim,
I asked a question as to what number actually represents “97 percent of climate scientists” and it went out at 1903 UT but it never appeared.
This is the “Greg” that got through with a partial “Did any of the climate scientists you chatted with express any doubt?” but they deleted the preface to it, this James Lovelock quote,
“”The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”
They also didn’t let a followup through, more of the Lovelock quote: “One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”
It’s sad to see PBS and propagandists like Hockenberry working in real-time.
One of your comments did appear Jay but the non-answer was laughable.
DaveE.
Elizabeth Kolbert: I think one of the things that’s important to note is that scientists have understood the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate since the 1850’s. Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel Prize winning chemist, did the first calculations of what increasing CO2 levels would do to the climate in the 1890’s. The idea that this is new or untested science is basically ludicrous. The only sense in which there is uncertainty is that the earth is a complicated place and so the effects of warming will be complex. But that the planet will warm — and already has — is really not debatable at this point.
That’s about as ludicrous a response as can be expected from “guest questioner” Elizabeth Kolbert. She basically says that climate science put the cart before the horse, by accepting Arrhenius’ thesis and carrying forth to look for its effects in the atmosphere. Not to mention playing the Nobel card. This followed by an equivocation between warming and debate…sullied by the erroneous ‘”But that the planet WILL warm”….we know that, EK. It has, will, whatever. It will also cool, has, whatever.
Thanks for your enlightening drivel.
Left about 15 questions and 5 comments, none of which showed up at all. I’m guessing that few people from the climate changers showed up.
WRT to funding, anyone ask why WWF gets more Big Oil Money than all the sceptics combined? They have to raise (because they spend) about 1 Million USD a day. Thats a lot of cash!
I asked about the comfort level relying on “Merchants of doubt” when no evidence of its claims has ever been seen.
I asked about how many of the skeptics they spoke with actually denied that CO2 is a green house gas and could cause some warming
I asked if anyone gave them evidence of a “well funded denial machine” that is even with in an order of magnitude of the funding from NGO’s and Government the mainstream climate community receives.
Of course nothing got into chat Bleh.
I asked why several questions rattled off by Hockenberry to Fred SInger were left on the cutting room floor by cutting away to Andrew Dessler after Singer said he would happily respond.
My question was also left on the cutting room floor. Disgusting.
I think what we saw here was, they got a lot of comments & questions they couldn’t answer so they just didn’t post them and talked amongst themselves.
DaveE.
The “Chat” felt like 1984.
Big Brother John word-smithing consensus, with lieutenants at his side.
Miescatter suggests: “… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…”
I have to wonder why you believe that.
Certainly the oceans themselves are not expressing, in the form of increased temperatures, anything like that amount of increased heat.
I think WordPress may have swallowed a Reply due to machinations in ‘login hell’. I reproduce it here, apologies if it’s a duplicate:
I’m the Greg Goodknight that got through with “Did any of the climate scientists you chatted with express any doubt?” but they deleted the preface to it, the James Lovelock statement that
“”The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.”
They also deleted a continuation of the Lovelock quote,
“One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”
It was sad to see PBS and the propagandist Hockenberry working in real time. This is how one manufactures a “consensus”.
Catherine Upin: “Our focus was on the requirements for signing the petition.”
Such a pity they could not also focus the darn camera!! What a dissembler!
Do you think any of the questions even made them doubt themselves or think to follow up on something? I know when i am asked things I do not have an answer to I go looking when I have a chance, but that is one reason I ended up here in the first place….
Watching Climate of Doubt now and I want to modify my survey response to YES…I viewed the climate change debate to be based scientific research and did not realize how much the disrespectful monikers “skeptic”, “denier”, “doubter”, “dissenter”,”radical” etc. etc.cloud the debate of science.