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.
Vote early; vote often.
So am I counting correctly that they actually addressed less than a dozen questions?
I found this interesting as a measure of scientific corruption or whatever:
“John Hockenberry: But I dont’t think you are saying that “Heartland decided to refuse money from the fossile fuel industry after 2006.” If Exxon had offerred I wonder what you might have done?”
So you’re now guilty even if you DON’T take money because you MIGHT take money if it were offered?
Maybe that will be the election eve surprise:
Mitt Romney to Interviewer: “We’ve noticed that Mr. Obama has not admitted to taking money from the Kremlin for his foreign policy decisions. But he’s also neglected to state that he would NOT take money from them if they offered it in the future!”
I’ve actually had the same charge leveled at me several times over the years regarding smoking bans and “Big Tobacco.” And the justifications for the arguments are largely identical: Once you make an argument that an industry agrees with or might agree with, then obviously you must be fronting for that industry.
– MJM
They ignored all 14 of my questions, as shown here: https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/261553329702854656
RHS says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Not exactly. I did say that big oil and gas are very invested in “Climate Change” but not on the sceptic side. Not even the EVIL Koch brothers.
DaveE.
I think the most amusing part of this particular chain of events is the question, “will they give an honest and accurate accounting of the situation?”
Not in this lifetime, sunshine.
Late to chat says:
October 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm
From an earlier post of mine quoting the dissemblers…
Blockquote close missing after trend of global warming.
DaveE.
As damage and control that was lots and lots of absolute control with no effect on damage. (Can you say ‘totalitarianism’ kids? How about ‘tyrant’?) Stay tuned for next weeks show when we show you how to give back freedoms and become puppets like us!
The CAGW ship is plummeting like a rock PBS set up the chat so they absolutely controlled who said what and all PBS responses. I am curious if they ‘edited’ the questions. Sure looked like it. Almost liked the questions were texted and transformed properly so that PBS could ‘mock’ them.
Bogus!
Everytime I read any of those writers/producers names that claimed to have ‘worked’ on that horrid show, I’ll know to skip it. Fool me once…
The commentary following the ‘we chat, you listen’ room in more interesting. Time to contact your local ‘pull PBS funding out of your wallets’ reps and complain. Loudly!
Miescatter
A scatter gun of conjecture. No facts only religious expression from the bible of AGW and its’ high priests. Grow up you idiot. Learn to think for yourself. Study, question, demand you know like us scientists do.!!!!
PBS looks, smells and walks like a duck. Why is anyone surprised when it goes “Quack”? The American public space has always been full of “quacks” and it is a venerable tradition.
I do appreciate, however, the efforts made to communicate and participate and they do have to listen.
““… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…””
As it has always been…. It just highlights how puny any human generated forcing is, and how ineffective and irrelevant 2 Hiroshima bombs is, versus nature.
Anyone surprised, warmists propaganda organisation promotes warmist view point by the usual approach of smear and BS .
The reason why new students are wary of going into study climate change is only seen in the light of fear, that the students are afraid of the way skeptics will expose their emails and so on, but not the possibility that these students realize that all is not well in their field of interest.
Maybe the new students see crap like this ARC Los Rios Catalog Energy (new course) {pdf warning}, where whole sections of the school are turned over to the the charlatans pushing “sustainability”.
Who would want to spend two years studying to become a Solyndra salesman? Or a solar panel squeegie technician?
I’ve listed the questions I prepared, and their non-answers to them, at Heartland’s blog — as well as a full transcript of the chat. For the record: 17 questions (or comments) from the public, 21 answers (or comments) from the PBS crew. That’s one question every four minutes. So, if you thought the chat was slow, you were not imagining things. I’ve exchanged emails back and forth in groups faster than that.
I also am puzzled about how that tweet from Heartland got into the chat. As I note, I wasn’t using Heartland’s Twitter account at the time, and I wrote that tweet at 10:45 p.m. Tuesday when the show was on in Chicago.
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/10/climate-of-doubt-chat-transcript/
It was like reading a discussion between three men of entirely different views (male) about feminism.
Actually, now I come to think of it, it would be quite interesting to hear men talking about feminism. It would either be the same toe curling patronising nonsense … or it would be hilarious.
Sent this to the PBS Ombudsman:
The Frontline show on Climate of Doubt fuzzed up the signature of Edward Teller on the Oregon Petition while at the same time implying that anyone could sign. Your spokesperson agreed it was an error due to “rushed last-minute production” or some such formulation, but it is clearly more serious than that–a knowing decision by some person (who?) who recognized that the Teller signature would subvert a certain point of view. Presumably you could find out who made this decision and the chain of command that ratified the decision. (Does it lead to Mr. Hockenberry, whose views are well known?) A bit of attention paid to this would help PBS in the end by recognizing the subliminal pressure to confirm the prevailing opinion that leads to such violations of journalistic integrity.
Frontline replied to the Tweet ( https://twitter.com/frontlinepbs/status/261578327117148160 ) in my above 12:54 pm comment: “Thanks for your questions. We received over 330 of them and, as always, wish we could have gotten to more.”
I wonder if 97% of those questions represented a skeptical opinion…..
AndyG55 says:
October 25, 2012 at 1:56 pm
““… 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second…””
As it has always been…. It just highlights how puny any human generated forcing is, and how ineffective and irrelevant 2 Hiroshima bombs is, versus nature.
=================================
From:
http://webphysics.iupui.edu/webscience/physics_archive/hurricanes.html
“Hurricanes are among the most powerful of all natural phenomena, and by far the most powerful storms. At its peak, a severe storm may have a total power near to 1015 Watts: about 3,000 times the total electrical power generated in the world. This is equivalent to exploding 500,000 atomic bombs per day (the little ones that were used at the end of WWII). ”
—–
I’ve always liked “the little ones” caveat.
Okay, so.. I guess I have to watch the program now? ffs.
MieScatter says:
October 25, 2012 at 11:45 am
2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second
=========
emotional fear mongering. what has an atom bomb, dropped during a time of world war, have to do with the current situation? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
How about the millions of acres of forests being cut down every day? Millions of times greater than the amount consumed by all the atom bombs ever exploded. These of course have no effect on anything.
I assume this program will be another attempt to propagate the non-scientific myth that global temperatures are rising catastrophically even though the Climate Research Center in the UK has documented only a net global average temperature increase of about 0.8 degrees C since 1880.
Also I assume they are promoting the fear that the narrow line absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide is causing temperatures to rise exponentially even though this is subject to a law of diminishing effect due to self-masking and the raw effect appears to be about one degree C for each complete doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This mythical fear has already prompted one public spirited businessman to dump more than 200,000 pounds of iron ore into the Pacific Ocean to promote the growth of CO2 consuming algae.
So far we appear to have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only by about 41 percent. Some are saying (cf. David Archibald The Fate of All Carbon) that there does not appear to be enough recoverable combustible carbon left in the ground for there ever to be a complete doubling (100 percent increase) of CO2 by that mechanism.
PBS has never been high on my list. I doubt Hockenberry considered reviewing Donna Laframboise assessment of IPCC author qualifications.
MieScatter says:
October 25, 2012 at 11:45 am
but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.
Oh no we don’t.
“they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second
That must be why the latest study shows the Southern Ocean is actually losing energy, and why the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased year on year since we started observing it, and set a new record last month.
As for “2 Hiroshima bombs”, well, you really defined yourself there, didn’t you?
However, I work in a climate science department so I guess my viewpoint is skewed.
As your future employment is therefore predicated on the continuance of the current climate alarmism, I guess you’re right.
I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?
This is what James Hansen has to say on the subject: “Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9192494/Climate-scientists-are-losing-the-public-debate-on-global-warming.html
Headline in 48pt bold, front page. Retraction in 4pt Comic Sans Serif, inside back page.
And the retraction is only because they got caught.
The “last minute production” excuse fails if, for no other reason, you consider that it takes time to blur a portion of an image. A conscious, specific and willful effort. Kind of like glueing an upward curve onto a graph to make a hockey stick shape……
At the end I see a pool result saying
I may have missed something somewhere but this result does not tell me whether most of the 88% were sceptical or not before the program. If their aim was to sway people heavily it obviously failed as I sure at least some of the 12% were and remain sceptics.