WUWT-TV's answer to Al Gore's 'Dirty Weather Report' is ON THE AIR

Anthony, you’re the man! Here’s a hot tip on some royalty free and not bad background music that you can download and use: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/

Re the Monckton presentation – wouldn’t taking the timeline back before 1860 help make the point that current warming (since 1860) is actually a reflection of the fact that we have been warming because the Little Ice Age was deemed to have ended?

zootcadillac –
i’ve learned to adapt to te ad interference; i’m only documenting it because it is not legit; during marc morano’s presentation, the ad was interrupting every 10 or 15 minutes. blackmores is a respectable company and would be horrified to know an ad of theirs had been doctored, with extreme loud noises replacing their own soundtrack and then used to interrupt anthony’s programming. it has not come back since morano. tomorrow i will contact blackmores, but wish i had had the technical ability to record it to forward to them.
early presentations, it was interrupting approx every half hour. when anthony went to docus it stopped. returned with a vengeance only or morano.
the noise accompanying the ad is/was so loud and jarring, it would have put off less interested viewers, i am sure. can’t imagine it was only affecting my feed.

Question for Lord Monckton: I’ve seen past presentations where you’ve talked about cyclone/Hurricane intensity/frequency. I may have missed this in your current talk (adverts appologies). Do you have anything to say about Hurricane Sandy? in particular the scientific basis for links to climate change and statements made by McKibben etc?

Anthony commented that he looked for questions to the presenter (Monckton at the time) somewhere. Is that in this thread? There’s also a chat channel at Ustream where people comment (and badly in need of a moderator) but if we’re supposed to ask questions here then maybe we can move people’s attention over 🙂

Does Mr Montford’s book explain exactly what decline Mike (Mann) hid using this trick? I know what decline Briffa hid, but I’m fuzzy on where Mann used this trick.

Troed Sångberg says:
November 15, 2012 at 9:16 am
Anthony commented that he looked for questions to the presenter (Monckton at the time) somewhere. Is that in this thread? There’s also a chat channel at Ustream where people comment (and badly in need of a moderator) but if we’re supposed to ask questions here then maybe we can move people’s attention over 🙂
= = = = = = =
Troed Sångberg
Both this tread and the USTREAM’s social stream thread are being looked at for questions to forward to Anthony so he can ask the live interviewees.
I would recommend it more likely to get a question forwarded to Anthony from this thread. The USTREAM social stream is not a very easy environment for capturing questions.
John

delusional but probably right – there will not be a CO2 tax:
14 Nov: Grist: David Roberts: There’s not gonna be a carbon tax
The hype has reached such an intensity that when the Sith Lord of Republican politics, Grover Norquist, said last week that a carbon tax wouldn’t necessarily violate his sacred anti-tax pledge (something he has said before), everyone went a little nuts, so much so that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, had to issue a follow-up statement clarifying that, no, really, it “opposes a carbon tax and will work tirelessly to ensure one does not become law.”…
The fact is, today’s Republican Party contains Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Sprawl (road builders, real estate developers, etc.), Big Ag, rich people, and suburbanites. Every one of those constituencies is deeply invested in the continuation of the fossil-fueled status quo. It wouldn’t matter if Friedrich Hayek himself descended from the heavens on angel wings to sing the carbon-tax gospel. Republicans are going to do what their constituencies tell them (and pay them) to do…
What action there is on climate in Obama’s second term will be more of the same: nibbling around the edges via EPA and other regulatory tools, doing what can be done without Congress.
“But David,” you’re protesting. “In the wake of Sandy and an Obama election victory, shouldn’t climate hawks be ambitious? Shouldn’t they shoot for the moon? Set a benchmark for what counts a real action?”
Why yes! They should. But on substantive grounds, the kind of (fantasy) carbon-tax deals being discussed right now are already a compromise, already a trimming of sails. The mere existence of a carbon tax is not enough, in and of itself, to count as ambition on climate change.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/theres-not-gonna-be-a-carbon-tax/

I have sampled WUW-TV and 24 hours of Reality.
The scorecard so far is 24 ahead on facilities, production, looks, makeup and emotional appeal. Basically no contest on these points.
WUW is only a clear winner in the science categories (content, reason and balance) and decency.
Participants category still open, WUW in a clear lead (a lot of the supporting acts are filler material at 24) but its close enough for 24 to get back in the game, say if they can get a Nobel laureate to back their claims…..
Maybe the viewer ratings will decide the winner?
Sarcasm aside, I really appreciate WUW linking to 24, i think that is a show of confidence the arguments can stand their ground.

Just happened to have noticed this news bit and not sure if it’s been posted yet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

Can Dr Spencer talk a little bit about what the difference between a scientist and a climate scientist? For instance are meteorologists considered a Climate scientists?

Great talk by Dr Spencer!