This week is not exactly a true open thread… I do have one topic that I’d like to discuss. I’m considering doing a weekly radio show with the same name “Watts Up With That” and I’m interested to hear opinions on the topic.
The idea would be to have a show that would cover topics that we might not cover on the blog and allow interactivity including Callins via Skype, e-mailed questions, and questions submitted in advance.
A few years ago I had done a 24-hour television program to counter Al Gore’s 24 hours of climate reality. While that effort was reasonably successful it required a huge amount of effort to produce. Radio type programs however require far less effort and can be just as effective at communications and equally entertaining if not more. It would be streamed live so that people around the world could listen in, and would be recorded also as a podcast.
While not a sure thing that I will do this, I thought I’d ask readers to see what they thought about it and I welcome any ideas that you might have.
Of course, any other topics within our normal purview are open on this open thread as well.
Thanks for your input and thanks to everyone who commented on my personal note earlier this week. It was very heartfelt and uplifting that I have so many friends around the world.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Has climate “science” killed the scientific method?
Not yet. But, it’s not due to lack of effort.
SMC,
:>) :>) x a bunch.
Most of Anthony’s readers would not be able to tune in to a radio programme. It would be a pity if the additional strain on Anthony were to adversely effect the quality of this very successful and important web site which I for one open nearly every day.
Most radio stations have web podcasts or similar available.
I listen to 2GB most weeknights from 8pm on my computer.
@AndyG55.
Indeed, thanks to the Internet and live – streaming, it is the ONLY way I can tune into 2GB, which is something I sorely missed for a while, after leaving Sydney for Far North QLD, in the late 90’s (before we had broadband Internet in Oz, only 56kbs dial-up and that was expensive too)…
I can easily foresee the day when ‘terrestrial’ radio transmission modes of radio stations i.e. ‘AM and FM’ radio becoming yet another item for technology history books and museums…
I can now easily tune into literally tens of thousands of live-streamed (Internet) radio stations from all corners of the globe and all of them are at least as clear, but normally much clearer in terms of audio quality, than my nearest local FM radio station.
Listening to live streamed radio consumes only a tiny, barely perceptable amount of my pre-paid data plan and I listen to internet radio almost continuously. It’s definitely THE way to go!
I read this daily too. Love it and would hate to see it degrade, but if a larger audience is reached, hey, follow your dreams!
Guest hosts are a common feature of radio and podcast transmissions.
AW doesn’t need to shoulder the whole burden himself.
I agree with Gabro, and my first thought was to (first attempt to) “piggyback” onto an already successful radio/TV broadcast system . .As regularly featured guest-host. I feel sure that such an arrangement could be mutually beneficial to many established “voices” for sanity . . This realm of “skepticism” is by no means considered fringe or incidental among high volume/respect “skeptics” in general, from what I’ve seen/heard . . It’s seen as almost epicentric by many . .
Whatever time the radio show is on, it’s not going to be feasible for a lot of people to listen real-time. I’d vote for releasing the recorded show as a podcast, or posting a link on this website. Andrew Bolt does a weekday radio show with Steve Price, and posts a link to it on his blog the next day.
@Gabro
There is a huge gap between successful blog writer and successful talk show host. Mr. Watts has no issues in this regard but guest contributors should be wary of parking themselves behind the mike unless they have previous experience.
Well I have my car radio, and my bedside radio set up to receive one AM station (talk radio) and two FM stations.
The free AM station I can’t keep on for more than a few minutes, and then I can’t stand it any more. Problem is five minutes of talk, interspersed with 55 minutes of totally stupid advertising.
Tax Lawyer ads. If you can’t pay your taxes, we’ll get you a deal at pennies on the dollar. Excuse me sir, but does the IRS pay the lawyer’s fee or how does that work. The world is going to hell; take your 401K and buy gold and silver coins that you can hold in your hand and see. So can the next guy that burglarizes your house. Only a dummy would buy a (rare) gold or silver coin that is also legal tender currency. Gold bullion coins like Kruger-Rands, might be ok, but how do you buy food with them when the fat hits the shin; where would you find that food ? That rare uncirculated double eagle you bought is just a junk coin when you try to sell it. All the talk show hosts are hyping the products and vendors, that you just know they are not buying themselves.
So I switch to FM. I have a choice of a local listener funded Jazz station. Nice music about which I know nothing, so I tend to listen as if it’s elevator music, which is not fair to the music. The other is a USC sponsored classical music station. That is even worse than the talk radio station. Heavily invested in elevator music from 300 or 400 years ago, mostly ending in a vowel.
Without fail, any piece they might play from the 19th century, is immediately followed by a piece written by the chamber maid of a second cousin of JS Bach, or Antonio Vivaldi, or something with a solo flute. They play lots of Bach; anybody named Bach. In 25 years of listening to this station, they have NEVER ever played any piece of Bach organ music, or Handel either, and forget it if you like the 19th Century French Romantic music played on those fabulous Cavalle-Koll organs of France.
If you listen often enough you are sure to hear , maybe two or three times a day under different hosts, Sir Edward Elgar’s ” # 9 “. No silly, not his ninth symphony (did he write one ? ) No they play the ninth variation from the Enigma Variations, also known as
” Nimrod “, which they suggest is an alternative British National Anthem. (I thought that was Land of Hope and Glory ). Yes they cut bleeding chunks out of any piece of music, rather than play a complete work you get the “One Season” of Vivaldi four or five times a day. They never play his more well known “The Four Seasons “.
Most of what they play is after supper elevator music from unknown composers, most of whom wrote 85 operas or more. That translates as after dinner skits by court jesters. It was mostly trash when it was written and it is still trash today.
Every year they invite listeners to write in or vote for their all time favorite classical musical piece for their list of the top 100. Beethoven’s 9th always tops the list, and #5 and #3 always make the top 5. Not one single symphony out of the 104 that Haydn wrote has ever made the top 100 list, not even one. But guess whose symphonies they play most days without fail. And it will be #23 or #15; those real crowd favorites.
One host who declared he would be playing six centuries of classical music, even complained that at one point Haydn couldn’t take on Beethoven as a pupil, because he was too busy teaching Mozart.
Presumably he would teach Beethoven how to write a symphony in 104 easy lessons.
Well he did get Mozart to write three after 41 tries.
You see this is the problem with free radio; you either have to put up with inane advertising, or listen to selected excepts of once glorious creations.
I do best with the Jazz station and I know absolutely nothing about jazz, other than I know what I like when I hear it.
So What’s it all mean ?? Well I think the radio format is a very difficult environment.
You either have to bore your listeners with advertising, or perhaps find a sugar daddy. The listener supported gig does work, but it’s hard to get one going.
I listen mostly when I’m driving, and you can’t be interactive in that situation.
G
Not specifically. It’s an issue with “care” in general. We care about people. We care about victims. We care about potential victims. We even care about people who could have victim, when we are not sure about it but not impossible.
Then traditional, (by definition) conservative scientists will say that we can’t conclude that these people are victims of a particular product or victims at all. Or that they even have an illness!
That can’t be OK. The people deserve our help. They NEED our people.
So we tell the conservative scientist that he must take back his old method that has too much “doubt”, that doubt helps the evil industries, that scientists create doubt.
On the opposite of the spectrum, there are a ugly invention of judges making the law in France: claimants must prove a certain and direct link between a drug and a side effect. Because there is no such a certainty in science, and even less directness, it means people have no right to complain about dangerous drugs. Big Pharma has even made broke victims of its toxic (and sometimes useless) drugs pay for the cost of its toxic lawyers.
The reason: adults are terrified (like little children) by infectious diseases and diseases in general. So they care for poor little Big Pharma.
Some people just can’t deal with any uncertainty.
It’s not just climate. You could do a whole series on funding bias, pressure to publish, corruption of journals, etc etc. Legalized bribery is rampant. Get the results a company wants in public office and then get a job with the company for a lotto winning type of raise or better yet speaking fees at exotic locales and you keep your uni or gov pension.
Science is sadly in a horrible state in almost all fields. The scientific method got us to where we are. We abandon it now at our own peril.
TRM is on to something I think. The public, at least in the English-speaking world has realized Government is corrupt. Genteelly so, for the most part anyway, but corrupt none-the-less. Anthony has focused on the corruption and lies within “climate science” but nearly all Government Programs have a fat dollop of fraud, laziness and greed built in.
Brexit, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, the German reaction to Merkel’s refugees, illegal immigration in America and on and on are symptoms of wide and deep skepticism toward Government and the idea of government.
I too, think current opponents of modern “Liberalism” would welcome Anthony on their radio programs lending credibility and exposure to start.
The Scientific Method is merely pining for the fjords.
It’s just stunned.
An interesting idea. Not sure how many listeners you’d get but still an interesting idea.
I’d tune in.
Be sure to have a web cam simulcast, for all your great charts and graphs…
I don’t know how you could do it with out the aid of visuals and graphics to optionally to accompany the discussion.
Then again, Fiorello La Guardia, is famous for reading the comics over the radio….. There was a newspaper strike on, but nevertheless.
http://www.leisurelyhistorian.net/la-guardia-reads-the-sunday-funnies
Me, too!
How long would each show last and what sort of other topics might be discussed?
Also is there any sort of rough format I.e each segment will last five minutes?
Tonyb
Anthony’s initiative is an excellent one. The most successful private electronic-media shows are daily or weekly TV shows on YouTube, which provides a cost-free method of reaching everyone. TV also has the advantage of being able to show graphs and slides clearly. This would be a heavily-watched YouTube channel, and it would attract significant advertising revenue. Anthony has built the brand: now he can reap the reward, while helping to save the planet from totalitarian anti-intellectual stupidity.
oh! i didn’t see your comment before i posted- you are right!
i wish i’d thought of that.
Absolutely correct, Christopher.
It would be another avenue to get truth, insight, information and dare I say, science — into the media wilderness. I like the idea.
Not only is video good for graphs and slides, but also for cartoons and animated clips, which would add entertainment value. One thing sorely lacking with the cagw crowd is a sense of humor. If possible, don’t respond to their incessant fear mongering with counter fear, but with facts, humor, and maybe a touch of mockery. IMHO
Yes, I agree, radio is an excellent medium, especially now with podcasting and the Internet’s reach. Anthony, you can interview people throughout the world (planet) at little cost, but please be sure to use a high-end microphone and headphones. Often television, which has considerably higher production costs, is really just radio with embarrassing pictures – when audio alone would suffice and may well be more powerful without the distracting video.
Good point about the quality of mics. Podcasts are great. You can also put images on website if needed. Heartland does a weekly interview style podcast that is good. Audio only makes it easy to record a remote interview.
Ditto
I agree with Sir Christopher. Additionally, the inclusion of obviously qualified guests making strong points would provide powerful footage for TV stations or even networks to clip into nightly news programs or documentaries. A series deconstructing and demolishing “An Inconvenient Truth” would be amazing! Of course, it’s easy for us to yell yahoo, but it’s Anthony that has the hard riding. Perhaps, as with recent events on this site, others can take up some of his burden.
Yes, start with John Coleman or Patrick Moore and then let Will Happer, Judith Curry and John Christy have a go at it! I wish I were on their level so I could speak with authority on the subject.
Another thing the public needs is an education on the ethics of research and the scientific method. Most people are simple sheep to be herded. Some viewing of Richard Feynman on science would be a revelation to many liberal arts degree holders.
(And, of course, a certain Brit with a bit of a rep himself . . ; )
And our own Jo Nova would be a perfect addition to such a radio programme. She’s got the smarts and buckets of TV experience as a science communicator. Great idea.
By TV stations and networks, do you mean those entities that pimp CAGW and normal weather as climate catastrophe, on a daily basis? I would expect resistance from those entities.
Flyover Bob
Resistance is inevitable. Persistence with the truth is always worthwhile. Who knew or cared about CAGW before Gore’s great lie? A well packaged response that puts the lie to Gore, includes information on the costs, to Western economies that are struggling and the corruption of science, will educate people and change minds. We have to believe that the worm will turn and rational thought will prevail. This could be an “accelerator”!
A Youtube commentary series based on Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth, scene by scene debunking its erroneous statements, would be a very attractive product. Think about how many viewers well implemented vblogs get.
Add a dash of Mark Stein to add some levity to the legal front.
That’s “Steyn.” Just FYI.
I would tune in. Grew up listening to the radio under the blankets. But as His Magnificence Monkton says, a youtube channel would likely gather more of an audience.
Steve (Paris): SO glad to see you comment. I recall a comment from yours talking about being in “southern France” and was concerned…. I hope all is well with you and with your “little one” and all your dear ones.
Thank you Janice, all is well.
Just pointing out that over the last decade, I almost never listen to radio. Except in heavy traffic while in a car; even then it is rare.
Nor do I pay attention to most audio. I will turn my computer’s sound back on and play instrumental music.
The question is. Is radio a viable outreach program? Perhaps videos, or a video channel section on youtube?
We are all different. I listen To radio all the time and it remains very popular in the UK
Tonyb
Apparently 90% of Americans listen to the radio for over two hours a day so it is still a very popular and accessible medium.
http://beonair.com/radio-remains-popular/
Perhaps we ought to be asking ourselves who we would want to influence and what is the best method of doing that@ur momisugly
Talking to existing WUWT fans is all very well but it won’t spread the message wider, so drawing in an influential new core audience is presumably a requirement
tonyb
Two hours a day is roughly the prep for and commute time per day, for many citizens.
Two hours is also the average; and represents the few folks who run radios non stop versus my rarely even turning a radio on.
Are these listeners willing to listen to ‘Earth climate radio’? Regularly, even frequently?
Remember, Anthony is discussing a valid ongoing concern, that we all hope will be self supporting. I assume with advertising.
I do not want to promise Anthony a rose garden, especially knowing that my nature doesn’t allow me to turn on noise emitting devices unless they soothe my soul. Noting there are many climate discussions that certainly wreak opposite effects.
I also rarely-to-never listen to the radio. But, I’m a member of “the choir”. If Anthony has the opportunity and is willing, give “the audience” something to wake some of them up.
Short focused radio-type segments, a few minutes long, would be good.
They do not have to be “weekly”, do not have to be live scheduled programs, but can be timely topic related summaries whenever indicated. And with links to a good WUWT article or similar web site for additional detail or verification.
I’d love to be able to share them easily when talking with others about climate issues.
I love the idea, and I believe getting listeners would be pretty easy. Keeping listeners or even building a following might be a good thing, too. My concern would be “crusher crews”, a title for people I’m sure you’re familiar with, unless they have a new name (climate jihadists comes to mind). They are relentless, not open to discussion and definitely a nuisance. Still, a great idea and I’m all for it.
Glad to hear you will provide it as podcast, since one can’t always be available at the live radio time.
Suggestions:
1. Divide your broadcast into sections of 10-20 min for each topic, interview, etc. Listen to The Economist Radio as an example:
https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-economist-radio-all-audio/id151230264?mt=2
2. Shortish sections will be more likely to have listeners as people podcast while walking, gardening, working, or exercising.
3. Be careful to Exclude the Ad Hominem comments from Anyone, (which seem to be collecting on WUWT of late).
I enjoy reading the many thoughtful remarks in all directions so that I can Learn from others.
I can understand the frustration of people who perceive skulduggery on the other side, but it doesn’t help the reputation of WUWT as a place to properly Debate & Discuss:
– whether climate is changing worldwide (regionally, it obviously does)
– what’s causing regional (& worldwide) changes
– how to Be Prepared! for them
– how to lead our politicians to spend our grandchildren’s money wisely in this field (all government spending is Borrowed these days),
if people insult each other or third parties to a conversation.
I like the longer (60+ minute) interviews like is done on EconTalk. email questions are good, but don’t do call in questions. Too much equipment and most questions will be crap.
as a hobby, it’s a great idea.
audio only makes it very difficult to provide links to anything, which constricts the scope.
so it wouldn’t be like WUWT the website.
it would require a shift in the direction of entertainment as the focus.
as soon as it has to pay its way, advertisements for survival kits or diet supplements will require the reduction of content to be more emotionally compelling. you’ll want some ranting and yelling.
fwiw, those are my ‘thoughtful’ contributions to this topic.
Excellent idea- I would definitely tune in. I’m assuming that there would be a forum for comments on the shows, as it is with the blogs? Intelligent commentary, is what gives WUWT a definite edge in the world of blogs. I also would hope it stays scientific rather than political. Although an independent, I tend to be more liberal than conservative, and hope that new viewers would not be turned off, because they feel it is just the work of republicans (or worse yet Trump!)
Hope you can make this happen!
Agree with Lord Monckton, excellent idea. Put them all on YouTube but keep your own copy in case YouTube suddenly get Silicon Valley social engineering syndrome.
It’s worked for SuspiciousObservers. They have a huge, and well deserved, following. I reckon it could work for Anthony too.
Jay, I tried but can you link? for some reason I get blocked.
Asybot, you’ll find SO on youtube, if you can’t access their site. Also on facebook.
Hey, article generating dude ; ) I’m wondering about coordinated postcasts . . ?
Maybe telecasts being more layman oriented presentations of what some high quality posts are also presenting … a symbiotic relationship that fosters interest in the already solid base, which “civilians” would then have a better chance of understanding and enjoying.
(postcast ~ not bad, eh? ; )
To be clear, I am speaking of audio/video presentations that could literally be generated in conjunction with posts already on WUWT now . . if one wished to.
A postcast might be a daily affair, with a relatively brief treatment of the day’s posts, tailored to provide the layperson with a general idea of what each post is presenting/discussing . . Or be something more in depth, and generated literally in tandem with a given WUWT post . . By the author, or Anthony et al in the case of articles basically being critiqued here. Etc.
Interesting idea, but very hard to pull off. Podcast might work, as getting distribution/advertisers has been the great difficulty of most talk radio.
Podcast, maybe with sponsors.
Not Big Oil.
Definitely big oil.sponsors.. lol why you concede that battle (and the actual war) is ridiculous
That was my thought – live show, perhaps with call-ins, then Podcast.
;The great thing about a Podcast is you can listen too it at your convenience.
IMO, definitely the way to go in this century.
Radio personalities with niche audiences such as Schiff (financial commentator) have increasingly switched to podcasting.
IMO this is a natural for our esteemed host.
Agree. Definitely Big Oil. We shouldn’t be afraid to take the support of fossil-fuel producers as their products are the reason our modern lives are so comfortable. If the by-product of their use results in a tiny amount of warming then good – cold is the true killer.
If we are anti useless “renewables” and money grabbing Big Green, what are we supposed to promote? Big Cow-Dung?
I think Wesson Oil, Crisco and some imported olive oil brands would be excellent sponsors.
Hi, Anthony,
1. If this is something that you are doing because it will give you joy, do it. If you are doing it out of a sense of duty or “this needs to be done,” do not do it. Life’s short. Unless something is a genuine duty, DO NOT DO IT unless it is pure joy.
**************************************
2. Given that the radio show is a joyful thing for you:
a. Basic format:
1) 1/3 humor (whatever you like — science/climate or anything funny — songs, jokes, audio-clips from classic advertisements or shows, etc.)
2) 1/3 whatever Anthony feels like talking about — “gee whiz” (smile) stuff; politics; religion; science; ANYTHING.
3) 1/3 science truth to combat science l1es.
b. Regular, but not weekly:
1) Interviews (not rambling ad hoc; give guest questions to answer with brevity in advance) with people like Monckton, Soon, Salby, Drapela (the OSU chemistry professor fired for not bowing to consensus), Pielke, John Coleman, well, you know who you might ask. UNLESS THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL, only articulate speakers! Their language ability is not the issue, but their “on stage” presence, if you get what I mean.
2) Basic science — about butterflies or about pH chemistry or geology, basic logical principles from engineering (incl. software), and the like. You have the faculty of a high school, a university, 100 times over in the commenters on WUWT. Ask for volunteer teachers.
3) Classics: e.g., Feynman lecture about what science is (1950’s), excerpts from Michael Crighton, Albert Einstein, etc..
********************************
3. Re: Call-in questions: SCREEN so only genuine questions. NO TROLLS. I cannot STAND radio shows where they are angrily arguing, talking over the top of each other, twisting words, mischaracterizing. Leave that kind of thing for other shows. Let this be, above all, a great place to learn.
Certainly, some trolls, subtle snakes that they can be, will slip by with an apparently genuine question. So be it. Answer it and cut them off. NO NEED TO GIVE ANYONE “EQUAL TIME” — this is not a public broadcasting service, this is YOUR private show — don’t cater to the yuckos at all.
Tip for discerning troll Q from genuine Q (using 2 hypothetical Q’s):
a. Mr. or Ms. Genuine: Hi! I sure don’t get why we don’t just use windmills, just in case. I mean, sure, there’s no proof of human CO2 doing anything, I get that, but…. well, you know, ounce of prevention and that sort of thing?
b. TROLL: Okay, Mister Watts. Why shouldn’t climate den1al be a crime? It is KILLING the planet.
************************************
4. Have an assistant (caller screener, etc.) — Don’t try to do it alone.
******************************************************
5. Schedule it at more than one time or, if at only one time, at a time when U.K. people are likely awake (as well as those in U.S. and Canada and Latin America). They add a lot! Others around the world, like tokyoboy in Japan or those in other parts of Asia also add a lot, but, are far fewer in number.
***************************************************
6. This repeats a bit of what I said above, but, this is important if your show is to be really appealingly “fresh” and “real.” DO NOT WORRY ABOUT GIVING EQUAL TIME TO ANYONE. Have fun with this (and if you do, it will show and THAT will sell your program)! If someone is being a jerk, say so and hang up on them. Take a page from Mark Levin (Mark Levin Show). He is a bit TOO harsh, imo, but, if that’s you, so be it. BE YOU. 100%.
BE YOU.
(and, with SOME people/topics, not the super-polite you that you are usually, okay? — some people’s nonsense does not deserve a response and some people should be handled bluntly)
**********************************************
7. Thanks for asking!
Janice
#(:))
P.S. Just read other comments. Re: youtube — it is a great venue, however: CAVEAT: Youtube probably takes ownership rights in whatever you publish there. This would impact licensing and other rights in your creation. Check into that before publishing video/audio there. This issue may not concern you (and their policy may not be a problem for anyone), but, just in case, I mention it.
Janice,
Excellent points! Are you familiar with Car Talk (Click and Clack)?
These people were MIT grads, yet built up an empire over 30+ years on NPR.
A combination of humor, self deprecation and just plain technical brilliance.
They did more than entertain, they taught critical thinking.
I second Janice’s advice and add to not jump in with both feet. Radio advertising is very difficult, much more so than the web. Air time is expensive and its a good way to go broke. Before contracting air time, have your revenues in the bag. OTOH, podcasting is relatively a lot cheaper (depending a lot on which service you choose) and since climate is a bit of a niche topic you might be more successful at that. Interviews with known persons, whether experts in climate or not, is the best way to attract attention and interviews with interesting people is the best way to get people to tune back in. But as Janice points out keeping it light and humorous and fun is key. I don’t think you want the formula you have on WUWT with a lot of technical stuff, primarily because you do need pictures to have any chance of conveying that kind of information.
Good advice all. However, before all else, define the target audience. If the target audience is the same as here, do not do it. This is as good as it gets, for this audience.
I spend a lot more time on wuwt than any other form of entertsinment as I can multi task . I m sorry but don t see how you could do radio and keep wuwt at the quality and quantity it is now. Sorry but that’s mho. Of course I ve been wrong before(many times)
John I agree with you , I am a slow learner and book mark many topics on WUWT so I can re -read them and learn more. I personally feel that is the strength of Anthony’s site . I think putting it on “live” on You tube/Skype/Sirius, or others would take away the communication channel. Right now I can scroll up and down the comments and or saved subjects, think about them and add my thoughts. On a “live” discussion broadcast that would be impossible because frankly I am not quick enough on my toes.
I admit that at times I re-read my comments and afterwards I go hide because they are at times very stupid but heck I still learn from them and the answers I get from all of you guys always help and that I think would not happen on live radio.
Anthony, this is a difficult question and you have a difficult problem ,I hope I gave an honest answer.
Just looking from the “what could go wrong” point of view. I would fear that you may get overwhelmed by agenda driven people who could pollute the show with bad information. You would need to be sure you had a way to counter that. Because we live in a society where too many people do not think for themselves and are willing to believe anything that supports their point of view, misinformation could be too easily spread this way by unqualified people, even if you try to explain that. I know that way too many people do not listen and hear things incorrectly. Once they believe what they think they heard, it is very difficult to convince them they heard wrong.
I’d certainly pay attention if you did this. Make sure you enjoy doing it, and be aware that the prep and editing time will be significant. Maybe start out with some short 5 or 10 minute ad-hoc topic videos or audios to see how you like it.
I like the humor suggestion above. I’d love to see a “Jay Walking” style segment occasionally to see what every day people believe about climate change that’s wrong. As a polemic, a little gentle ridicule of common misconceptions is a quick way to reach teens, showing them that they don’t know as much as they think, and that ignorance and exaggeration are uncool, to slowly persuade them that they may have been indoctrinated by a false narrative.
Crisp editing of reader/listener/viewer questions and comments is critical. I hate listening to phone-in talk radio just to hear minutes of recapitulation of a Jon Stewart or a Shawn Hannity opinion by someone who believes it sincerely but may have no reason for why they do.
Sean Hannity, not Shawn…. I knew that.
I’m thinking one useful angle would be to zoom back on the past in the sense that ‘ten years ago this week on WUWT the big hits were on XXX topic….’ So what has happened since?
Go for it. Any format you choose, I would tune in to. I love WUWT!
Idea good in general if there is a wide audience – you already get the converted in this blog. You have to decide priorities in your new life. Did your video efforts work out?
I would love it but worry whether or not you can keep up both the website and prep for the show. Don’t spread yourself too thin.
If your gut feeling tells you to do it – then do it. Life is about taking chances. Mr Watts is not one for sitting back and watching life pass him by. If you don’t do it you will regret it.
YouTube can be used as an audio medium. I would listen. Then, if and when a video came about, it could be added to the channel.
Andy: Consider starting just with podcasts. You control the length. You control how often. You control how much work it takes. If that is a success, consider a regularly scheduled broadcast.
I think you could attract a big audience by interviewing prominent climate scientists (probably mostly skeptical ones) and let readers submit questions. You and the interviewee could screen questions ahead of time.
No chance a warmist would let themselves be interviewed , too much to hide .