Open Thread Saturday

open_thread

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.

Advertisements

201 thoughts on “Open Thread Saturday

    • 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

    • 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

      • 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@
        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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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.

    • 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.

  11. Interesting idea, but very hard to pull off. Podcast might work, as getting distribution/advertisers has been the great difficulty of most talk radio.

    • 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. The idea is great.
    My contribution is that the shows be planned far in advance. The reason is that climate issues are not urgent in the sense that preparing a month or two in advance gives people time to prepare material.
    If you keyed up topics x-weeks in advance and let us know, we could provide material and perspectives that can be tapped for the ‘main features’.
    Topical portions would reflect on topical events like something from the day before.
    In short, the radio show could tap the resource of this group of readers and blog contributors, which means using more than the name. If the structure was right, you have the a unique way to take a blog to radio instead of the traditional radio to blog.
    Some TV shows are little more than a surf round the internet. That is the future. So the radio show would be a surf through the world’s of climate, scientific curiosities and ethics.

  22. A you tube video or blog would be the way to go , that way us Aussies can get a look in .

  23. Radio, with podcasts available via the internet, is a heck of an idea. Have some conversations with other practitioners such as Lars Larson, Adam Corolla, etc regarding production issues and questions, regular call-in, write-in and audio streaming of the content – on WUWT of course! Go for it if it is your passion.

  24. As others pointed out already, having an Youtube channel would probably be the best path, for all those reasons.

  25. Anthony ==> I have worked in radio at university, and personally demonstrated the first use of streaming internet video to Lou Gerstner (CEO IBM at the time) — my opinion would be that Monckton of Brenchley and Janice Moore are pretty much on target. It takes little more (if any) effort to produce and edit modern digital video vs. audio – in some ways, video with sound is easier, voice-overs are easily added with today’s free tools, graphics can be spliced in etc.
    YouTube or similar service as hosting, with income potential, but no investment.
    Shorter programs, a little longer than some of the public radio “spot” shows, like StarDate, five/ten minutes or so to start, often but don’t force yourself to a schedule (a major rule for sailors).
    Podcast-ish ==> advanced notice of time and date emailed to subscribers, notice placed on WUWT, show the show, with a “live’ segment (being recorded) that includes you or guest answering a few emailed or texted messages (with you or an editor screening). The whole recorded show gets put up as a YouTube.
    With careful scripting, the podcasts can be edited into radio segments (by making sure that any images and graphics are described as they are shown) for future use, if you can find an outlet.
    You already have the TV experience, may as well put it to use. A corner of a spare bedroom can become a pretty realistic TV sound stage, and you have the expertise to produce TV graphics.
    Viewers have the option to be listeners only by walking away from the screen — or listening in the background–which I do for almost all internet lectures — I multi-task on something else while listening to another browser window play a video of a lecture — talking heads are not that interesting — I pause and go back a few seconds to catch an interesting sounding image or graph which has not been described adequately.
    Some of the material could come from topics raised by guest bloggers at WUWT — where an issue might be further explored or explained in response to the comments section for the essay in question.

    • Who doesn’t tune in to Joe Bastardi’s Saturday summary or “Cup of weatherJoe”? Even mooching lurkers like me get the lowdown on climate vs. weather from there.

  26. Wonderful idea, it would be nice to discuss this topic and the articles you post. With the election coming up, and Trump out in the lead, I would imagine advertisers would be plentiful as well. America needs to hear the other side, and there are no outlets to do that.

  27. Take extreme weather events:
    — high light the current ground realities — with examples from different parts of the globe
    — high lighthistorical ground realities — with examples from different parts of the globe
    add local folklore to get interested
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  28. Radio is dead, except when you are driving o or working. Don’t expect an attentive audience. Mariachi music will win.

  29. To our learned host,
    I missed the thread last week regarding your recent personal troubles. Many of us can understand your pain and suffering. I do wish you all the best in future and smoother sailing through those rough waters.
    Best to you,
    Alan

  30. I would tune in–I’d like to see you interview laypeople also–Man in the street sort of thing–what do you think of climate change and what has been your experiences–of course that would be more time consuming because you couldn’t use a lot–but you know the late nite kind of thing–you ask questions and they don’t know what you are talking about,
    Question: “What is the lowest temperature ever recorded on planet earth?”
    Answer: “500 degrees below zero? I dunno.”
    Question: “What is climate denial?”
    Answer: “A river in Egypt?”
    Question: “How is breathing a part of the carbon cycle?”
    Answer: “The more you cycle the more you breathe, I guess.”
    I would really really like a humor section to your new show that you are not sure you are going to do. WE have to learn to laugh at ourselves.
    Go for it. You need something to focus on anyway and this is a good one.

  31. I like Janice’s idea for humor, but I would suggest that the humor consist of brief spots with guests reading failed projections or now discredited proclamations from the past. Use these as bumpers between your actual material as a contrast with the real science and to keep things light. Perhaps a guest you will interview may provide his favorite histrionic quote before his interview segment begins.
    Weekly put your audio on YouTube with slides of complimentary material such as charts, photos, and URLs. Fans can crank them up and primarily listen but have the other material available when their interest is piqued. I suspect you could enlist help with the video material once you have structured the audio. Much easier than live video but it fills in the knowledge gaps.
    Just some thoughts. Your readers have provided many good ones.

  32. How many views do you get a week on WUWT? How much is that worth if you get that many followers on Youtube? I’m thinking quite a lot. 🙂
    A friend of mine started a cooking channel on Youtube about a year ago and now has 5,000 followers and he’s making several hundred dollars a month just on that. I bet Anthony would get a lot more followers than that.

  33. We are amazed st your energy levels so congratulations
    In structuring the program some suggestions
    1 a topic of the week- featuring a topic integral
    To the Climate change meme
    Eg GHGases effects and relative size
    The theory of enhanced global warming and its deficienies
    Water vapour role effect actual s theory
    Role of clouds
    Second theme
    Forecasts /predictions vs actual
    Third
    Debunk one media group
    Eg ABC radionational Science Show(Australis)
    Imvite your listeners to submit egregious examples
    Sceptic of the month award
    Hope these ideas work or at least start newonex

  34. I think your idea is a wonderful idea. I read Janice Moore’s comments and thought them to be good. I noticed that she mentioned Mark Levin. He is the chief editor of a relatively new website called Conservative Review. The format would be good for you. There are various commentators who contribute regularly with written articles (I am not necessarily recommending that) but there are embedded radio type comments and videos/podcasts by these authors on a regular or semi regular basis. Conservative Review has a growing audience, unlike many websites like this. It is oriented towards politics, but they could sure use a good science program like your are proposing. National Review is a news website that is oriented towards politics, but they also have science commentators periodically. I thought this might also be a good way to control your costs.

    • I think it’s best to avoid being branded politically. From our perspective, it’s science. Also, this is international, as cheap energy is at the core of Western civilization. The Chinese will never do more than pay lip service to CO2 reduction.

  35. Sometimes with call-in show, it’s the same group of “regular” callers with a smattering of occasional and/or new callers. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with that, but after a time there might be a lack of variety of opinion.
    Still, I’d listen. 🙂

  36. I listen to Mark Levin radio almost every day (a conservative talk show). You might check out his website http://www.marklevinshow.com/ He has “auto rewind” which is an archive of podcasts. He also started a TV show – 1 hour (daily) without commercials, but you have to subscribe for that – $69.00 USD/year. I listen via my laptop or I phone to the radio program for free.
    I would definitely tune in, if you started whatever the format. Good luck with whatever you decide…JPP.

  37. With podcast, you could also have guests pro and con. Stir things up. Something for everyone. Get Warmunistas on board and hold their feet to the fire, so to speak.

  38. The important thing about this web site is that it has easy international access and a radio show would tend to be limited to the USA. YouTube would also provide an international audience and also the opportunity for graphics.
    A radio show would need to complement this website and there is a real danger that it would dilute resources available for this website.
    I hope that one day you are suitably recognised for the contribution you have made to the world!!

  39. I was a skeptic for years before I ever saw a sea level graph. Nobody I have asked has been able to tell me how fast sea level is rising. Those willing to guess usually say an inch per year. Some don’t believe me when I tell them it’s more like an inch per decade. The man on the street and in the White House concludes from all the unquantified propaganda a rate that surpasses IPCC worst case scenarios.
    You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that worst case scenarios are hypothetical, not based on observation. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that Boston was built up from a bay using pre-industrial technology, or that coral grows faster than SLR, and that archeological tells rose faster, by accident, from refuse and building debris.
    Good rhetoric cannot be gainsaid. Keep it simple and irrefutable. –AGF

    • Like all this stuff it is complicated, and sea levels rise and fall all over the earth’s surface, and this is contrary to global-warming & ice-melting assumptions about uniform rising sea levels. Interestingly, the natural La Niña mechanism in 2011 brought unprecedented lowering in global sea levels, especially in the Pacific, due to its proximity to Australia. This was due to an exceptionally strong La Niña, which caused very heavy rain in Australia. The hydrologic surface of inland Central Australia, then stored huge quantities of water, resulting in lower sea levels throughout the region. These La Niña precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record & indicate there is much more to understand before catastrophic predictions about rising sea levels are made (Fasullo et al 2013).
      Fasullo, John T., Carmen Boening, Felix W. Landerer, and R. Steven Nerem (2013) Australia’s unique influence on global sea level in 2010–2011. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 4368–4373, doi:10.1002/grl.50834, 2013

      • The video you post after this is very good, the only problem being that it ends by hinting at an obvious conspiracy. This is too much too soon, no matter how obvious.
        You: “The hydrologic surface of inland Central Australia, then stored huge quantities of water, resulting in lower sea levels throughout the region.”
        Your reference hardly supports such an impossible claim. Not too long ago Boulder published measured global sea level, but this was modified a few years back to publishing average ocean depth, taking sea bottom subsidence into account. Whether or not the satellite measurements are properly processed, it is presumed that they are as capable of taking global as regional averages. The only direct, causal effect that stored Australian rainfall can have on regional sea level is gravitational and insignificant. The concept of global sea level rise is not complicated. It only needs public quantifying. –AGF

  40. Whatever the format, lead in every seg ment with a standing invitation to a fair debate with any alarmist.

  41. Issue is whether an additional venue would be incrementally more effective versus all the MSM alternatives. Can be argued both ways. But not in a Facebook/Twitter vacuum. Dunno.

  42. How about : “WUWT – The Week in Review”.
    A weekly podcast reviewing the articles and subsequent posts on WUWT. You could do a short review of the articles posted that week and reference any interesting discussion/comments from posters on that article, kind of like a newscast. As we readers well know, there are many finer points brought up by those with experience in different areas which you could point out always referring listeners back to the written discussion on the blog. It would be a lot less work as the content of the podcast is already done. And, for those who could not read the blog that week for whatever reason, it be nice to know if there were any posts of interest for that person.

  43. So any thoughts about the cruise ship planned passage through the northwest passage in August. If they run into an issue Canada is light on recourses in that area for aid.

  44. The Atlantic hurricane season has been incredibly quiet (so far), with total Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE) of 6 with the season average being 110. For details please see — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/yes-its-hot-but/
    However, ACE really isn’t a terribly good measure of hurricane power, as it totally ignores the physical extent of the hurricane. I don’t know enough about what radar is capable of, so I ask is it possible to measure windspeed at the surface from a satellite in defined areas (say a square 10 kiloMeters on a side). Then a simple ‘integration’ could be done (a la Riemann). What does the readership say?

  45. Anthony
    These are general observations – don’t get too sensitive out there
    This is a great idea, but what is it going to be?
    Another site or location that simply knocks CAGW or AGW theories, there is enough of them already. They criticize but don’t offer anything concrete in return, and leave the viewer perplexed or non the wiser.
    You must also remember that skeptics are mostly in a rut of knowledge just as much as the pro AGW crowd, because there is so little real knowledge out there. Where is the library of real facts that can be referenced readily – what is real. They need to be in one place.
    There is a serious need unpick the current belief structure for reality to emerge, let me give a few examples.
    The carbon cycle. The IPCC’s simplistic drawing and theory is just accepted by both sides, however this is a key foundation document. There are thirty sequential NASA OCO-2 images released on the 14th April that seriously challenge the IPCC theory, but no-one wants to acknowledge that they are there, let alone comment on them. Such is the poor understanding of the CO2 cycle. Where is the evidence to support the current IPCC carbon cycle theory. It is a theory. There is the content for first few shows, and don’t just skip through it. These are the most important images at this time in the debate. Is this not what the debate centers around ?? or have I got it wrong?
    The keeling curves. There is no scientific explanation why the mid to high NH latitude keeling curves stop increasing and almost go flat during the NH winter when accumulations are are the highest..They do not show accumulation, so where is the CO2 bearing atmosphere going to?. If the IPCC cannot explain it in conjunction with the OCO-2 images then what are they basing their models on?
    The debate needs to be widened in a calm and controlled manner, and starting at the very bottom is always a the best place. Build a new foundation, or seriously call the current foundation to question. We just cant continue waiting for next months temperature charts.
    Regards

  46. A good topic for the blog or any forum Anthony chooses to use would be:
    What has happened to all the requests for the official keepers of the land based climate data to reveal the WHAT and WHY of their adjustments?
    The satellite data spells it out clearly. Why should we believe 4 warmest records, none of whom will tell us what they’ve done.

    • Don’t bet on Trump being able to do much. The USA president has little power unless she has a Westminster Parliamentary majority. The best recent example of this was George W who came on with both a majority in Congress and a plan and therefore accomplished quite a bit. (Unfortunately, that includes destroying the Middle East -and the world- by starting Gulf War II. His dad, with CIA experience, refused to go there in 1989-93.)
      However, it should be noted that George W, the oil baron did more for Renewable Energy than all previous USA presidents together by passing a 30% tax credit to install Renewable Energy. This was at first matched by NJ and CA, and now by most USA states. This is one reason the USA is leading in the use of Solar & Wind, to the point where Coal companies are going bankrupt. They’ve done so well that RE capex is often cheaper than other methods of generation, and the USA could be saving their treasury by weaning their country off the tax credit by 25% /year until it’s gone.
      The best thing to come from CAGW alarmism will be much cleaner air, water and soil. (I’ll never know if my mum’s death from Alzheimer’s was caused by the mercury in the smoke from Nanticoke Coal-fired electricity, but it’s closing was predicted to save C$3B /year to the public Ontario Medicare system.)
      If we’re lucky, RE will also put an end to the perils of Nuclear energy which is unaffordable, uninsurable, and undisposable.

      • “This is one reason the USA is leading in the use of Solar & Wind, to the point where Coal companies are going bankrupt”
        No, the reason is: fracking.
        “If we’re lucky, RE will also put an end to the perils of Nuclear energy which is unaffordable, uninsurable, and undisposable.”
        It is not only “affordable”, but also very cheap once you remove all the silly “regulations”. It is insured. And there is no “disposal” issue.
        The problems are self-inflicted, not technological limitations.

        • “It is not only “affordable”, but also very cheap once you remove all the silly “regulations”. It is insured. And there is no “disposal” issue.”
          Un-Affordable:
          Every refurbishment is over-budget in Ontario, where these costs are hidden in ‘Global Adjustment’ under the cost of Wind & Solar, rather than in the cost of having Nuclear electricity. Thus we have a false picture of the true cost of Nuclear electricity. New systems in Finland & England are over-budget.
          Un-Insurable:
          PM Harper forced the Canadian Nuclear industry to raise liability insurance limits from C$100M (1965) to C$500M (2013). For perspective, this is the expected settlement of the Lac Mégantic oil train crash which killed 147 and destroyed the town’s downtown. How much would it cost to evacuate Southern Ontario, and neighbouring Québec & Western New York if an unanticipated Fukushima-style event happened to Pickering or Darlington? (Can you imagine their 1965 builders planning for a tsunami on the Great Lakes? Today, we can all imagine how that might happen.)
          Who paid the Fukushima evacuees for their losses of homes, businesses and jobs?
          150,837 = the number of people displaced by Fukushima.
          How much did it cost?
          Un-Disposable:
          55 years ago we were taught about Nuclear power in science class, and how safe our CANDU heavy water system is (it is likely the safest of all Nuclear systems). “The only problem,” said our teacher, is that they still don’t know how & where to store or dispose of the radioactive spent fuel for 300,000 years, and the radioactive concrete and steel buildings for 10,000. But don’t worry, the engineers will solve that in the next decade.” LOL! Ha!
          Here’s what tiny Finland is doing:
          http://www.IntoEternityTheMovie.com/150837/
          What’s being done in USA? UK? France? Germany? South Korea? Russia? China? Japan? Romania? Argentina? Sweden? Who else makes electricity from Nuclear? Is Finland the only country actively building a place to store a mere 50-60 years of production, before the generators are retired and new ones are built?
          Green energy may have occurred for the wrong AGW reasons, but it may yet save our grandchildren.

          • “New systems in Finland & England are over-budget.”
            New systems in England are over-budget? Which new systems?
            “this is the expected settlement of the Lac Mégantic oil train crash which killed 147 and destroyed the town’s downtown”
            How would a nuclear accident possibly kill 147 persons and/or destroy the town’s downtown?
            “unanticipated Fukushima-style event happened to Pickering or Darlington?”
            Why would anyone want to evacuate in Fukushima unless coerced by crazy antinuc?
            “150,837 = the number of people displaced by Fukushima”
            Please explain why then moved.
            “What’s being done in USA? UK? France?”
            In France we have an underground site being tested for long term storage. We may never use it.
            Do you realize all your inane “arguments” have been debunked like a thousands times?

  47. Thoughts on radio program:
    1) A radio format may make it easier to monetize the effort required to support WUWT. This is important as the growth of WUWT undoubtedly requires significant and increased time and resource from Anthony.
    2) RADIO PROGRAMS & BLOGS ARE 2 VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS – personally, I would not relate as well to a radio program as I do the blog format. While I easily enjoy the good humor, the analytical components of the blog requires me to think about and re-read the material.
    3) Interactive media (radio, TV, YouTube, podcast, etc) become personality, not topic/fact driven (did you ever really see a good guest host for Johnny Carson?). A few months of talk about George Mason college professors wanting to throw us in prison will get old pretty quickly, not to mention comments about statistical error bars.
    3 a) A potentially interesting format might be to expand upon the 1-2 “most interesting” threads of the past week (most of Tisdale’s stuff lends itself to this treatment)
    4) Other than on Earth Day, an incredible percent of the population (90-95%+?) has neither the skill set or interest to engage with this critical topic.
    5) I certainly don’t mean to imply I can read Anthony’s mind, but if I were in his shoes, this would be a very sensitive open discussion & decision. We almost have a YAHOO situation here – lots of people use WUWT but nobody pays for it.
    6) I am supportive of a WUWT subscription-based product (Example: read for free; $10-20/mo to comment?) if it is significant enough to appropriately reward Anthony’s efforts. This audience has previously rejected this, but we need to be realistic about the amount of effort WUWT’s continued success requires of a single individual.
    I realize I have viewed this discussion from the single dimension of finance; hopefully others have will share wisdom on increasing the audience for a critical topic.

    • Anthony – HELP!
      I’m trying to eat my own dog food and set up a recurring monthly donation on the PayPal page.
      It looks like the page is set up for one-and-done contributions, or am I missing something?

  48. Just make sure you get it on one of those “super radio” stations and become the Wolf Man Jack of Science for the South Western United States. I remember driving under the night sky along route 66 to that show.

  49. Hmm there are many examples of taking the next step and losing it all..be careful, be sure you got it right. The Watts Up With That name is fantastic and suggests a show that is out there digging behind the scene, I think a show that looks behind the scenes at all things scientific would be better than limiting the scope to climate topics. I think it would be vital to attempt to provide the best participants for pro and con on any issue dealt with, if it is successful WUWT could become a fantastic platform for debating all manner of current science related issues in a manner that respects the highest standards of integrity, if this is done right I have no doubt that it could become a major success, the need is there hope you can fill it.

  50. There may be a few Talk Radio host that would be happy to advise you for free. Maybe they’d even give you some air-time on their show.

  51. Radio Station 2GB in Australia is prepared to interview ‘skeptics’, in a snappy maximum 30 minute format on prime time AM radio.
    This is known as ‘Steam Radio’ yet captures drivers stuck in traffic jams.
    The working, commuting population.
    The thing to do is not to try and convert the USA.
    Look for people in the English speaking world, as well as the USA, on any radio station and talk with them.
    Put it as a pod on youtube with illustrative pictures.
    I was in a minority of one yesterday with the relatives.
    Topics I covered were,
    97% scientist believe in AGW so if you don’t you cannot be right.
    The nature of the scientific method. Hypothesis, predictions which are not changed after they are made, the results, do they confirm predictions?
    I was once swayed by the Hypothesis of AGW, which is just an educated guess.
    As the data unfolded the IPCC predictions are way too high and can’t be believed.
    Science is not faith based, as the data comes in and theories don’t stack up then I don’t believe them.
    In this case I don’t believe the IPCC.
    Question’ Do you believe the climate is warming?
    Yes, but not catastrophically, it could be good.
    I asked, what is the Earths major greenhouse Gas.
    Answer; CO2.
    Then what is causing warming?
    I don’t know, but the CO2 hypothesis relies on water vapour , the real green house gas, increasing, which is not happening.Our increasing CO2 output is suppose to increase evaporation of the oceans and atmospheric water vapour.
    The theory says there is a hot spot in the equatorial region high up.
    Its not there.
    There are dozens of reasons to explain the failure of the IPCC models,but they need to be tested.
    Subsequently talked about the Carboniferous, the high CO2 then without run away heating, Mars does not cook despite CO2, all the planets are warming anyway.
    Plants evolved in a carbon rich atmosphere during the Carboniferous and are now deprived of CO2, so increasing CO2 helps them grow.The Biosphere has expanded 10%.
    The Gaia theory where the planet would be better off without us is essentially hopelessness and
    would need wiping out large parts of humanity.
    We can manage things without fear.
    I am writing this because these were the questions put by those being taught in the current secondary UK curricula.
    Fertile ground I would think.
    So these are the best topics to first cover.

  52. Hello my friend Anthony,
    Good luck with your “radio” endeavor, whatever form it takes, if you decide to proceed. I am hesitant to overdo my contribution to your thinking at this point. But, after several years of doing radio talk shows (Yes, I did radio as well as television.) I can’t resist a sharing a few of my thoughts.
    First, you do not have to commit yourself to daily or weekly programs for a year or more. You can simply do programs for a week, a month or three months and then access the viability (in terms of income, reach, personal satisfaction, contribution to the cause) of the effort a decide to pull the plug or “turn it up” to a full time channel with a full team trying to turn the world upside down.
    Second, every hour “on the air” requires a minimum of one hour in preparation. You either do it yourself or build a team to do it for you.
    Most listening today is in the car. Wi-fi automobiles are beginning to come on-line. Most new cars at least have blue tooth connectivity so a program acquired on the phone can be heard via the “radio” speakers. You need to have the “broadcasts” available via ITunes, or Pandora or I Heart or Slacker, etc.
    Yes there is lots of video viewing now on phones and pads and PC’s and You Tube is there for distribution, but significant financial viability is probably out of reach.
    You are a driven, talented person and highly knowledgeable. Your amazing website will provide a the launch point and create a huge sampling. Turning this into a regular saleable tune-in will be one the biggest challenges of your life.
    You know I will give you my support in any way you desire and I can manage. I am sure the line up of friends to climb aboard will be long and strong.
    Good luck.
    Regards

  53. One more thought…How about lifting the audio from You Tube videos. They very often make excellent listening and video is un important. Who needs to see Michael Crichton to appreciate what he has to say. Listen to this while looking at other stuff. It works

  54. Anthony,
    Do whatever makes you the most satisfied considering whatever has the greatest impact to save us from the alarmists.
    Several additional considerations:
    1) Will it water down the impact of WUWT blog or are we talking about an addition?
    2) For me I use the data and the plots to learn and send snips to others which is difficult on radio, OK for U tube.
    3) Many of my contacts tend not to click on links, so I focus on charts plots and data to send them. How would this work with Radio or U tube.
    4) U-Tube would be great if TV stations show snippets during NEWS or other programs.
    5) Blog comes across well in Facebook if skeptic message appears on headlines, most will not click on page for more information.
    All the best!

  55. Does anyone know when all the global ice tracking satellite data will be fixed??
    The pro-AGW “scientists” seem to have spliced JAXA data for some datasets, but, of course, JAXA data skews the data to make things worse than they are…
    I’m confident when the powers that be “fix” global ice, they’ll use “new and improved” algorithms to make the data fit the CAGW gloom and doom narrative as much as possible…

  56. Radio shows available as podcasts would be be great. While traveling I listened to audio books that I never felt I had time to otherwisee read. Similarly podcasts would be very attractive to people as a source of information while driving or engaging in other activities.

  57. Would the radio show impact the updating of the Watts et al 2012 paper? If so, I’d say the paper has a higher priority.

  58. I agree with Janice. If you start something and enjoy doing it – very well continue, but if it becomes a burden or interferes with this website (WUWT), I would have 2nd thoughts. Continue doing what you think is best. You have done so well so far, and I have every confidence that you will continue along those lines. What ever you decide “we” support you…

  59. I would say that podcasts are the way to go. Just make sure that your guests are interesting. Alex Epstein’s Power Hour is very good, and EconTalk has had some brilliant people on: Judith Curry, Matt Ridley (fantastic).
    A debate between the world’s leading alarmists and sceptics would be great fun, but I doubt the former would turn up. However, it would be good to have a platform where week in and week out you could say “We invited X on to the show, but he/she declined”.

  60. I think it would be great whatever medium you decide to do it in – lots of subjects surrounding climate change science – best of success whatever you decide. 😀

  61. If you do a radio show, I hope it would be in addition to, not instead of, WUWT as it now exists. The blog is up 24/7, and I can access it whenever I wish; a new radio program would require (for me, at least) tuning in when it is on, if a station hereabouts carries it. I’m sure I would enjoy whatever show you end up with, but I depend on your current format. Keep it coming, please!

  62. Open question: Does CO2 “still” tend to follow T in paleoclimate?
    and is this in itself a firm basis on which to “reject” climate hype?

    Back in the dim past of May 2014 for the folks at Slashdot I laid down this layman’s view of my position on what I call CO2drivesT which I invite everyone to read, especially Mr. Eschenbach who is mentioned. My feeling then (as now) is that the lag is extremely important. Unless CO2 consistently leads T there would be an extraordinary burden of proof required to assert CO2drivesT, and it has not been met.
    Since the I saw the subject there was this December post The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4 [Euan Mearns] which attacks the subject a greater depth and posits a CO2lagsT of ~8000 years (what’s with the mix of ~800 and ~8000 year lag figures I see on the net? I know the data resolution is not great but it’s interesting that the figures both begin with ‘8’)… and Mearns understates what I state loudly, very well but his final conclusion is no understatement,
    [in Conclusions] “I am not the first to observe that CO2 lags temperature in Vostok [2] and indeed Petit et al [1] make the observation that at the onset of glaciation CO2 lags temperature by several thousand years. But they fail to discuss this and the fairly profound implications it has.
    […] The only conclusion possible from Vostok is that variations in CO2 and CH4 are both caused by global temperature change and freeze thaw cycles at high latitudes. These natural geochemical cycles makes it inevitable that CO2 and CH4 will correlate with temperature. It is therefore totally invalid to use this relationship as evidence for CO2 forcing of climate, especially since during the onset of glaciations, there is no correlation at all.”

    So is this the elephant in the room? Just what direct evidence is there for extreme forced feedback, and in order to “prove” it must we attack the veracity and alignment of Vostok data?

  63. Hi Anthony, sorry to be the guy with the cold water bucket, but here goes: Dont even think about a radio channel for a second, period. I´m sure you know the old saying “A picture says more than a thousand words”, well that´s even more true in this area. You could use a million words to try to get the message of this picture from Tony Heller (I don´t agree with the guys foul language, but it´s the facts and figures that count not the language).( http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NASA-US-1999-2016.gif ) across to average Joe and you would still fail, but he (she) will get the message instantly if you show the graph on video. The climate business is a graphical world, you have to be able to show graphs and slides to be able to convey your message to the average public, therefore Anthony, find a streamlined way to use video instead, otherwise forget about it and continue with your excellent blog. As mentioned above, a youtube channel would probably be a good idea. All the best.

  64. Does anyone have any idea if the IPCC is gearing up for AR6? Reports are supposed to come up every 5-6 years and it’s been a good 3 years since the preliminary reports of AR5 have come out.

    • Hey, the IPCC is a “child” of the UNEP and WMO. Gaia forbid that any such child be orphaned (or – heaven forfend – “retired” to well-deserved obscurity). The post-Pachauri and post-Steiner IPCC regime appears to have taken a somewhat lower profile; however, it looks as though plans are well afoot to churn out yet another series of “gold standard” Reports.
      See: http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/pdf/ar6_WSPSchedule_07072016.pdf
      And while I’m here … Somewhat belatedly, may I add my voice to those who admire Anthony’s decision to bravely share with us his journey through days of darkness to the light at the end of his personal tunnel. May you continue to grow from strength to strength, whichever paths you may choose.

  65. Love the idea. I listen to podcasts on a sport I used to be involved in. Interesting to hear the views of guest experts and the conversational format often brings out things the set piece written word articles dont.

  66. Harald Lesch talks 15 min. I must confess that is enough concencentration with nothing for the eyes. The big revenue is the inner cinema.
    45 min. discussion of hearers contribution should be walking in the park.

  67. Don’t.
    It’s an entirely different field that require an entirely different type of expertise.
    WUWT is a peak object in its sphere.
    Be like John Cleese with Fawlty Towers…

  68. I would like to make a suggestion… I quit smoking and now use an ecig… I digress.. there are a lot of weekly shows dedicated to this along the lines you suggest… I suggest you look them up for format ideas. Try inside vaping, plumes of hazard, and pbursardo. I am suggesting show format ideas not pushing vaping btw.

  69. Best of luck with this, Anthony.
    Depending on the clarity of the speaker, I tend (personally) to avoid listening to speech on the web or radio due to an age-related loss of hearing. For my nightly dose of TV news, my wife and I have a permanently plugged-in pair of dual headphones – so I can have mine loud! Music, which I love and have on constantly, isn’t such a problem. But when one gets bad speakers, who tend to mumble OR gabble at 90 mph (Caroline Lucas for one – not that she has anything to say worth hearing!) or those with thick accents, then my interest (and comprehension) hits rock bottom.
    Earlier I said it was ‘age-related’ hearing loss but I remember struggling even 40 years ago comprehending certain speech sounds in cinemas and theatres. I’m sure you know much more about this subject than do I. Mind you, I do have a history of mistreating my hearing from working on V Bombers in the 1950s (before ear-defenders were the norm) to screaming engineering-workshops-from-hell in the 1970s to always playing my music at a near-deafening level.
    I am sure that whatever you decide will be a success and there are some great comments above from (as is so usual for your readership) very knowledgeable commenters.

  70. And I don’t have to remind you visual materials are already provided at WUWT.
    – personally I’d prefer listening without distraction.

  71. Just my 2 cents worth in the interests of providing useful feedback.
    I wouldn’t listen to a radio program. On your blog I can quickly read the post, scroll through comments, click on links to other posts or videos, including graphs, papers, simulations etc.
    An important advantage that WUWT has over other climate blogs is the continuously new story feed. If the lead blogger is diverted into a radio show what will happen to the content of the blog? It can’t get better under that circumstance.

  72. There are lots of good posts here already, including: Lord Monckton, Janice, Kip Hansen and Javert Chip. So I can’t add much. However, the question that needs answering is: “Why?” What would you hope to achieve from this new venture that is not already covered by this award-winning blog? Different audience, revenue stream, subjects that don’t blog well, or something else?
    I agree completely with the view that you should not run to a fixed schedule – certainly not a weekly one. I still remember how my heart used to sink when it was announced that I would have to give a progress report at every weekly meeting. I spent one day with Powerpoint, then we had the meeting, then it had to be written up and minutes circulated. It eat into 60% of my 5-day week. Fortnightly was much preferred and irregular would be an even better option as and when something of note happened.
    I also agree that YouTube would be a good option (ignoring possible copyright issues). With your background you will espouse the high production values of a professional TV studio. However, those lengths are no longer necessary for a video to work on a medium like YouTube.
    So, I wish you the best of luck with whatever you decide. I believe answering the “Why?” question will be a good start.
    Just my two penn’orth – as we say on the Internet. 🙂

  73. Anthony,
    My opinion.
    You have the nature for broadcast media, clearly. You also have a sense of where to insert wedge topics, and apply controversy. You have a good feel for “newsworthiness”.
    It believe that since you (and et al) have done a good job being critics of CAGW, the general public are loosing interest in it. Which is good. If the USA federal election in Nov falls a certain way, I think that the Greens with be dealt a fatal blow as well as the UN, considering Brexit etc.
    So you should act in your own best interest and structure a radio program (with podcasts, call in Q&A) that is tailored to broad science education and truth. Sort of the Anti-Neil DeGasse Tyson. There is a market for science, eg the gravity pulse observatory, exo planets ( I am not enthralled by them but most people are) A.I., genetic engineering, science history, …
    You have a gift of communication. Certainly stay on top of the CAGW debate but you et al can assert a better approach to the discipline of science. Less Bill Nye flash and propaganda-esque, more thoughtful.
    You can host discussions with Joe Bastardi or Lief ( if he is in the mood to be a teacher), LCM and maybe Willis, Delingpole, Marc, Tisdale, Eric W, I would love to be 3rd party to those kinds of discussions.
    Hermes, Mercury, Gabriel — They are your alter egos.
    Radio is a fantastic media especially if it is also podcast.
    I wish you good fortune.

  74. Just one more thing. A question/answer format with interesting guests is one of the most compelling ways to receive information. You could broadcast live, record the podcast and possibly automate the transcription.
    Most young people get their info via smartphones now and share information over links. Young libertarians will be sharing your stuff to change minds.

  75. As is her custom, Janice Moore provided the definitive answer. You have already done more than your share, don’t overextend yourself. If you do it please include the broad issue of science integrity.
    Congratulations on a life of huge contribution to world science.

  76. It it is something you would enjoy Anthony, go for it, I think it’s a great idea. If it’s another straw closer to breaking the donkey’s back, consider that too.
    Now calling you a donkey FYI 😀
    I admire your energy and enthusiasm, truly, I’m almost 20 years your junior!

  77. Anthony
    Does your copyright need to be updated?
    Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2015, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission.

  78. Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2015, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission.

  79. Certainly the common understanding of the scientific ‘method’ needs repair and one could devote a lifetime to addressing its importance. BUT there’s really only one, central, subject crying out for clarification: Christiana Figueres executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm)

    • from this point
      Joe Brown on July 31, 2016 at 12:24 pm
      evrything goes down the ‘follow the money drain’.
      decide money / scientific truth.

  80. I would sign up for a podcast version, but you might think of starting with a segment on a show such as the John Batchelor show. His format is to cycle between different topics with experts in a field (you for climate) doing interviews with others about specific topics. For example, he has Robert Zimmerman (who has the “Behind the Black web site) on weekly to talk about space exploration.
    Good luck whichever way you choose

  81. Planning is essential for such a venture. It is akin to starting a business. You need to start with a formal plan that identifies what your vision is, key objectives, what goals and sub-goals you have, product identification, who are the target audiences, marketing methods, key performance indicators, personnel involved, SWOT analysis, financial section etc etc etc. Remember those who fail to plan, plan to fail.
    The challenge is to tighten down on what is going to be the “party position” and how to stick to it. There are so many shades of opinion on such a large number of issues even on the anti change side that getting this accomplished will present difficulties and have us arguing with each other if we are not careful.

    • MY address –
      forget about earphone heads, forget about microphones. Do what Harald Lesch did.
      Do great what Anthony Watts ever has done.
      Convince.

  82. Personally, I don’t like podcasts or videos that require me to listen to someone talk to me about a subject. I far prefer reading the transcript or text (no such thing as tl;dr for me) so that I can progress at my own pace and not have to listen to the vocal tics of the speaker. A site that is video or podcast-centric gets very few views from me. I know this site wouldn’t become that, but I wouldn’t see it as added value, either.

    • Gareth, You don’t have an idea about the goldmine against world leaders Merkel, Obama, Putin and that ilk.
      gareth on July 31, 2016 at 2:57 pm
      americans are worth – red Sox.

  83. Yes, podcast good idea, so long as you have enough content to keep it up. My feeling is that the global warming scare is gently dying, but there is plenty of other interesting climate/weather/science stuff to be going on with. Maybe give Kenji a guest spot each week?
    “So, what’s your take on the climate outlook Kenji?”
    “Ruff!”

  84. could be interesting, but for me to hear it would need to simucast it over internet.
    would your hearing issues be a problem with call ins or would there be second person/producer there?

  85. Anthony,
    You have proved yourself with WUWT to be a world leader.
    You are a marketable commodity.
    Why not let it be known that you wish to enter radio or video and let the experts chase you for a fee.
    Don’t leave it too many years before you capitalise on all the prior hard work.
    The radio and video pros know what you might be able to structure successfully.
    Best wishes Geoff Sherrington Melbourne

  86. I think it would be a good idea as long as it doesn’t put too much work/pressure on you as John Coleman said try doing it for a bit and see how it goes.
    James Bull

  87. Please, please, PLEASE do this show. We in the rational world are desperate for it. In fact, how about that for a subtitle: “Climate Science for the Rational World.”

  88. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. NAS 2016
    Any thoughts on this new publication from the National Academy of Sciences on: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change. (link below)
    I’ve browsed through it and find no substantial change to SREX. The only clearly attributable ‘extreme’ events are: ‘more warm days and fewer cold days’. Ha ha!.
    Otherwise, it tells us that attributing extreme events to CC is very difficult, and complicated by the infludence of natural variability. Wow!
    There are two disturbing aspects. 1. The approach is: ‘we will keep trying, and if we try hard enough we WILL find a way to attribute extreme events to CC’. and 2. The long list of academics who seem content to sign their names to this crap.
    https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=3u908pgur82dq#4124162708

  89. Radio stations: I suggest a ‘YouTube channel’ that you add video/sound recording too.
    Every week you could upload a summary screen with links that point to your latest recordings.
    One of these could be a weekly ‘phone in’ via Skype multi-user.
    Over time, you would build up a body of work which could be fed into an ‘internet radio channel’.
    The whole operation will be very time sensitive and quite an additional pressure up on you.
    I have a relative who does a 2 hour, twice a month program on an internet radio show (which uses ‘shoutcast’), and once per week on a local terrestrial radio station. The internet show is as pressured as the terrestrial one!
    It is a very good idea as it may cater to those who do not like reading masses of words off a screen.

  90. Mr. Anthony Watts , by the way, I think to be having similar hearing difficulties . Very pleased that you can talk about such easily.
    Great time with you – Hans
    nota benefits – with that new radio podcast : interested following.

  91. Mr. Anthony Watts , by the way, I think to be having similar hearing difficulties . Very pleased that you can talk about such easily.
    Great time with you – Hans
    nota bene – with that new radio podcast : interested following.
    _________________________
    benefits 2 bene – really hate that autocorrection.

  92. What matters the most is a definition of CO2=pollution, global climate models and other model projections based on those assumptions and the IPCC reports. These are considered to be infallible sources. World governments, along with numerous other entities have a plan, that usually enriches their agenda/self serving objective. We MUST follow this plan.
    Those that get in the way must be marginalized/eliminated.
    Climate science/meteorology, along with plant science, biology, agronomy and many other sciences have been hijacked for the purpose of accomplishing this mission.
    Seriously, it can’t really be saving the planet because the actual greening planet is shouting out loudly that it wants more CO2.

  93. A radio show might turn out similar to this blog – an audio version also dominated by bloviating amateurs with time on their hands, just not enough time to do real homework and actual research.
    My objections to the science behind mankind driven climate change:
    The greenhouse effect theory, i.e. upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. Yes, it really does! Not that it matters because the theory actually does not do anything, i.e. no net change in radiation balance at ToA.
    The notion that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is incorrect. The conditions postulated for the “no atmosphere” scenario are quite obviously with an atmosphere. The true explanation of the surface temperature, heat transfer’s most fundamental equation, Q = U * A * dT, is ignored.
    The Stephan Boltzmann ideal black body equation is incorrectly applied by ignoring the theory’s limitations and conditions, e.g. presence of a vacuum, no conduction/convection, emissivity, gas density, tropospheric temperatures, etc.
    The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit causes a ToA TSI fluctuation 10 times greater than the atmospheric heating due to CO2. Natural variations such as eccentricity, albedo, water vapor, vegetation, etc. are orders of magnitude more influential over the climate than GHGs/CO2.
    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
    (Sorry, I’m not a food editor, unemployed standup comic, massage therapist, nematologist, or fresh out of journalism school so I might be unqualified.)

  94. I like the idea of a radio show to spread the word to a more mainstream audience. But it is a different medium – it’s a ‘show’ – with all the trappings and props.
    AND you better be prepared, because it’s a whole new level of Troll that’s going to come after you.

  95. i think the idea of the radio show is a good one. If time zones will allow i definitely will tune in.
    but a podcast would be nice too
    actually if yuo plan to do a podcast mixcloud may do the job pretty well i for sure would tune in there if the time zone makes real time listening impossible.

  96. I like Janice Moore and Christopher Monckton suggestions
    IN UK any American radio station is seen as rabid right wing and automatically dismissed as biased and wrong eg Rush Limbaugh – Regardless of any actual merit, its just visceral. WUWT Radio might suffer the same fate. My sister -rabid greeny-constantly belittles any WUWT material . Its wrong because Anthony is a rabid conservative.and closet Exxon?Mobil /Koch. Shoot the messenger!
    However I believe that the general even handedness and quiet politeness of WUWT does come through and that even alarmists do tune in. I would suggest that the format of the radio show or UTube should be accessible by a click from the regular WUWT Page. This would avoid having to build up a new audience base
    a bit of humour, quiet persusiveness, impeccable science, and avoid the hysteria that the opposition loves should do the trick

  97. The ACS climate change tool kit has a chapter that purports to explain why the surface of the earth appears to be 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. The explanation goes something like this:
    340 W/m^2 (power flux) enters perpendicular to the entire spherical ToA. (NASA says ToA is 100 km and where the radiative in/out must balance.) 100 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo leaving 240 W/m^2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere and earth, land, ocean, etc. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, i.e. The Great Balance, 240 W/m^2 must make its way back to ToA.
    Inserting 240 W/m^2 into the S-B ideal BB equation gives a temperature of 255 K or -18 C. The S-B BB equation apples to a surface that is emitting 100% radiation, i.e. no convection or conduction aka no adjacent molecules, a vacuum. ACS represents that this is the condition without an atmosphere. Not so.
    This is incorrect. The 240 W/m^2 is quite obviously NOT w/o an atmosphere. It’s the net after the atmosphere and albedo (see, an atmosphere) reflects 100 W/m^2 and it is emitted at the ToA. (There it is again, an atmosphere.)
    What the earth’s surface would be w/o an atmosphere, oceans, water vapor, vegetation, etc. is anybody’s guess. Like the moon? Mars? What would be the barren albedo’s value?
    The supposed accepted surface temperature (IPCC defines as 1.5 m above land only.) of 15 C or 288 K has a S-B BB radiation of 390 W/m^2. 15 C and -18 C = Δ 33 C. This 390 W/m^2 is also used inappropriately as the upwelling LWIR GHG loop.
    About 17 W/m^2 rise from the surface as convection, about 80 W/m^2 leave the surface as evapo-trans, about 63 W/m^2 leave as LWIR, a subtotal of 160 W/m^2 which joins the 60 W/m^2 albedo to complete the 240 W/m^2 reaching ToA.
    390 W/m^2 minus the 63 W/m^2 gives 327 W/m^2 for the perpetual GHG loop. But the entire 160 W/m^2 needs to be subtracted leaving 130 W/m^2. Basically the GHE theory has double counted the power flux leaving the surface.
    My explanation of why the surface is 15 C is no different from explaining why inside your house is 20 C, Q = U * A * dT.
    Line A on the table is he base case. The solar insolation at noon and 28° N latitude from design table in Mazzaria’s handbook are used for the power flux input. This must rise up through and to the troposphere where the temperature is -40 C or F. Using the equation above the atmospheric thermal conductivity works out to 17.87, a resistance value of 0.056.
    The power flux at higher latitudes is reduced because of the oblique angle of solar incidence. The value at noon and 56 °N is 568.7 W/m^2. Everything else being equal dT would decrease and the surface temperature would fall to -8.2 C. Line B.
    The troposphere is thicker around the equator than around the poles. Let’s assume that the troposphere is x at 28° N and 0.9x at 56 °. Because the atmosphere is thinner, it’s resistance is lower and conductance is higher. Just like the insulation in the walls of a house. As a result the surface temperature will now be -11.4 C. Line C.
    Suppose the atmosphere gets 10% thicker. The surface temperature would rise from 15 C to 20.5 C. Line D.
    IMO Q = U * A * dT offers a better explanation of why the surface temperature is what it is and how it changes. Much better than the incorrect application of S-B BB equations and hocus-pocus hand waving to justify and rationalize.
    ..…Q/A, W/m^2……Hot, °C……Cold, °C….dT, °C….U W/m^2-°C….R, m^2-°C / W…..Tropo
    A………982.6………..15.0…………-40.0……..55.0………….17.87……….0.0560………100%
    B………568.7…………-8.2…………-40.0……..31.8………….17.87……….0.0560………100%
    C………568.7……….-11.4…………-40.0……..28.6…………19.86……..…0.0504………..90%
    D………982.6………..20.5…………-40.0…..…60.5…………16.24………..0.0616………110%

Comments are closed.