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.
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.
Radio, good idea, less work and trouble and very effective, I say YES!
A you tube video or blog would be the way to go , that way us Aussies can get a look in .
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.
As others pointed out already, having an Youtube channel would probably be the best path, for all those reasons.
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.
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.
You tube channel: go for it.
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
Radio is dead, except when you are driving o or working. Don’t expect an attentive audience. Mariachi music will win.
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
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.
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.
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.
maybe DC could co-host? It could get interesting….
Dr. Spencer,
That’s harsh! :>)
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
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.
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. 🙂
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.
Here’s a sample of what Mark believes about Climate Change. He remarks about it on many of his radio shows:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/kathleen-brown/mark-levin-america-being-driven-climate-change-insanity
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.
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!!
Radio shows could go out across the US but podcasts of those shows give world-wide access on demand.
My point exactly.
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
Whatever the format, lead in every seg ment with a standing invitation to a fair debate with any alarmist.
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.
Re skeptical podcasts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/12/james-delingpole-climate-views-on-the-virgin-podcast/