PBS NewsHour: “Please fill out a survey about our science and climate change coverage”

Their survey is at this link, a reasonably short one where question 13 happens to read: What issue(s) related to climate change do you think should be covered in future reports?This is the same public-funded US national news outlet that I’ve previously reported is plagued with an apparent inability to explain why they have not allowed skeptic climate scientists to appear on their program over the last 16+ years as in-studio guests offering rebuttal to NOAA/IPCC scientists, or as single newsmaker guests offering detailed skeptic assessments on the idea of man-caused global warming.

Just sayin’.

  1. The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS’s ‘NewsHour’
  2. The Left and Its Talking Points
  3. PBS and Global Warming Skeptics’ Lockout
  4. Editor Claims NewsHour Reports Fairly on Global Warming – Where’s the Proof?
  5. Editor Claims NewsHour Reports Fairly on Global Warming – Where’s the Proof?  Pt II
  6. PBS NewsHour: Climate Central a research organization; Sorry, no. They advocate solving man-caused global warming
  7. FAIL: PBS NewsHour’s Anti-Heartland Institute Hit Piece has Problems Below its Surface
  8. PBS NewsHour global warming coverage: IPCC/NOAA Scientists -18; Skeptic Scientists – 0
Russell Cook’s collection of writings on this issue can be seen at “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists.” You may also follow him at Twitter via @questionAGW


  1. Well I gave them an earful. From biased reporting to the agendas of those like George Woodwell and Holdren. They will probably ignore it, like Anne Thompson ignored the Oregon Petition.

  2. Hello,

    I’m looking to get facts sorted once and for all. Sheesh. This climate change nonsense has finally annoyed me enough to want to thoroughly figure it out. I’ve taken the side of “sure the climate is changing, but people aren’t causing it” and when I spoke out about this a couple of friends greeted me with 1.) this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
    and 2.) This syllogism:
    1. Humans cause pollution
    2. Pollution is depleting the ozone layer
    3. The amount of UV rays are increasing
    Conclusion: The globe is warming.

    The problem is, I’m having a hard time finding ANYTHING from Google. It seems like there is SO MUCH conflated information out there.

    I’m going to keep studying, of course. But any discussion would be helpful.


  3. Google is your friend, though it takes more than mere superficial searching. It’s precisely why I do what I do. I don’t know a thing about climate science, both sides sound plausible, but they contradict each other, and the side promoting man-caused global warming tells me not to listen to skeptics because they are corrupt. The latter steered me down the path I’m on – I didn’t take the accusation at face value, I tried to corroborate it myself. The more I looked, the more trouble I found with it, not nice neat answers.

  4. Well, if you want to know a little about the mis-appellated ‘skeptical science’ then Luboš Motl has taken the time to review some of Cook’s assertions here.

    Humans do cause pollution, they also clean up Nature’s pollution, e.g. the biggest oil spills ever (think tar sands).

    Wrt the ozone layer nonsense see here.

    Be careful with UV claims because the majority of increase in total solar irradiation has been in the more energetic UV bands, so increase in UV is technically true but has exactly zero human component in the change.

    Yes, the globe is thought to be warming compare to when it was cooler. So what?

  5. //Yes, the globe is thought to be warming compare to when it was cooler. So what?//

    I agree. Climate oscillation happens. Why is everyone suddenly flipping out?

  6. Furthermore, if pollution is cited as one of the main culprits to all of this then it can only be solved by resolving the issue of the commons. If all land were privately owned, I doubt it’d be so routine for power plants to dump mercury in the river which you also own a part of.
    I digress.

  7. It’s more a case of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming does not exist. Lots of things humans do cause local warming: buildings and trombe wall effect; altered land surface and albedo changes; irrigation darkening light-colored deserts and increasing humidity; … ; and so on. There’s good reason to believe that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause about 0.4°C warming but there is no reason to believe anyone will notice without a huge monitoring effort and a lot of statistics.

  8. To begin with a lot of things are now labeled “pollutants” which are not – especially atmospheric carbon dioxide. The whole mercury “issue” is hugely overblown as an assault on cheap coal-fired electricity. It traces to the variously ascribed quote of humans having abundant affordable power being as bad as giving an idiot child a machine gun. Ehrlich and the people haters have much to answer for.

    Additionally having the atmosphere as a free transfer medium is hardly a tragedy of the commons since everyone benefits from power abundance and reasonable effluent from its production quite acceptable. Moreover all photosynthetic plants, wild or domesticated benefit from the return of previously lost (sequestered) carbon and so poor subsistence farmers receive free aerial fertilization of their crops, just as those mega corporations of big organic do. How is it a tragedy to share benefits?

  9. People aren’t suddenly flipping out, this is deliberate effort by a baptist and bootlegger coalition of convenience. Population panic merchants seek to cut consumption and so attack affordable energy, carbon scammers seek great wealth through hot air trading and so on. The EU sought to advantage themselves against American industrial might through artful cost imposition on cheap power and the UN seeks global governance, as do an apparent majority of socialists…

  10. Who’s dumping what into what? Actually, I’m serious about that. There are a number of regular commenters with industrial backgrounds here, so we’ve got a lot to talk about as far as that.

    No one is dumping mercury into rivers. The Clean Water Act is a scary thing to cross (people have been jailed for “polluting” rivers with dirt), and RCRA (hazardous waste) is even worse. Both carry 5-6 digit fines for even minor paperwork violations. No industrial site of repute puts ANYTHING into its outfall. What is happening is that mercury in coal gets burned, and while most is captured in wet scrubbers and fly-ash capture (the same control devices that prevent power plants from emitting smoke most of the time), you do have some get into the atmosphere. It then gets deposited and enters the ecosystem in diffuse, low concentrations well below toxicity levels.

  11. The greenhouse gas hypothesis actually goes
    1: Gases in the atmosphere absorb and reflect infrared radiation.
    2: When infrared rises from the surface of the planet to go to the stars, it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and some is reflected back
    3: Human emissions are increasing the concentration of various gases, most prominently CO2. This reflects more infrared, increasing planetary temperature.

    Gas chamber testing of CO2 shows that the temperature rise is 0.5 C per doubling of CO2 (absorption per concentration is logarithmic, so 260->520 is the same as 520->1240). However, via Le Chatlier’s principle, we can expect the equilibrium of the planet to react and reduce this temperature rise significantly.

    The IPCC has ignored the previous paragraph despite being basic, high-school level chemistry. They claim via their models that CO2 will have a linear or exponential effect on temperature rise and that Earth’s processes (specifically water vapor) will act to amplify the warming of the planet to dangerous levels. While this isn’t impossible to accept, there is a dearth of evidence to support this claim of extreme sensitivity to CO2.

  12. “No industrial site of repute puts ANYTHING into its outfall.” Not exactly. Environmental permits, in this case NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permits, control the amount of “pollution” allowed in the outfall. What can be discharged is dependent on the industry and the receiving stream. Even temperature must be controlled. NPDES permits often require periodic whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. The NPDES standards, for example, limit copper in the effluent to 65 ppb and do not allow residual chlorine. The drinking water standards allow 1000 ppb copper and municipal water supplies quite often have chlorine in the water. If you are an industry you couldn’t pipe drinking water to your outfall without treating it. Industrial dischargers have the advantage over municipal dischargers because they can control the inputs, whereas your municipal WWTP takes whatever you dump down your drains.

    PS. I’ve been in the pay of industry for 36 years.

  13. scarlet.knight: You are right on! In the early 90’s when Hillary Clinton was pushing her highly secretive “Hillarycare”, AARP polled all of their members to see if they favored it. Over 80% opposed it. AARP’s response? “Well! We KNOW that only the radical right wing extremists answered this poll! But we KNOW that all of the ‘good people’ really, really want this!”

  14. Lungfish: Here are some actual “facts” as opposed to the fraudulent reporting of PHd’s who put money ahead of truth. fact: Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3.3% every 12 years (This is one I’m not sure of you may need to go to CO2 science.com to check it. Fact: CO2 is NOT a primary greenhouse gas, water vapor is. I could go through the math. but water vapor is responsible for 98.85 of all atmospheric heating. Fact (checked on Wikipedia and CO2 Science), each molecule of CO2 displaces 2 molecules of water vapor which then combines with N2 to help create fertil soil. Fact: at 388 ppm (parts per million) CO2 is stil at the lowest level in the atmosphere as it has been for 600 million years! Fact: the best level for plant growth is 750-1200 ppm CO2 so, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth has been shown to increase 3.5 to 4.0 times faster and therefore is a “buffer” to runaway CO2 levels. Fact: (I know this to be true because I was one of the pilots who flew the missions to “find” Ozone in the north artic.) Ozone is a by product of a photon of sunlight striking a oxygen molecule. The life of a Ozone molecule is measured in micro seconds and the free oxygen atom usually combines with nitrogen. this is only because there is more nitrogen atoms available than other atmospheric atoms. The ONLY place we found free “ozone” molecules was near the South Pole in an area where sunlight hit the ground only about 3 weeks out of the year. “ground level” ozone is found only around high tension electrical output such as that found in huge electirc motors or generators. Fact: ozone only exists at very high altitudes during night and there is no “ozone layer” because gasses cannot form “layers”. The high altitude ozone occurs as “bubbles” and “fingers” which sometimes comes down to altitudes commercial jets cruise at. It is unusual but ocasionally happens whe high altitude “inversions” occure. Background: I am a 76 year old, retired Pan American Captain. I have over 26 hours of college “atmospheric studies” and much more high altitude meteorology I obtained in the AirForce. There are dozens more “one line facts” I could give you but to try to keep this brief: Your so-called Friends are only repeating what they hear someone else say. Ozone is “self depleting” and it is the magnetosphere that protects us from the fast moving particles of light from the Sun and by eating a good deal of “organic” (non-poisoned) vegitables to obtain a good level of natural vit. D you will be protected from the dangers of “sunburn” and you will be less than 5% in danger of skin cancer and other skin problems caused by sunlight. “Ozone” doesn’t come into the picture as Destroying anything!

  15. Why should Alarmists let the absence of facts and scientific theory inhibit them? Actually some use has been made of “facts” based on manipulated data – enough to deny the reality of medieval warming.

    My math professors (and my doctor friend’s professors) taught us that statistical correlation does not a proof make – certainly in ascribing cause to a lagging relationship

    My meteorology education at MIT continues to make me a skeptic regarding many of the Alarmist’s claims.

  16. Wow. Nice set of posts guys. I encourage you all to do the same as well on other threads. It’s nice to see a fair number of fact dumps and reasoned replies. It’s how I learn the ins and outs of all this sciency “stuff” (*grin*). Hat Tip to the Editor as well.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *