2011-09-29 08:26:07Watts reproduces Al Gore's CO2 experiment and find....
Rob Honeycutt


...that he ALTERED THE VIDEO misleading the public to think that this was a "simple" experiment...  even though, um, it's a simple experiment that shows the actual radiative properties of CO2.

WUWT facepam of week award.

2011-09-29 08:31:02
Julian Brimelow

You know, some people just have way, way too much time on their hands.

2011-09-29 20:52:51
Paul D


Well my comment was censored, probably cut to deep for poor old sensitive Watts.

2011-09-29 21:27:33


Watts attempts to shoot the messenger.


The gist:

Al Gore presented a documentary about an experiment that anybody can replicate.

Watts has a low opinion of Al Gore.

Watts does a very long and very boring rivet count on the video and concludes:

The only conclusion one can make from these four points is that the video of the “simple experiment” is a complete fabrication done in post production.

but -

buried deep within his pile of evidence about specks of dust he states:

So while some might say the stagecraft involved in the Climate 101 presentation wasn’t dishonest it was most assuredly staged with great literary license and dramatization of an effect that was experimentally verified elsewhere with far greater precision and attention to replicating the real world.


His beef in plain English:

the video of the experiment ought to have been done in a single take.


Watts fails to shoot the messenger, but shoots his own foot off - at the neck.

2011-09-29 21:35:56


Unfortunately the commentariat go chasing off on the foxhunt, blissfully unaware that the fox has gone back to the zoo.

As usual with WUWT, it's just to rile up the mob.

Seems to work, unfortunately.

(The 'physics' some of these people put out is just ghastly.)

2011-09-29 21:36:15
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

Does anybody seriously believe that any scientific experiment performed on a television programme is performed live without any editng?

In Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series (which I watched recently) there is a section where a scientist is playing with some serious glassware to demonstrate the experiment where complex hydrocarbons could be formed on the primitive earth, but it would be ludicrous to think that the scientist in question wasn't just fiddling with the apparatus for the benefit of the camera, rather than actually performing the experiment.  Anyone pointing out continuity problems and asserting that it was edited would just look stupid. 

Next WUWT will be complaining that walking with dinosaurs was fabricated and that they didn't actually have a time machine. ;o)


Just posted a comment to WUWT with a ling to the Sagan experiment on youtube and a "walking with dinosaurs" clip pointing out that such dishonesty is endemic.  Wonder if it will make it through moderation ;o)

2011-09-29 21:46:51
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

this post is unintentionally left blank

2011-09-29 22:34:34
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

Perhaps we should ask Prof. Pielke if he wants to revise his estimate of Watt's standards after reading this article? ;o)

2011-09-29 22:39:40



I doubt this would be a good case:

- He purports to be holding Gore to a higher standard of presentation

- He doesn't deny that there IS a GHE effect from CO2; just that Gore's presentation is "accurate"


Very plausible deniability for Pielke.

2011-09-29 22:43:14
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

True, I was naievely assuming that Pielke would be fair and rational (it is a high standard, but idiotically and pointlessly high).