PBS demonstrates why climate science can't be trusted

Dr. Judy Curry discusses her role in the embarrassment that is PBS' recent show which had the temerity to interview Anthony Watts, a skeptic who refuses to goosestep with the global warming thought police.  The thought police are outraged.  PBS is apologizing. Freedom and science are threatened.

Edit/add -- Prominent climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr. opines:

Since Judy has already discussed Michael Getler’s response as Ombudsman , I just want to add one comment here.

In the statement by Michael Getler, he wrote

What was stunning to me as I watched this program is that the NewsHour and  Michels had picked Watts — who is a meteorologist and commentator — rather than  a university-accredited scientist to provide “balance.”

What in the world is “a university-accredited scientist?”

Anthony Watts has published peer-reviewed papers on siting problems for temperature monitoring stations.  Pielke looks at some of the various silly categories that Getler might have meant and then writes:

Could it mean that you have to be a university professor that works in the area of study; in this case climate science. Also, the answer is No. Richard Muller has internationally well-respected credentials in physics, but he is a newcomer to climate science.

In contrast, Anthony Watts has been working in weather and climate for quite a few years, and is clearly well-qualified to discuss the surface temperature siting issues presented in the PBS broadcast. Even Tom Karl at NOAA’s NCDC invited Anthony to give a talk at their headquarters in Asheville several years ago.  Indeed, NCDC has made changes in their network specifically in response to Anthony’s pioneering work on station siting!

The PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler, clearly has inappropriately reacted to what was a valuable, much-needed (and usually missing from PBS) report on the diversity of perspectives on the climate issue.