Quote of the [expletive deleted] week

No Swearing sign on Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA Photo: Steph Doyle

Gosh, I try to keep a semblance of decorum here at WUWT. I get upset when name calling starts and moderators are trained to clamp down on this sort of thing. That being said, can you imagine the caterwauling that would ensue if I wrote something like this piece below?

Andrew Revkin and I disagree on climate, but we maintain what I deem to be a civil, professional tone when we correspond. That’s how it should be. Foul language isn’t needed to get points across.

Joe Romm at Climate progress just showed his true colors by not only allowing such foul behavior, but actually encouraging it in the form of a guest post that he edited. I don’t buy Romm’s excuse that he was trying to “show some of the real anger over Revkins column”.

In my view, profanity is the last refuge of the disingenuously desperate.

Warning – foul language follows

Here’s the guest piece from Climate Progress, the last few paragraphs follow:

So, here’s a challenge for Andy Revkin: Do not write another word about climate science until you have spent one whole month as a visitor in a climate research institute. Attend the seminars, talk to the PhD students, sit in on meetings, find out what actually goes on in these places. If you can’t be bothered to do that, then please shut the fuck up.

Update: On reflection, I think I was too generous to Revkin when I accused him of making shit up, so I deleted that bit. He’s really just parroting other people who make shit up.

Update #2: Oh, did I mention that I’m a computer scientist? I’ve been welcomed into various climate research labs, invited to sit in on meetings and observe their working practices, and to spend my time hanging out with all sorts of scientists from all sorts of disciplines. Because obviously they’re a bunch of tribalists who are trying to hide what they do. NOT.

Steve Easterbrook

=================================================

Gosh.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Quote of the Week. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Quote of the [expletive deleted] week

  1. Nonegatives says:

    “I’m not a climate scientists, but I’ve hung around with some.” I guess that makes them your peers now.

  2. co2insanity says:

    Why shukins y’all!!!

  3. Feet2theFire says:

    And he couldn’t just say “STFU”?

  4. JinOH says:

    Son of a B**tch. Lol. :)

  5. JinOH says:

    Son of a B*tch. Lol. :) Oops – lol typo

  6. hunter says:

    Losers lose it like losers do.
    Steve Easterbrook is a for sure neverwuzzer who cannot even make it to wannabe status.
    No wonder he found such a good home at Romm’s place.

  7. Robert Kral says:

    What a maroon.

  8. Dave N says:

    Expletives aside (because they don’t deserve any attention):

    “Because obviously they’re a bunch of tribalists who are trying to hide what they do. NOT.”

    Apparently because they’re not hiding what they’re trying to do, it makes them “right”. NOT.

  9. D Caldwell says:

    Gee, Steve Easterbrook has been hanging out with all sorts of scientists from all sorts of disciplines.
    Now ain’t that somethin’….

  10. Richard Sharpe says:

    A computer scientist is not, IMO, a scientist. I work with computers and I have come to believe that the name “computer science” is a wanna-be name. The field has aspects of math associated with it, but not science …

  11. Paul Nevins says:

    Steve Easterbrook

    Instead of “hanging out with all sorts of scientists from all sorts of disciplines” perhaps you should learn and apply the scientific method?

  12. WillR says:

    I have worked with people like that. I try not to.

  13. R. Shearer says:

    I know quite a few scientists at NCAR, NOAA, NIST, EPA, CIRES, NREL, FDA, USGS sites in the Denver/Boulder area and the use of profanity is not common. Now alcohol, that’s another matter. Get a few beers in some of these guys and they turn skeptic. Unfortunately, their livelyhood depends on AGW.

  14. Jerry from Boston says:

    Okay, let’s drop some expletives:

    WTF?!?!

    Why trash Andy Revkin, who’s trying to give a forum to all sides in this debate? Unless the AGW’ers are freakily desperate and know they’re losing the greenie policy (i.e., the hearts and minds) war. This may be an indicator of a turning point in the AGW wars.

  15. Gnomish says:

    Every cannibal feast ends this way.

  16. JR says:

    Wow!! And he is invited to the Met Office surface temperatures meeting. If the effort crashes and burns, it won’t be because of pot shots. It will be because of the quality of the participants.

  17. Layne Blanchard says:

    If I’m not mistaken, it isn’t that Revkin jumped sides on them either. He simply failed to follow the narrative, EXACTLY. This was the outrage over minor dissent.

  18. DR says:

    My debate instructor said when your opponent loses their cool, becomes irrational and foul mouthed, that usually means they know they’re losing the debate.

  19. Barry L says:

    Could not resist….

    Sounds like this boy might have a little Delusional disorder:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

    Indicators of a delusion from wiki with some comments (-) :
    1) The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
    -he does sound quite worked up.
    2) That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
    -he does spend a fair bit of time on the subject.
    3) Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
    -you are from big oil.
    4) The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
    -I smiled when I read this one. no comment
    5) There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
    -I would accept them too with a big check every month.
    6) An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
    -yes… er YES
    7) The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient’s social, cultural and religious background.
    -is it even worse when it is the religion? is that a cult?
    8) The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche.
    -16 hours a day
    9) The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
    -I’m sure he is a great guy outside the AGW bubble.
    10) Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
    -unless youre all drinkin the same coolaid, getting big checks every month.

  20. PJB says:

    Posted on August 30, 2010 by Anthony Watts

    “In my view, profanity is the last refuge of the disingenuously desperate.”

    In fact, profanity is the constant refuge of the profane.

  21. dkkraft says:

    So the mainstream / legacy media is even worse than the climate scientists.

    Agreed….. By George I think we have finally found some common ground with Romm !

    BTW this (presumably the same) Steve Easterbrook, in a more temperate mood, made this comment over at the Met surface temperature blog regarding White paper 6 Data provenance, version control, configuration management:

    “Oh, and we need to beef up the discussion on provenance. E.g. can we capture not just what processing steps have been carried out on various higher level products, but also by whom, when and for what purpose? ”
    http://surfacetemperatures.blogspot.com/2010/07/white-paper-6-data-provenance-version.html

    His comments on that forum are not so bad (not least because they gave me an opening to comment re: controls via segregation of duties :-)

    I don’t know, maybe Romm doesn’t bring out the best in people….

  22. NF says:

    The phrase ‘sore loser’ comes to mind, if that’s not too impolite.

  23. William says:

    Can we say it is a case of impotent rage?!

  24. John Goetz says:

    IMO, what an over-reaction.

    Did Steve Easterbrook and I read the same article, or did he just forget to take his meds?

  25. bob says:

    How many computer scientists does it take to change a light bulb? Nobody knows. They are still trying to work out the algorithm.

  26. D. King says:

    [snip -OTT ~mod]

  27. Jim Reedy says:

    Re The use of profanity…

    My mum always says “Bad language indicates a poor vocabulary”

    I tend to agree

    J

  28. Jay Currie says:

    It looks like the hyper-warmists are circling the wagons and shooting inward. Why go after a well placed fellow traveler? Revkin is hardly a skeptic. He accepts the creed that CO2 is the cause and the only cause of warming. He accepts that there is warming.

    Now that the wheels are falling off the strong case narrative, the cultists are looking for their betrayers. Deviation from the party line, in even the most minute particular, leads to instant and vociferous excommunication.

    Which makes the hyper warmists sound crazier and crazier.

  29. Bernie says:

    It is the same group of folks. They actually do not need Joe Romm egging them on since they are quite capable of going off all on their own. Perhaps the vitriol and pure unreasoning rage will get Andy Revkin to recognize that perhaps, just maybe, any cause that demands such strict adherence to doctrine may have some fundamental flaws.

  30. 899 says:

    “Expletive deleted.”

    That begins to sound something akin to the Nixon White House tapes!

    To wit: “I want that (expletive deleted) hauled before a (expletive deleted) grand jury and get his (expletive deleted) cut off and shoved up his (expletive deleted)!!

    :o)

  31. kim says:

    Do you toe the line
    Or do you think for yourself?
    Andy revs ‘em up.
    ========

  32. Jimbo says:

    Anthony,
    Don’t get involved in family squabbles. Just sit back with popcorn and cola.

  33. Just The Facts says:

    If you can’t argue the argument, argue the arguer…

    Andrew, you are always welcome around these parts if you are interested in some reasoned and civil debate.

  34. Noblesse Oblige says:

    The AGW movement continues to disintegrate along classical cognitive dissonance lines. The more skeptical resistance, the more political failure, the more the science goes against them, the more shrill and out of control they will be. And the more sane, disinterested people will sit up, take notice, and write them off. Let it happen.

  35. kim says:

    An honest soul, but
    Andy didn’t read the Bish.
    Review Real Climate.
    =============

  36. kim says:

    He camps by the dunes
    While the storm bends true belief.
    Blow ye wind, blow hard.
    ================

  37. R. de Haan says:

    This is one way you know they have lost the climate fight.
    This is another way:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/How-you-know-the-climate-fight-is-over-101807708.html
    And this one puts the cherry on the cake:
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed

    Dr. Spencer in the mean time hits the nail on the head with this one:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dump-the-ipcc-process-it-cannot-be-fixed/

    I think Climate Progress can close their shop now.

  38. Harry Bergeron says:

    Here’s a challenge for Easterbrook, by his own reasoning:
    Spend a month in Hitler’s bunker before you go flapping your lips re Nazis.
    Spend a month in the halls of Congress, so as to become a political expert.
    Spend a month in Cambodia to really, really get next to Pol Pot.
    Spend a month in a bar to understand alcoholism.
    I’d hate to see his code if this is his best reasoning.

  39. Jeff Id says:

    I know Romm’s a jack@#^ but honestly, he doesn’t need your time.

  40. Brad says:

    Revkin’s piece seems sane and rational, climate science’s response does not.

  41. Ian H says:

    Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless. It is like criticising someone for not wiping their shoes before they step into the pigsty. The language used actually seems pretty mild to my ear. Of course I’m from down under where we like our langauge strong to match our beer.

  42. Kevin Cave says:

    I have a translation for the usage of the… colourful metaphors…

    “Your honour, I’d like to strike [Andy Revkin's] comments from the record.”

    “Why?”

    “BECAUSE IT’S [colourful metaphor]ing DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!”

    ;)

  43. Tom G(ologist) says:

    I am a geologist and a modeler of hydrologic systems. I work with other geologists, hydrologist, engineers all the time who are experts at mathematical modeling, numerical simulations, (and on and on) and they should all certainly knpow what they are talking about because it’s what the ye DO for a living, right? And they are responsible for our water supplies and cleaning up Superfund sites and protecting wetlands and rivers and beachfronts. Well, they ARE good at what they do, but what they are ALL invariably bad at is conceptualizing how their piece fits into the REAL WORLD. They all come up with the most outlandish predictions, begin their modeling with pre-conceived ideas and generally miss the boat completely because their concept is WRONG from the outset. But they have COMPUTER MODELS so everyone believes what they say. You would roll on the floor laughing at the parallels with cliamte predictions which I am dealing with right now in water resource management modeling. The predictions make NO SENSE if one only stops and says, OK is this actually possible in the real world, and the answer is, of course, NOOOOOO!

  44. a comment I just posted there:

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Inconvenient overlook says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    August 30, 2010 at 11:35 pm

    The NAS Report did not support the Mann Hockey Stick graph as you, and Nature, claim:

    “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” ”

    NAS Report, page 4

    http://books.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    I’ll get back to you on if it clears moderation. It will be comment #72.

  45. TomRude says:

    Indeed not worth my time.

  46. In support of poor Romm, perhaps WUWT should be renamed to WTFUWT

  47. boballab says:

    Notice Steve Easterbrook didn’t try telling Dr. Curry to STFU until she spent a month in meetings with Climate Scientists before saying they have tribalist mentalities……Oh wait…… Dr. Curry is a Climate Scientist and has sat in more Climate Scientist meetings then Steve Easterbrook. Maybe Steve and Joe ought to apply their own standards to themselves, until they sat in that amount of meetings and publish the amount of climate papers as Dr. Curry.

    This is just the Alarmists going after Andy Revkin for stepping 2″ off the Alarmist Reservation.

  48. huxley says:

    Ian H at 8:23 pm : Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless.

    But this is a scientist speaking in a science debate and explicitly identifying himself as a scientist. In large part he is indignant that his group of scientists are being accused of tribalism.

    Yet his response is a tribal shriek of profanity, bringing to mind a baboon display. It also reminds me of Ring Lardner’s immortal line, “Shut up, he explained.”

  49. Frank K. says:

    Hey – I think Steve Easterbrook may be on to something!

    Introducing: The 2010 NASA/NOAA Klimate Kamp!

    Spend a fun filled week with your favorite climate scientists! Located near scenic Lake Hockey Stick, Wisconsin!

    Take part in lots of fun activities:

    * Count tree rings in the Dendro tent!
    * Make up scary climate press releases for the camp newspaper. Scariest press release wins a special prize – getting their entry published in the New York Times!
    * Dress up like Jim Hansen or Al Gore and protest a local power plant! (Warning: dressing up like Al Gore may induce cold/freezing weather events…)
    * Sing special Global Warming songs around the campfire, like: “Home on the Range – with Solar Panels and Windmills”, “Hindcasting Honey o’ Mine”, and “Polar Ice Blues”!
    * Play find the hidden climate thermometer game! (Hint – it’s near the barbeque…)

    And much more….

    Contact your local Climate Service representative for details.

  50. pat says:

    the arrogance of King may spark a few silent expletives on WUWT!

    30 Aug: Guardian: Juliette Jowit: CBI to host climate change ‘clash of the titans’ debate
    Former government chief scientist Sir David King, in the green corner, to take on arch-sceptic Lord Lawson in public showdown
    The CBI will host the event at its annual climate change conference in November…
    “It is important to deal with the climate sceptics’ arguments and deal with them fairly robustly,” said King. “I usually avoid the climate sceptics because I seem to be giving them airtime. [But] Lawson is a well-known speaker, so it is not as though I’m taking somebody lightweight on.”…
    (Lawson): “The cause of reasoned debate on this issue in the UK is not helped, of course, by the fact that there is no difference between the policies of the three political parties so far as global warming is concerned.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/cbi-climate-change-debate-king

  51. John F. Hultquist says:

    Steve E. gives the name Easterbrook an unworthy trashing.

    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/

  52. Ron House says:

    I have just posted the following comment over at http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/andy-revkin-climate-science-aclimate-journalism

    (You say about Revkin:) That 2006 article includes this uber-misleading statement:

    (Revkin:) … the concentration of carbon dioxide … far lower than some of the apocalyptic projections … but also far higher than [others].

    (You:) … a sensitivity of 5°F for a doubling is hardly “far lower” than most other analyses — it is in fact in the middle of the pack.

    (Me:) Isn’t far lower than some and far higher than others “middle of the pack”? And where did Revkin say “far lower than MOST”? If you want to say Revkin is “uber-misleading”, shouldn’t you avoid doing the same thing you accuse him of?

    Comment 73. Now let’s see if it gets pulled.

  53. rbateman says:

    Forget about Global Warming, this is now all about Blogosphere warming with fire-roasted words and blazing language.
    btw… Global Warming is the feeling I get when backing up against the heater after shoveling too much snow.

  54. Wayne Delbeke says:

    Commentary:

    “violence is the last resort of the ignorant.” Isaac Asimov

    There’s “Profanity is the weapon of the witless,” but I find no author for it.

    Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple.
    –David Keuck

  55. Kan says:

    “Hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.”

  56. DesertYote says:

    Richard Sharpe
    August 30, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    I’m a software engineer specialising in instrument control and test and measurement. As such the work I do is used to support science. But it is not science. Even when I am developing new programming paradigms, it is more math then science. I have also found the kids coming out of college with Computer Engineering degrees, are much better programmers then those with their freshly minted CS degrees. The CS students are also subjected to much more intense Marxist indoctrination, though it seems all students are subjected to that to some degree.

    Science is the employment of the Scientific Method. Anything that does not do this is not science.

    BTW, I would much prefer to be doing real science, but alas, it is impossible to get a degree in wildlife biology or ichthyology without being saturated with Marxist nonsense. I found this intolerable. Fortunately, one can teach oneself math.

  57. Ben D. says:

    As a computer science grad, I think it is important to relay what the “science” actually is in the instruction. There are a few different ways this is taught from university to university, which is where the confusion starts. Just because its called Compsci does not mean its a science persae.

    Namely at most places its more similar to engineering in that you are taught “given x algorithm, generate y program.” There is nothing wrong with this, its just the application of something already proven so to speak. Applied mathematics might be a better term for it, or perhaps applied mathematics on a computer.

    Now the education I received was more similar to science in that we worked with proving the correctness of programming and the main focus was generate algorithm X and prove it works through the science process. I won’t get into details on this, but its more science related in that new ideas and processes are tested and graded based on correctness and usage of the process. The application is not as important in this effort so to speak. You could use any language, and any technique, but the same idea applied: Was your algorithm correct? If it was, and you showed this, it was more important then getting the correct answer so to speak which as an engineer would be a critical error. Engineers work and get fired over the correct answer, so in the end it is a critical difference.

    Getting my masters was probably what put it all together for me, since I then started working on data modeling and the correctness thereof so to speak. It might be a different story for others, but for me anyway most of my post-grad work and professional work is around modeling. Now granted, I do not model anything close to as complex as climate, and I do have issues understanding a lot of what is going on with the modeling thereof, but in the end it gives me a glimmer of problems and issues with the correctness of the models.

    I can’t seem to understand the methodology on how to come up with correct modeling behavior for climate. The few ideas I did come up with have too many issues to really be applicable….The current GCM’s are so flawed its funny that anyone even tries to take them seriously.

    But that is digression, I admit I have some issues understanding the modeling of the Earth’s climate system, and I can’t see how any CompSci major could hope to figure out that he knows what he is talking about from spending one month at it. I have been working at this for over a year now, and still I can not understand even close to the big picture.

    I have worked with what little is available on the web and what not (RC all the way to this site/climate audit, etc), but without complete documentation and code, I find it hard to understand why people perform algorithm X in these cases. Its tough from my perspective because as I was taught, the algorithm itself is more important and proving it correct is the first step in the modeling process. You use statistics for a complex system to accomplish this, but the layering of so many “trade” terms and variables makes it so tough to understand that I am sure only about 10 people truly understand the big picture (one of which is I am sure S. Mcintyre)….

    Anyone claiming to really know what they are doing from my background is either incompetent or “drinking the kool-aid” if they only spent a month in the labs. It would take much more work to truly understand what is going on, and I bet you would probably get more informed here then in any climate science lab in the world.

    But that is just my two cents. Don’t knock my profession, it does have its roots in science, but in most cases just like any science discipline, it can get wrecked by mis-using it, and there is confusion since most schools teach an engineering approach to the major…

  58. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    I don’t know what you folks are getting so excited about. Mr. Easterbrook is a scientist, writing for the benefit of other scientists and the content of his paper therefore includes technical jargon (if you will) that doesn’t mean the same thing to laymen outside of climate science circles that it does to those within. I’m sure Joe Romm et al would be happy to explain the use of “fuck” and “shit” within the context of the lingo used by the climate sciences community if the rest of you would just stop challenging their conclusions and give them an opportunity to perform their science without debate or awkward oversight.

  59. Leon Brozyna says:

    There’s nothing quite so bloody as a war between different sects of the same religion.

  60. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Kan says:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm
    “Hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.”

    I was thinking the same thing. They don’t like deserters much don’t they?

  61. R.S.Brown says:

    Am I imagining it, or is someone ready to take their brown shirt
    and black boots out of the closet if a former ally disagrees with
    the party line ?

    By the way, anyone who’s studied maledicto in spoken
    or written form knows Mr . Easterbrook is a fluffy puppy when
    it comes to rude expostions.

    I suspect his thoughts are as shallow as is his verbiage.

  62. Martin C says:

    I am convinced (no, I have no evidence, but am convinced by their behavior) that Joe Romm, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and probably a lot of the other ‘extreme warmists’ have a LOT OF investment MONEY tied up in CCX (the carbon exchange which is basically worthless) and/or other ventures, perhaps through Al Moron ( . . oops, excuse me, I meant Gore).

    They have to do EVERYTHING they can to try to keep the global warming alive, to try to resurrect their investments. Especially in light of the latest IPCC evaluation.

    Now that would be something for an investigative reporter to look into, if that might be possible ( . . too ‘subtle’ of a hint for anyone out there . . . ? )

    They are becoming even bigger JOKES in this arena than I have thought them to be.

  63. J. Knight says:

    Ah, Steve Easterbrook, a rather small tick riding on the global warming dog. He will, of course, drown when the dog he has chosen to ride is thrown in the pond of rational thinking. In the meantime, he believes the yapping of a dog is proof of something greater than what it really is.

  64. Village Idiot says:

    The Master again clearly and effortlessly demonstrates that he controls not only the intellectual and scientific, but also the moral and ethical highground in the war against the Warming lie. Hurrah!

  65. I posted this comment over 2 hours ago at Climate Progress:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/quote-of-the-expletive-deleted-week/#comment-470675

    It still says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Four comments have appeared after it. I have to get to sleep. I’ll look in the morning. Be really, I don’t care because I feel like I need a shower now for being at the web site.

  66. Peter Miller says:

    Hell hath no fury like a climate ‘scientist’ with a threatened ‘research’ grant.

    Another possible explanation for this behaviour is that for the past couple of weeks global temperatures have been falling like a stone threatening 2010’s title of being “the warmest year ever”, which it isn’t. If the current rate of decline continues for a couple more months, a lot of climate ‘research’ grants are going to dry up.

  67. Larry Fields says:

    Ian H says:
    August 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    “Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless. It is like criticising someone for not wiping their shoes before they step into the pigsty. The language used actually seems pretty mild to my ear. Of course I’m from down under where we like our langauge strong to match our beer.”

    Ian, I understand where you’re coming from, just as you understand that the standards of civility here at WUWT are representative of a large minority of people in the US. Perhaps you can explain to your fellow countrymen why the Where-the-bloody-hell-are-you? tourist advert bombed with so many of my fellow Merkins. :-)

  68. Luboš Motl says:

    Dear Anthony,

    it’s not *that* hard to maintain civil relationships with Andy Revkin who is both polite and – arguably – closer to “us” than to “them”. Of course, I maintain such relationships, too. The real challenge in testing your sainthood would be to spend a month in an office with Joe Romm and maintain civil relationships with him. ;-)

    And there may even exist people who are less compatible with the interpersonal peace. Needless to say, it would be preposterous for me to claim that I could maintain peaceful relationships with them. They would deserve something completely different and I think that I would try to give a part of it to them. :-)

    Best wishes
    Lubos

    REPLY: A month? Easy time. Fortunately I have a secret weapon; I’m mostly deaf without hearing aids. I’d just take them out and smile a lot. – Anthony

  69. wayne says:

    Fantastic post Anthony… this is a view of the real thing.

    This is nothing more that what cults do… discipline a member who has stepped out of line to the script… an attempt to show their shun so the person will eventually come crawling back into the fold, sorry of their sins and can be re-programmed to know their fault and repent and to never repeat (Revkin). They just attempted this with Dr. Curry. After reading the links to the other sites… this whole Climate Progress bit makes me sick, it’s really sick, just follow the 50 or so links. Barry L got it close on “Delusional Disorder” but he was closer when he questioned that it may actually be a cult (see his comments http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/quote-of-the-expletive-deleted-week/#comment-470601).

    And Barry, you said you couldn’t resist, you shouldn’t, the faster people see what these once-scientists, if they ever were real scientists, have morphed into the sooner this sorry fiasco can end. Your comment above was needed.

    Enough money to get a PhD, the equations, thousands of memorized papers, and the fancy words does not a scientist make. It is the skeptical, humble, questioning of always yourself first as the scientist that makes you one and most of the great scientists in history. Most of these PhD’s in climate science have clearly lost their way if they ever had one, probably they just bought a guaranteed life-time-long job and, of course, expect people to call them scientists.

    ( The 50 or so links mentioned can be found under:
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/andy-revkin-climate-science-aclimate-journalism and the current data doesn’t support these claims. )

  70. Mike Haseler says:

    Typical new-age pagan rubbish!! Don’t learn by looking at the facts, learn by some form of cultural osmosis.

    In science the facts speak, in climate “science” the people speak and the facts remain hidden!

  71. Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:

    I have no beef with the use of profanity. It rolled right off my tongue when I was young and I thought it made me seem cool.
    I do object to anyone claiming to be a scientist wanting to silence any other scientist by telling them (forcefully) to shut up in this manner.
    Since its not accompanied by any reasoned perspective or involvement in debate, it just becomes noise.
    Something to tune out really, more heat than light!

  72. Tony Hansen says:

    ……I’d just take them out and smile a lot. – Anthony

    There you go being provocative again :)

  73. Tim Williams says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” ”

    NAS Report, page 4

    A little context would be helpful…”

    “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this
    newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere
    was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
    comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently
    present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes
    prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high
    level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.

    Then your bit above…then this bit…

    “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only
    one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is
    occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.”

    Or people could just read the whole thing if they be bothered…http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

  74. Rhys Jaggar says:

    [Snip - I'd let this one go under normal circumstances, but we are all going do our durndest to exude sweetness and niceness for a while -- right, guys? And thanks in advance for your trouble-free, good-spirited, and enthusiastic cooperation. ~ Evan]

  75. Jackie says:

    Revkin is learning the true meaning of tow the line or else.

    Like most religion there is no room for dissent of any kind in Warmism.

    Revkin must redeem himself immediately with a follow up piece explaining the errors of his previous article or else live a miserable life outside in the doldrums of the real world like the rest of us.

  76. Tenuc says:

    Joe Romm needs to have his mouth washed out with soap. He also needs to go on a good deprogramming course to rid himself of the silly notion of the CAGW conjecture.

    Living ones life defending the indefensible is bad for ones mental health.

  77. Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand says:

    Anthony – your intolerance of incivility, combined with tolerance of contrary views, is the reason your blog is doing so well. Please keep it up.

  78. Mike McMillan says:

    You wouldn’t ordinarily expect such language from a naturally brilliant mind like Joe Rohm’s Romm’s (with a demonstrably higher IQ than even Obama!), but I guess it’s the old nature versus nurture thing. Reflects on yo mama, dude.

    The anger we see over on the other side arises from having their religious beliefs challenged and being unable to defend them. I usually avoid religious arguments except when others are trying to destroy the economy or fly airplanes into buildings.

  79. Alexej Buergin says:

    People like that should be punished by simply being ignored. If no WUWT readers go to that silly little website, it will just fade away.

  80. joshua corning says:

    Does anyone but skeptics read Romm’s blog anymore?

    Perhaps you guys should stop going there then he would not have audience.

  81. Wat says:

    Wow. Helpdesk guy lashes out.

  82. Bill Tuttle says:

    Andy Revkin responded a bit in the comments: “Speaking of fallibility, I’ve got to add that I love how Joe Romm has repeatedly described — as breaking news — my admission in 2009 that I make mistakes. Only the Pope, and Joe Romm, appear to be infallible.”

    I love the smell of dissention in the morning. It smells like

    *sniiiiiifffffffffff*

    victory…

  83. Severian says:

    I’m not a climate scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night…

    Expect the tone from the Alarmist True Believers to get even more vitriolic and obscene. It was bad enough when they were winning the argument and the world was their ever warming oyster, now that their influence is starting to decline, other views are being heard, and their plans for stifling world affluence are waning, they will not go quietly into the night. I’ve noticed the same thing on a lot of left/right political forums, economic forums, etc. The implosion of Big Govt socialist economic and societal policies is resulting not in any apparent introspection by their supporters but by them getting increasingly angry, vile, and aggressive against those whose ideas are being proven correct. Go figure eh?

  84. John Marshall says:

    Sad but true this seems to be the way that alarmists carry on. If the science was good then the bad language would be unnecessary.

  85. Bill Tuttle says:

    Larry Fields: August 30, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    Ian, I understand where you’re coming from, just as you understand that the standards of civility here at WUWT are representative of a large minority of people in the US. Perhaps you can explain to your fellow countrymen why the Where-the-bloody-hell-are-you? tourist advert bombed with so many of my fellow Merkins. :-)

    Ummmmmm — we’re “Murricans,” Larry. “Merkins” are entirely something else.

    Except for a few Murricans I’d consider to be genuine merkins…

  86. P Gosselin says:

    It’s a sure sign they’ve lost the argument. If you have good arguments and intelligence, you don’t need to resort to profanity and tantrums. In Japan and Germany, you lose all respect with that kind of behaviour. They’ll think you’re still in puberty.

  87. Steve in SC says:

    Well, as grandpa used to say “When you show your ass, everybody sees it.”.

  88. Chuck L says:

    First Judy Curry stepped in it, now Andrew Revkin, It is amazing how Romm throws potential “allies” under the bus with astonishing regularity and vehemence.

  89. UK Sceptic says:

    So Andy Revkin, once the darling journalist of the warmists, is out on his ear for having a Damascene moment?

    Looks like the AGW snake has begun to eat it’s own tail…

    :D

  90. Larry says:

    I don’t see how anybody can say they believe in CAGW based on the science, when it relies on the output of complex computer based models which they can only be responsible for a small part of. When working on hardware simulators I would believe everybody else did their job correctly if the output fitted the requirements, but would harldy accept that the entire thing was correct because the simulator ran and my tiny bit was responding correctly to its inputs. Sitting around with the other engineers telling me about how clever they were would hardly persuade me to want to take responsibility for the whole thing.

    As I understand it, even if the computer models were a completely accurate description of the earth the tolerance of the results due to rounding and quantising would be larger than the claimed temperature change after a century. You are a computer scientist or engineer depending on what you do, but as with everything the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

  91. Djozar says:

    Isn’t that sweet! (Unless your from the US South or have watched the stupid mortgate commercials you probably won’t get this one).

  92. latitude says:

    “invited to sit in on meetings”

    I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

  93. BarryW says:

    The most extreme censure and punishments are reserved for the heretics. Non believers are looked on more with distain, but vary from the “true faith” even though still a believer and they bring out the knives. (Watch your back Dr Curry).

  94. The Total Idiot says:

    UK Sceptic says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:27 am

    So Andy Revkin, once the darling journalist of the warmists, is out on his ear for having a Damascene moment?

    Looks like the AGW snake has begun to eat it’s own tail…

    It is after the oil which it hopes will cure it.

  95. Larry says:

    This situation has arisen because the scientists are funded based not on being right, wrong, honest or dishonest but on how loud and alarmist their proclamations. Somehow we have to get to a situation where scientists are judged and funded based on the quality of their science. It is highly worrying that institutions you would expect to value their reputations are prepared to put their name to some of this stuff. I can’t currently think of a single scientific institution I would take at face value. It really has come to something when an engineer views the proclamations of greenpeace and the royal society as having equally little merit. There are real environmental issues out there, and who now is going to have the credibility to carry public opinion? The UN? Nasa? Greenpeace? WWF? Government science advisors? The BBC? It may come down to blogs like this and climateaudit to save the planet, the environmentalists should show a little more civility :)

  96. winterkorn says:

    Climate Science and Computer Science have similarities. Not only are they both in their infancies, they both seem to attract some who specialize in infantile behavior. Fortunately both also attract many people of quality, and progress is made.

  97. theduke says:

    How juvenile. Like a post-adolescent who just moved out of a house where his parents forbid profanity.

  98. Ken Coffman says:

    There’s no profanity (though there’s a little bleeping), but I’m having a spirited conversation with a true believer here:
    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978379711

    You guys might find it interesting.

  99. webofbelief says:

    It is not the profanity that bothers me here; it’s the double-standard. I guess all those journalists who write uncritically about AGW should also refrain from further comment on the subject until spending a month in a climate research institute!

    – Dave

  100. Luboš Motl says:

    Dear Anthony,

    I have some strong astigmatism in eyes (caused by keratoconus, one in 1,800 people) – and I know what the gradual hearing loss means from the experience of my dad. Still, it’s more likely than not that Romm would find a method to make you genuinely upset using other tools and senses that don’t require a perfect hearing. One month is a long time and try to think about all the 5-6 senses you have and what can be done with them! ;-)

    Yours
    Lubos

  101. Manitoba Ken says:

    Romm’s site facilitates and promotes this type of sophomoric behaviour.

  102. Jeff Alberts says:

    Jim Reedy says:
    August 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Re The use of profanity…

    My mum always says “Bad language indicates a poor vocabulary”

    I tend to agree

    I disagree. I have an excellent vocabulary, and I’ll curse when I feel the need. Sometimes you just need that release that a good, well-placed expletive will provide. The problem with Mr. Easterbrook is that he doesn’t realize there’s a time and place for everything.

  103. Bruce Cobb says:

    Despite everything, Andy still “trusts” i.e. has faith in climate science. Perhaps he would like to do a post here to explain why. He might even learn a thing or three, such as the fact that science by consensus isn’t actually science at all, but a Belief system.

  104. Athelstan says:

    It is most unfortunate that the English language contains so many expletives but then we borrow from so many others.
    The grace and power of words is immense, the beauty of prose can be a scalpel if used correctly and to a nicety.
    I am a sinner but I also that know that, there is no need to resort to profanity, once you do that – then the argument is lost.

    Being given invitation to ‘certain scientific circles’ is merely a mark of conformity, ie you are invited because; ‘you are one of us’, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are there because of your famed insight, intellect or integrity, though this helps. It is the same in all social circles, science should be open, honest and at times sociable but always open to people of opposing views, this doesn’t appear to be so in the climatology claque – a ‘closed shop’ is what they are.

    So we stand outside the tent, micturating inwards figuratively speaking!

  105. Huth says:

    It’s impossible to swear/be profane if you aren’t religious. You can still be rude but that’s another matter entirely.

  106. H.R. says:

    I’m not much for salty language but as others have pointed out above, it’s a sign the #$@*!&-ed wheels are falling off the &%*$#!!-ing wagon.

  107. harrywr2 says:

    The profanity doesn’t matter.

    Revkin is the biggest, most reliable mouthpiece the environmental movement has ever had. Insanely, some of his most vehement critics are environmentalists.

    Insane people, they are everywhere, and they don’t even know it.

  108. Tommy says:

    The easily-offended appear to be providing a negative feedback to the profane, but don’t be fooled by appearances. It is the desire of the profane to offend, so such “negative feedback” it is actually received as a positive feedback. This is how “naughty words” become empowered.

    There is no cause for alarm. It’s a win:win for both classes. Those who take offense win points from other snobs that are above the use of such outcast words. Those who give offense win points from other linguistic rebels and daredevils. The empowerement of choice words benefits them all.

    And then there are those who don’t care… =)

  109. evanmjones says:

    Check out the H.L. Mencken essay “Hell and its Outskirts”.

  110. Robert Morris says:

    Its not the language I object to, its the assumption that after a whole month hanging around with PhD students he is now an expert able to offer a critique more insightful and more worthy than the rest of us.

    Holier than thou much?

  111. bob says:

    BenD: Thanks for the clarification on what a computer scientist is. As an (old) engineer, it seems to me that even if an algorithm is correct, getting the wrong answer is still a no-no. Now, I have to do a little research other than Wikipedia to understand that idea.

    By the way, many engineers have gotten wrong answers and kept their jobs. Remember the NASA space probes crashing because of miscalculations?

    M.A.DeLuca II: You have understanding beyond four letter words.

  112. George E. Smith says:

    Well I’m happy that most of the posters (here) seem to be able to sort out who said what. I don’t think I was able to for sure. So which one IS the “computer scientist”. Is it Joe Romm or Steve Easterbrook, or perhaps someone else.

    In the extremely limited dealings that I have had with Andy Revkin directly; he has been cordial and conducted himself respectfully. He may have mellowed a bit since he changed his role with the NYT; and that is probably good, because it probably makes him better as a Journalist if he is more open minded; and he does seem to be that; although I am sure we differ considerably in our views of the climate issue and AGW.

    I would agree with those computer scientists who say that computer science is NOT science. However I would add that some of what passes as computer “science” is more properly in the field of mathematics research; and some of it is quite esoteric.
    So it would be a mistake to relegate “Computer science” to some lower rung on the knowledge ladder. Certainly there are computer scientists that are a darn side smarter than some who perhaps do qualify as scientists.

    As for me, I certainly am NOT a computer scientist; but I do believe I am a Scientist; even a halfways good one.

  113. Ric Werme says:

    Between trying to skim this at work while on hold with my credit union while trying not to take up too much of the work at it, I’m completely lost as to who said what to get to trigger this cat fight. Maybe I’ll try again tonight, but I hope Hurricane stuff will take priority.

    Note to self #1 – I should get out more and keep up with what the other guys are saying.

    Note to self #2 – It’s mayhem out there, and all the interesting stuff is covered at WUWT.

    Note to self #3 – Are the warmists getting desparate and frustrated and striking out at anything the moves? See #1….

  114. PhilJourdan says:

    The warmists appear to be a losing political campaign – they are shaking up the staff and eating their own.

  115. peterhodges says:

    hopefully this circulates widely or goes viral

    it will definitely alienate folks

  116. Sun Spot says:

    Profanity is the will of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully.

  117. Gary Hladik says:

    Sounds like Andy Revkin is one step from being tried for heresy and excommunicated (at best).

    If the Church of CAGW ever gets its house in order, it will come after us, the infidels.

  118. Ric Werme says:

    For George E. Smith et al:

    On computer scientists and software engineers.

    I started college as chemistry major, but I had gotten advanced placement and didn’t need to take the first chemistry course. Somehow I thought I had enrolled as a chemical engineering major, but it really didn’t matter as my first computer programming course set my future career. At the time, CMU didn’t have an undergraduate computer science course, so theoretical types became math majors and practical types became electrical engineering majors.

    Along the way I concluded three things:

    1) Scientists are people who discover or invent new tools and understanding about how the world works.

    2) Engineers are people who take those tools and build systems that never existed before.

    E.g. scientists discover radio waves, engineers build radio transmitters and receivers.
    Metallurgists and concrete chemists provide tools that civil engineers use to make new roads and bridges.

    3) The period when the scientists and engineers do not have a strong distinction is a “Golden Age”.

    E.g. people who designed the first computer timesharing systems had to understand and deploy queuing theory, data structures, memory allocators, etc. Early networks needed communications theory, protocol designs, etc. It was a very exciting time, even it did bring us spam and RealClimate.

    Genetic Engineering is in its own Golden Age now, on that will last a lot longer than computing’s. Once there are catalogs of enzymes listing attributes like yield vs. pH ranges, temperature, etc. will the genetic engineers start to separate from the geneticists.

    Some computer scientists have split off into their own semi-esoteric world. Others manage to keep one foot on the ground and still help the engineers find better ways of doing things.

    Oh – Steve Easterbrook is the computer scientist. I’m not sure how that relates to visiting climate scientists, though a PhD is a required ticket before one is allowed access to some scientific circles. I’m not sure if climate science is one of those circles, us riff-raff on the web seem to have ignored some of that etiquette. (And haven’t published in the proper peer-reviewed journals to boot!)

  119. Jimash says:

    “How many computer scientists does it take to change a light bulb?”

    Modeling several thousand instances of lightbulb changes suggests that
    the bulb in question is too dangerous to change until all power is removed from the circuit, necessitating a complete shutdown of the electrical grid, until such time as
    a suitable replacement bulb, newly designed and manufactured by a foreign subsidiary,
    can be located and produced in enough quantity to ensure that should the new bulb be ineffective that they have a sufficient supply of samples to locate a bulb worthy of being inserted into the receptacle.
    Until that time all power to the district will be shut down and more models commissioned to ascertain the effects on working conditions, of the new bulb.
    A report will then be issued recommending that all bulbs be repplaced with the new one and that any further research into “lightbulb change” is not only unnecessary but counter productive and positively anti-science.
    This will be reviewed by a suitable commission from the UN and recommendations made for legislation abroad, based on the findings of the “Lightbulbologists”.

  120. Mikael Pihlström says:

    Hm. A lot of good spirit, jolliness and wit. You are a good bunch,
    but I wonder what will you do in 10 years when climate policy
    is effective and climate scepticism out of wind? Maybe you will
    rename the site: Up With Taxes?

  121. Larry Fields says:

    Bill Tuttle says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:29 am
    “Ummmmmm — we’re “Murricans,” Larry. “Merkins” are entirely something else.
    Except for a few Murricans I’d consider to be genuine merkins…”

    Yes, I’m aware of that other meaning, but I stand by my spelling. And no, I cannot take credit for the idea. An online Canadian friend, who was tired of his countrymen being labeled as a Canucks, deserves the credit (or the blame). Occasional self-deprecating humor is good for the soul.

  122. stephen richards says:

    I was told by my parents that someone resorts to swearing because they do not have the education to express themselves any other way. I can vouch for it. When I lose my cool I revert very quickly to my mother tongue I can swear better that way :)

  123. Djozar says:

    Merkins keep Mr. Willie warm at night.

  124. Jeff says:

    a computer scientist ? does he design and build computer chips ? because a programmer is certainly not a scientist …

    talk about jock sniffing …

  125. Z says:

    Jay Currie says:
    August 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    It looks like the hyper-warmists are circling the wagons and shooting inward. Why go after a well placed fellow traveler? Revkin is hardly a skeptic. He accepts the creed that CO2 is the cause and the only cause of warming. He accepts that there is warming.

    Now that the wheels are falling off the strong case narrative, the cultists are looking for their betrayers. Deviation from the party line, in even the most minute particular, leads to instant and vociferous excommunication.

    Which makes the hyper warmists sound crazier and crazier.

    Well Judith Curry was the first non-person, now Andy Revkin. I wonder who is next for “nonpersonhood”…

  126. RW says:

    Watts, 29 August: “I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.”

    Watts, 30 August: “In my view, profanity is the last refuge of the disingenuously desperate.”

    Hilarious!

    REPLY: Oh I anticipated some troll like you would say this, and so here’s the reality: learn the difference between an expletive and a profanity.

    I assume then you endorse Joe Romm’s publication of profanity in the purpose of denigrating another person and their right to free speech and to publish as a reporter in a free press? The other difference here is that I used an expletive as comedic satire, where Joe’s guest author used a profanity for the purpose of denigration. Big difference.

    – Anthony

  127. david elder says:

    “Ian H says:
    August 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless. It is like criticising someone for not wiping their shoes before they step into the pigsty. The language used actually seems pretty mild to my ear. Of course I’m from down under where we like our langauge strong to match our beer.”

    I’m from down under too. Colourful language is indeed common here (with considerable help from Hollywood) – but not in scientific debates.

    Steve McIntyre described the language and tone of the Climategaters as ‘trailer trash’ in tone. And I don’t believe that this level of verbal crudity and personalised abuse can be routinely indulged in without interfering with scientific objectivity.

    Incidentally to Larry Fields (August 30 at 11.22 pm) who didn’t like our Lara Bingle’s promotion of Australia with that silly ‘where the bloody hell are you’ commercial: a leading Australian journalist said that Americans should simply give Lara this advice:

    “Mind your own *#!@*^*# business.”

  128. webofbelief says:

    Though I consider myself a computer scientist, I agree with those that say that computer science is not really a science in the sense that, say, physics and chemistry are sciences.

    The foundations of computer science are in discrete mathematics and even mathematical logic, to some extent. The abstract model of computation (the Turing machine) upon which all computability and computational complexity theory is based is essentially a mathematical entity, so are algorithms. Formal languages, automata theory, etc., etc., these are all rightly considered a part of mathematics, in my opinion.

    To the person who said that proving the correctness of programs is like a science (Ben D., I think), I also disagree. Proving that an algorithm implements some formal specification of a program is a mathematical endeavour that involves pure analytic reasoning. There is no need for any empirical investigation of the kind required by other scientific disciplines.

    I look at it this way. Mathematicians can construct formal systems and essentially decide what the “rules” (or axioms) are of these systems, regardless of how they relate to the real world. They can then have fun deducing all the consequences of the rules, which is essentially what they do when the prove theorems. This is a deductive process.

    In science, on the other hand, the scientists are not defining the rules themselves, but rather trying to figure out what the rules are (i.e., the laws of nature), and they do this by formulating falsifiable hypotheses and then subjecting them to empirical tests, which either disprove the hypothesis or add weight to it. This is essentially an inductive process.

    Of course, since math is a tool used by science, the two disciplines necessarily collide and a formal system that is used to describe the laws of nature better relate to the world in the right way and not some arbitrary way.

    (I have a feeling that someone is going to mention Philosopher Willard Quine here, who famously declared that the standard distinction made between the truths of mathematics and science has no merit. Maybe that’s a topic for another post. :-)

    – Dave

  129. Konrad says:

    I am guessing that Joe Romm’s bitterness toward Andy Revkin is not just that he is publishing heresy, but that he can get away with it. The UNS Global Warming has sprung a climategate leak and due to a hold full of post normal science and socialist baggage it is sinking fast. There are not enough life boats for all the fellow travellers, but Andy has a guaranteed seat. Remember the climategate email suggesting “be careful what you include Andy on, he may not be as reliable as we thought”? Mr Revkin has evidence in writing from the Hockey Team showing that he was not an unquestioning believer. He will be able to join the politicians and bankers on the life boats. Joe has to go down with the ship. Methinks Joe Romm should stop whining, man up and join Al and Maurice on the rear deck. It’s a calm starry night and the band will be playing the Internationale.

  130. If the agw alarmists are stooping to foul language, this is a sure sign they know they are losing the argument.

    If they start using foul language directed towards you, do not respond. If you really want to piss them off – ignore them. Besides, why wrestle with a pig; You’ll both wind up dirty!

  131. Ron House says:

    Re my earlier comment above, it turns out climateprogress did not pull my comment. I like doing these little experiments. Tamino failed a similar one, but it seems that Romm will allow some criticism to stand on his blog.

  132. Larry Fields says:

    david elder says:
    August 31, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    “Incidentally to Larry Fields (August 30 at 11.22 pm) who didn’t like our Lara Bingle’s promotion of Australia with that silly ‘where the bloody hell are you’ commercial: a leading Australian journalist said that Americans should simply give Lara this advice:
    ‘Mind your own *#!@*^*# business.’”

    David, I wasn’t the least bit turned off by the Bingle advert; I was simply pointing out what should have been obvious to your marketing research guy. And I really would like to visit your charming banana republic someday. Oh, wait a minute; you’re not a republic yet; you’re still subjects of the Pommy queen. :-)

  133. Pat Heuvel says:

    To Ben D:

    Gday. When I was doing my Diploma of App Sci in EDP, I was told I wasn’t bright enough for CompSci. Oh well.

    I think it’s pointless to try and evaluate the algorithms our learned colleagues use to build and power their models, even if they are correct. The point is not the correctness or otherwise of the models, it is “deus ex machina” argument: This was modeled on a computer so it must be correct.

    Most people are sufficiently awed by computers (even, or maybe especially, the computer fanbois) to not dare question such an assertion. Sad, that.

  134. Rick says:

    Can someone whip up a little JavaScript that models the level of in-fighting to be “worse than previously thought”?

    I recommend a Joe Romm variable, a Monbiot variable and then a nice randomizer for the Gore Effect. Go ahead and make all the assumptions you feel necessary and if anything looks too complicated just make something up and refer to yourself as an authority – it’s good enough for NASA, CRU and other places that use acronyms, so it’s good enough for everybody.

  135. Henry Galt says:

    Ron House says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    One of his minions was here and scuttled back, so as to allow a modicum of dispute to appear there.

    The authority of this blog is ever-growing and it was powerful even before climategate.

  136. RW says:

    You can refuse to publish my comments, of course, but your idiotic contradiction remains up for all to see. This post was not about any objection to bad language – it was simply an attack on someone you don’t like. Next time, try to choose something to object to that you’re not also guilty of.

  137. PhilJourdan says:

    RW says:
    September 2, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    You know what happens when you continue to argue with someone that has left the room?

    You look like those street people that talk to themselves.

Comments are closed.