Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Dear Bora;
I know, I know, like many people I didn’t think it was possible for Scientific American magazine to sink any lower. I loved Scientific American as a kid, the “Amateur Scientist” column was a godsend on the ranch. But then, slowly your magazine morphed, first into less-science, then non-science, then non-sense, and then finally anti-science. I (like many people) quit reading the magazine years ago. Your hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg, for example, was disgraceful. For me these days Scientific American is known by its shortened name, ScAm.
But now, it’s even worse. You, Bora Zivkovic, write a blog titled A Blog Around The Clock: Rhythms of Life in Meatspace and Cyberland. And who are you when you are at home? Your mini-bio on ScAm says:
Bora Zivkovic is the Blog Editor at Scientific American, chronobiologist, biology teacher, organizer of ScienceOnline conferences and editor of Open Laboratory anthologies of best science writing on the Web.
There’s more there, you’re not just a blogger, you’re the Blog Editor, and you teach introductory biology, not the advanced kind, at Wesleyan College. Got it.
And on the 28th of January, you took all of us low-lifes to task on your blog. You say some commenters are a problem, and your solution to the problem of inconsiderate people asking scientific questions on a ScAm blog is quite simple:
Automatic Computer-model-based Censorship.
I can only bow my head in awe. I mean, what better way is there to keep you from answering people from WUWT and other sites who might want answers to actual scientific questions, than not allowing them to speak at all? Let me give other readers a glimpse into the future of scientific discussion, your brilliant plan for hands-off blog censorship … here it is, and as you explained, it involves computer models (emphasis mine)
If I write about a wonderful weekend mountain trek, and note I saw some flowers blooming earlier than they used to bloom years ago, then a comment denying climate change is trolling. I am a biologist, so I don’t write specifically about climate science as I do not feel I am expert enough for that. So, I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.
See, Bora, the beauty of your plan is, you don’t even have to think about censorship once you do that. The computer does the hard work for you, rooting out and destroying evil thoughtcrimes coming from … from … well, from anyone associated with Watts Up With That, or with Steven McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit, or anyone that you might disagree with, or who is concerned about “alarmists”, you just put them on the list and Presto!
No more inconvenient questions!
The beauty part is, censorship in that manner isn’t personal or based on prejudices, it’s gotta be 100% scientific—because hey, it’s based on a computer model, and the modelers constantly assure us that model-based science is the real deal. For example, a noted advocate of computer models and transparency in science posted this insightful comment in support of your fascinating proposal for secret hidden computer-model-based censorship of unwelcome views …
Astroturf pay-4-trolling outfits? I gotta say, Mann has lost the plot entirely. He’s sounding like one of those goofy ads on the insides of matchbook covers, “DON’T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY—Make Money With Your Computer At Home While You’re Trolling!!! Call 1-800-ASTROTURF now!”
I swear, there’s no way to parody this stuff, Bora. You and Mike, you’ve truly outdone yourselves, your idea of computer-model-based censorship is worthy of the modern ScAm you work for.
The sight of a so called “scientific” magazine advocating for hidden censorship based on where someone might comment or their saying the word “alarmist” or where they might find some particular fact, well, that is an abomination, Bora. It makes me fear for the students at Wesleyan College. Do you turn people away from your classes as well for disagreeing with your revealed wisdom, or because they may have read my biology piece about extinctions on WUWT?
Unlike your pathologically computer-censored blog, here at WUWT we just ignore the jerks, or I metaphorically beat them severely about the head and shoulders for bad behavior … but we don’t censor them for reading or citing your or any other web site, ever.
So how about you have the stones to do the same, my friend, and you stop hiding behind your pathological computer models from folks who read or cite this web site?
Finally, Bora, you are (of course) free to comment below on my open letter and defend your position. Unlike your site, where I could invisibly be made a non-person and my ideas prevented from ever seeing the light, here at WUWT we actually DO preach and practice science of the old-fashioned, transparent kind, where even the advocates of hidden, under-the-table censorship like yourself and Michael Mann are free to comment. And if we do snip someone’s particular comment for being a jerkwagon, we note that fact, we don’t just sweep them under the rug like you do.
I won’t be surprised if you don’t show up to defend the indefensible, however. I’d be a fool to expect that kind of honesty and forthrightness from a man who secretly destroys unwanted questions from his scientific opponents …
But I invite you to surprise me, my friend, I’m always overjoyed to see a man moving to become an actual scientist, one who listens to and answers inconvenient questions from his scientific opponents … heck, who knows, you might just learn something.
Of course, I am aware that no one will be able to cite this open letter on your blog, you’ve erased that possibility already … gosh, that’s science at its finest, Bora.
How do you justify this to yourself?
Has noble cause corruption really affected your moral compass to that extent, that you not only invisibly censor people whose scientific views differ from your own, but you actually attempt, not just a pathetic justification of that underhanded action, but an even more pathetic and anti-scientific celebration and and advocacy of such hidden censorship? These questions and more, I invite your answers.
My regards to you, Bora … and I’m totally serious about your sneaky, invisible trashing of people’s comments based on where people post and what they might cite—your kind of cowardly hidden censorship is absolutely antithetical to science, as is conclusively proven by Michael Mann’s approval of your plan.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d phrase it “To these questions and more…”
And I certainly would like to see answers!
(Not some Mannish defense of Al Gore
Nor more faux-angel pinhead dancers.)
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I protest! 🙂 This is a blog about science, why is there a story about the current SciAm which is so short on science?
More seriously, thanks. I have mental notes about a web page lamenting about what SciAm has degraded into and fondly remember when it was full of articles about science that was not quite on the cutting edge but ready for a sizable article presenting the science to laymen and students alike.
And, of course, Martin Gardner and Jerel (sp) Walker.
Well done Willis, but as usual, through one ear and out the other as the saying goes. ScAm failed a long time ago now.
Categorical censorship.
Having the stones? Old Borat (Did I say that?) is a fine example of the craft. I just finished reading NatGeo’s recent article on Fracking, and boy, that should outta get a 10 at SkS, and ScAm as well. I can hear Mann’s cervical vertebrae crunching in approval from here. There was even a picture of hapless roughnecks handling pipe as “oil and natural gas SPEWED from the well”…funny, I’ve never seen that, ever. Usually, they are running away when that happens…handling pipe becomes a pesky sideshow when your life is endangered.
I’m actually surprised it took Borat and his ilk this long to apply a trolling filter. They must have gotten bored hurling insults.
Another demonstration of mental laziness, just train your computer to do your thinking for you!
I have to remind my wife that the computer is just a dumb machine that does exactly what you tell it to do. It does not think! It has no idea of the rightness of its’ output. Only people have judgement, well at least some of them do. 😉 pg
Well done, Willis. Will Bora know it’s here? Does he junk his emails as well as his blog comments (if you sent an email)?
It should make him think about his decisions. It’s no bad thing to have awkward comments or difficult questions. A scientist should be able to answer and respect all contributors. Perhaps he wasn’t thinking straight. Perhaps what he thought of as an easy solution will sit uncomfortably with him. I hope so.
I’ve learned something extra with this whole climate debate, I’ve learned where the adults are and where the kids are. You can tell the adults from the kids by their behaviour. Fascinating.
I can hear Bora saying “Vat you talkin’ ’bout, Villis?”
Bora Zivkovic is the Blog Editor at Scientific American, chronobiologist, biology teacher, organizer of ScienceOnline conferences and editor of Open Laboratory anthologies of best science writing on the Web.
———————–
Or, in other words, a spectacularly failed scientist.
Well done Bora. I hope your Mom’s proud of you.
Bravo, Willis.
That needed saying.
Amazing that Bora doesn’t see his own unscientific prejudice!
Kurt in Switzerland
Well in Bora’s defence, WUWT can afford to leave critical comments up because they are easy to rebut and don’t make the site look foolish. Having the truth on your side makes it an unlevelled playing field.
He will not be moved, of course. Speak of categorical thinking! We are witches, and he will brand us with a scarlet letter al gore rhythm.
Orwell was an optimist.
I too am shocked at what the Scientific American of my youth has degenerated into, I wouldn’t line my bird cage with it, that would constitute animal abuse.
“and you teach introductory biology, not the advanced kind, at Wesleyan College. Got it.”
Hmmm, I really wonder if you “got it”. That means he’s a talented teacher; the ones that teach the advanced courses are usually the new guys, not so good at saying things in an interesting manner, etc. But you meant to complement him, right?
“any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts…..you don’t even have to think about censorship once you do that.”
Whatever. I have been “mod”ed on this site for nothing other than mentioning that word that starts with “Din” and ends with “ialist”. A computer would work the same.
[Reply: Read the site Policy. You are not special. — mod.]
Well said Willis. The last issue, of ScAm that I purchased was the issue that did a hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg. Having read Lomborg’s book, I was so mad I never bought another issue, though I will admit thumbing it in the supermarket to see if they changed their strips, but alas they have only gotten worse. Like you, I grew up with Scientific American, it was one of my first stops in the Library.
Credit where it’s due, a post containing “Al Gore” is not likely to hold much scientific value.
A couple things.
1. I have had a comment snipped at WUWT for pointing out that a chart was produced by a model.
ehh. nobodies perfect.
2. If ou want to have fun with his computerized comment control, say the same thing using different words. That would be hugely funny and who knows may lead to the invention of new terms for alarmists and warmist. Think of it as a challenge to be creative.
REPLY: Mosher, your point 1 isn’t fully true as written. As I recall the decision, it had to do with the fact that after you pointed out the model/chart thingy, you then launched into an off-topic rant about how people that don’t get it should be talking about it here. You seemed to miss the distinction that synoptic models and climate models are entirely different animals. I use and trust synoptic models every day, because they constantly get better as they are rapidly tuned by comparison of output to reality. There’s a strong feedback for improving the code/skill and and the science behind it.
Climate models tend to be more open ended…not so much skill/feedback improvements go on because of the time scale issues, so they tend to be less accurate, and slow to get better. Synoptic models tend to do well with short term linearity (persistence) with specific weather variable but climate models don’t fare as well due to the larger number of variables and the breakdown of linearity (chaos) over long time scales. In your comment you said you can’t reject one type of model and trust another and went into some over the top off topic chiding. That was a mistake on your part.
Your comments sometimes get a bit angry and condescending, that was one of them. In my opinion, WUWT moderation did you a favor. – Anthony
“…So, I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words…“Al Gore”…By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post…”
And this happens after Al Gore goes through all that trouble to re-introduce his web site, “Climate Drop”.
After all, Bora Zivkovic said it best: “…By definition, it contains erroneous information…” Especially if Al Gore was involved.
“send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” ”
Tee hee. Poor old Al is probably wondering why none of his comments ever get published on ScAm.
🙂
Last time I looked at ScAm at the newsstand about a decade ago, it already looked like a puzzle book: “Spot the Science”.
His motivation is simple…it’s fear…. If you spend much time on blogs like his, especially as a bystander/reader that doesn’t comment, you start to recognize the insults. Then the ad hom and the vitriol become clear while the science seems foggy. So you click on the links people provide. Eventually you’ll end up on WUWT. On this site you see you don’t have to be disagreeable to disagree. He fears those that will end up here will stay here and if you stay here very long he will lose you. I even sensed Nick Stokes was having a change of heart yesterday. Thanks Anthony for your hard work, kindness, and belief in science.
I guarantee censorship happens at WUWT every single day. You even call it “snipping”. JP
REPLY: Question. Do you allow people to come into your home and yell insults or angry rants at you? Or, do you show them the door? Yes some comments that don’t meet site policy do get snipped here. Compare our site policy it to some other blogs (Like Greg Laden’s – see commenting policy) and it is quite fair. We also don’t go out of our way to trumpet in an essay how we will block specific people as Bora did.
WUWT is approaching a million comments now, 992,107 as of this writing, so I’ll say that success speaks volumes, and anonymous angry whiners, not so much. You are most welcome to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
My brief tenure as writer of “The Amateur Scientist” for Scientific American when it was still a great magazine led directly to a Rolex Award and my 23-years of using homemade instruments to monitor the ozone layer, solar UV-B, aerosol optical depth and total column water vapor (the main greenhouse gas). Details and data are at http://www.forrestmims.org.
So the Mod. says “read the site policy”. What’s the difference? SciAm just uses a computer to enforce the “policy”. At least the computer isn’t biased. The Mod’s, well…not so much. JP
REPLY: The computer isn’t capable of bias, but the computer programmer is. In this case the bias comes from the programmer. Computers can’t read context well, humans can and can make a decision based on the context. Big difference. – Anthony
BTW: Did you spot my comments at #50 and #51?
Blew his boat out of the water regarding “free speech” concepts, etc.
Comments survived … one without any contra-argument.