Viewers won’t remember but one thing about this interview: that a UEA scientist called a skeptic an “assh*le” on live television. It reveals just how rattled they are there at UEA/CRU.
NOTE: Updated to the full length version which was put online about 5 hours after this story was first posted – better video quality in addition to the full context of the interview – readers may wish to watch a second time. Thanks to WUWT commenter “adamskirving” – Anthony
Professor Andrew Watson (whose emails are in the Climategate emails) also adds a nice touch when he rolls his eyes, see if you can spot it.
Marc Morano explains:
A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in “tabloid-style character assassination” of scientists, called an American climate skeptic “an assh*le” on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight program.
“What an assh*le!” declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot’s executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.”
Video of BBC “Asshole” clip is here. (short) and here (full length – best quality)
Full one-on-one BBC debate segment between Prof. Watson and Climate Depot’s Morano is here in two parts.
The remark was broadcast live on BBC and prompted an on-air apology to viewers from the BBC later in the program for the offensive language.
Watson (Email: a.watson@uea.ac.uk) is a professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Watson’s emails appear in the hacked Climategate files.
During the live debate, Morano challenged Professor Watson for being in “denial” over the importance of Climategate and noted that “you have to feel sorry for Professor Watson.”
“[Watson’s] colleague, [Professor] Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia is saying this is authoritarian science, he is suggesting the [UN] IPCC should be disbanded based on what Climategate reveals,” Morano said.
“[UK environmentalist] George Monbiot is saying many of his friend in the environmental and the climate fear promoting business — as Professor Watson is part of — are in denial. You have to feel sorry for Professor Watson in many ways here,” Morano explained.
A clearly agitated Watson called Morano his “psychic colleague” and blurted out “Will you shut up just a second!?”
Morano summed up his views on what ClimateGate reveals during the debate. “It exposes the manufactured consensus. Your fellow colleagues are saying this,” Morano said to Watson.
Morano also noted that President “Obama is probably attending [the UN Conference] because they are circling the wagons because of the magnitude of this scandal.” (See: ‘Welcome to the delayers’: Obama’s ‘half-hearted climate efforts’ welcomed by skeptics – Nov.17, 2009)
“You have UN scientists turning on UN scientists. This is the upper echelon of the UN and it has been exposed as the best science that politics and activism can manufacture. Prof. Watson’s whole argument is ‘trust me, take my word for it,’” Morano added.
Professor Phil Jones, Watson’s colleague, has temporally stepped down pending an investigation into the Climategate scandal, which many observers say exposes data manipulation, suppression of peer-review process, blacklisting, data destruction, willful violation of Freedom of Information Act requests. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot’s Morano, who BBC described as “one of America’s leading climate change skeptics,” is also cited in the released Climategate files. On July 23, 2009, AP reporter Seth Borenstein asked the Climategate scientist about a “a paper in JGR (Journal of Geophysical Research) today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly.” Penn State Professor Michael Mann (who is now under investigation) apparently wrote back to Borenstein: “The aptly named Marc ‘Morano’ has fallen for it!”]
Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia, the University at the center of the Climategate controversy, has come to the defense of his colleagues this week and is claiming that the whole email and data release is much ado about nothing.
But other scientists disagree. One of Watson’s colleagues at the University of East Anglia, Professor Mike Hulme, declared Climategate reveals climate science had become ‘too partisan, too centralized.” Hulme, a climate scientist who was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, does not mince words on the magnitude of the scandal.
Hulme has even suggested that the UN IPCC has run its course. ”
“It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures,” Hulme wrote on November 27, 2009.
“It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the [UN] I.P.C.C. has run its course. “The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” Hulme explained.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bulldust (17:08:06) :
My first impression of that interview is that Dr Watson got a lot more airplay than Morano, which may explain why he was chomping at the bit to blurt out his piece. So I took the time to analyse the start and finish time of each speaker and the following real data fell out:
Intro/Interviewr: 99 seconds
Dr Watson: 192 seconds
Morano: 96 seconds
Yeah, but Watson talked at half Morano’s speed. You gotta take account of special needs.
EPA Again:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/agw-clergy-at-epa-about-to-issue.html
Richard M (17:09:36) :
For those into body language:
– Excessive blinking
I feel a bit sorry for Watson (but not much). Obviously not as used to the media cut’n’thrust as Morano.
Lord Stern behaving badly.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/stern-unhinged.html
Scientists behaving badly, not according to Holdren!
Holdren says Mann’s methods are…unconventional!
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/holdren-manns-methods-unconventional.html
This interview was a set up plain and simple. The BBC interviewer allowed Dr. Watson to talk endlessly and cut Morano off constantly, and BTW he was a bit of a-hole, but I would be too if I was him in that type of interview.
And trust me there’s a reason why they chose him because he’s from the politcal arena, and this gives the BBC the opportunity to make skeptics come off as aggresive and ignorant.
If they wanted a real interview, they would have put someone like McIntyre, McKitrick, Spenser or Lindzen on, scientist vs scientist.
Either of then would have made short work of Watson and made things even worse the AGW movement.
I’m no expert but if Watson is so disgusted over the character assassinations, then maybe… just maybe?…. they shouldn’t do things which assassinate their characters, such as lie then deny the significance of those lies?
Gosh, I wouldn’t know because I’m just a stupid, loud American. And speaking of which…
Seems to me that Mr.Morano has to resort to shouting because SHE keeps interupting and yelling over HIM whenever he makes a valid point. From there, Watson gets what he wants and desperately needs. Maybe Morano could have handled it better, but one must not overlook how the rigging of this discussion was revealed shortly after it began. He really had no other choice BUT to start shouting because as is so typical of the liberal media, Obama’s attendance is construed as “acceptance of the science” and thus a dismissal of the ClimateGate scandal. They may as well have switched the argument to that of the the earth being flat, the sun missing, the moon cheese, and that pi is exactly three. Right in the heat of things, they changed the meaning of everything in a very big way, which caused Morano to start shouting. From there, Watson took control in the portrayal of skeptical resitance as the domain of loud-mouthed Americans who love to assassinate character more than pay attention to the science at hand.
How very rigged this “discussion” was. It was nothing more than an attempt to do what Watson himself says people shouldn’t be doing, which is character assassination over the matter at hand. Not only that, by the very fact that he so willingly and easily used character assassination himself, he has made it clear that only the warmists should have and use this weapon in the debate, whereas his opponents should not have that power. He just wants people to not scream as the warming religion comes to murder them. i.e. He’s a cowardly little miscreant, like so many of the warmists have shown themselves to be time and again!
This is one of those fluff articles Anthony. All it is displaying is a media savvy politician and a scientist easily getting his buttons pushed.
A bit dramatic but that is all.
regards
Sam
December 4, 2009
Say what?
“”I personally wish it were just ‘scare-mongering’, that this is all exaggerated,” [German AGW climate scientist Hans Joachim] Schellnhuber said when asked about the skeptics. He said scientists face intensive peer scrutiny that ensures high standards of quality, integrity and accuracy.
“What special interests are supposedly being represented? Our findings have nothing to do with special interests. The system is constructed to ensure the greatest credibility.”” “Top Climate Change Expert Hopes Science Got It Wrong”
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/say-what_04.html
SamG,
Which is the politician and which is the scientist?
If you look at this summary of Watson vs. Morano, you see that Morano left a lot on the table whilst using the standard fallacy of implied middle premise. My conclusion is that Watson was only unconvincing to us, and, Morano didn’t put too much of a dent in him as concerns the general public.
Here is a list points made by (W)atson & (M)orano:
W:
1) Argues that skeptic position on temperature reconstruction using a dirty trick is taken out of context [doesn’t argue that it’s wrong]
2) Admits the trick but downplays importance [only one line of text in an obscure report, but doesn’t mention the central importance to the politics of AGW & falsification of data scandal.]
3) Admits the trick is to cherry pick data [which is only a part of the trick] then uses proof by authority (lots of papers) to further divert interest.
4) Doesn’t know about deletion of e-mail & FOI requests
— Twists question into one asking for further info rather than one asking for opinion
— False reason given for not knowing about it (doesn’t work at climate unit; this didn’t stop Moonbiot or others)
— If the leaked e-mails are real, they are evidence of an offense independent of further information or even one’s opinion. The interviewer was looking for an acknowledgment, not further info as Watson pretends.
5) No raw data has been lost. [ I believe that contradicts a CRU statement somewhere, false though it may be.]
6) Colleagues have not manipulated data
— Seems to have forgotten that he doesn’t work at the climate unit
— Bald-faced lie. Analysis is data manipulation by definition. He is playing with words.
— In the next sentence he admits manipulation of data as part of the “trick”
M:
1) Watson is denying that climategate affects case for AGW [ Well, DUH!] followed by unprovoked ad hominem]
2) Watson admitting not aware of all specific issues [Fallacy of implied middle – nobody said he was. Ad hominem]
3) Make Hulme @ur momisugly UEA is attacking IPCC based on climategate [Non-sequitor]
4) George Moonbiot is attacking Watson & we must feel sorry for Watson [Non-sequitor & Ad hominem]
W:
7) Denies being in denial followed by ad hominem against Morano.
8) Claims that skeptics (by definition those who are currently attacking the AGW science) can’t attack the science & use ad hominem exclusively [a good characterization of Morano].
M:
5) Leaked e-mails exposes manufactured consensus [Finally, a charge… which is immediately dropped.]
6) Asks for Watson’s opinion on Hulme’s & others’ attack on the IPCC & Jones.
7) Asserts that skeptics are colleagues [ a weak position & not true in all cases]
W:
9) Accuses Morano of shouting
M:
8) Snide comment
W:
10) Doesn’t agree with attacks [no surprise here]
M:
9) Interrupts Watson and is told to shut up.
W:
11) Makes general science platitudes
12) Argues against character assassination
M:
10) Copenhagen wasn’t going to succeed anyway [Absolutely no context for this statement.]
11) Obama is only attending Copenhagen to cover up scandal [Great, a conspiracy theory, which may be true because Obama is a great politician, but, why make it when there’s no way to defend it when made without qualification.]
12) Points out dissension among U.N. scientists [Implies further third party ad hominem attacks]
13) Accuses U.N. Science of fraud to meet political demands. [WHAT!?! There’s no way climategate has gotten that far yet. Which political forces ordered it? Where’s your proof? There’s nothing in the leaked e-mails.]
14) Further ad hominem on Watson
W:
13) Climategate is setback due to character assassination
14) Deliberately confuses recent warming trend with AGW [false argument]
That’s my take, anyway.
We have the biggest scandal ever, exposing the global warming fraud and people are complaining that Morano was too aggressive? [snip]? Are you kidding me? Has WUWT attracted a bunch of go along, get along wusses? I have a feeling these are former believers who don’t want anyone’s “feelings” hurt, oh too bad! I’ve been doing this too long and have been involved in too many debates where I have been viciously personally attacked for questioning the so-called “science”. If you think for a minute skeptics like Morano are going to go easy then you need to get a clue.
Marc Morano is the example of how people need to be on this issue. You have scientists like Watson in utter denial of what is going on trying to spread propaganda and Morano would have none of it. THANK YOU MARC!!!
BTW it is Morano NOT Moreno
I like McIntyre, great guy, brilliant analyst but he is NOT a spokesperson.
Morano knows what to say and how to say it, he hammered Watson forcing him to take a stance against his colleagues, which was brilliant. But Morano could barely speak and was forced to interject simply to not let the propagandist (Watson) get away with lies. You either fight or give up, Morano is choosing to fight and so am I.
Dave in Canada (17:48:09) : “And trust me there’s a reason why they chose him because he’s from the politcal arena, and this gives the BBC the opportunity to make skeptics come off as aggresive and ignorant. If they wanted a real interview, they would have put someone like McIntyre, McKitrick, Spenser or Lindzen on, scientist vs scientist.”
Nah, I wouldn’t say he’s ignorant. Rather, I think he got his facts a bit mixed up. For example, Obama hasn’t cancelled his appearance at Copenhagen (that I know of. I heard that he’s announced that his Most Almighty Appearance will be delayed, though). It was Al Gore who cancelled his Big Event, which many presume is because of the whole scandal. Maybe that is what he was trying to refer to. How I see it, that is where he went wrong and where the raptors circled and struck hard.
Other than that, though, he got it pretty much spot on in saying that these “scientists” have condemned themselves as liars and manipulators, by their own words in their own emails. However, yes, I agree… put McIntyre, McKitrick, Spenser on there! But how very strange that Watson says he doesn’t want this to become political and about character assassination, yet he participated and surely knew ahead of time who his opponent would be. Hmmm… maybe it didn’t go so badly afterall. Exposure is exposure is exposure… They just keep digging the grave of their credibility deeper and deeper. So all in all, I’d say things went better than they did worse.
I think the American was the decent guy. He said Sorry.
The British Professor was immature. I’m sure he’s not debated very frequently. Whoever tosses ideas back and forth would not get so flustered.
Who’s doing character assasination? If your emails read badly, you are assasinating your own character.
So, you guys…
I am having a good ol´ laugh now..
I truly enjoy seeing these manipulative bastards with their pants down.
But that does not change the fact that mr Morano came across as an a-hole
That final remark was totally justified.
Arsehole indeed.
Benjamin (18:27:12) :
I didn’t want to infer that he’s ignorant of the situation, he has a firm grasp of it, rather that he came off as rude, which was the purpose, because as the interviewer said, he’s a “leading” skeptic, poor choice of words.
The interview is part of “white washing” by the media.
I really want to know if he was speaking for and on behalf of UEA.
1) If he was, then it implies that the UEA were backing Phil Jones conduct regarding everything in the emails except the FOI stuff. (As well as calling Morano an a**hole). So no prizes for guessing how well the independent investigation will go with the university backing Jones’s conduct and integrity.
2) If he wasn’t, why wouldn’t he back Jones on the FOI stuff since he’s so sure of his scientific integrity? Seems to me that the UEA lawyers gagged any comment about FOI in case their legal position was undermined by Prof Watsons comments. In which case UEA we’re presumably allowing him to speak for them on the other matters so we’re back to 1) again…
from Ron de Haan’s (18:02:46) posted link : “People go into science because they’re interested in finding the truth. It’s total nonsense (to accuse scientists of scare-mongering). Those people will never believe us.”
To which I say… “They say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Oh yeah?! Well sometimes it’s a BIG BROWN [male member]!” — George Carlin
🙂
Dave in Canada (18:36:13) : Benjamin (18:27:12) :
Ah, you’re right Dave… I read you totally wrong. Sorry about that!
i think everyone is not getting what the BBC is doing in bringing up the comments of the programmer
it will be easier to blame the programmer and then say the science is still good, man is causing climate change
they are creating their own future headlines
it look to me they want to make the programmer the scapegoat
Poptech: I am with you.
AJStrata (09:06:07) :
Folks may find this interesting. If you compare the raw CRU temp profiles against the AGW models (which is the right method to assess the models) you discover AGW cannot exist. What CRU has been doing is taking temp profiles that don’t show a hockey stick and adding in hockey stick, which magically matches those models that assume a hockey stick will show up in the Temp data. Climategate just proved AGW as a theory is wrong.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11732
I sure do – find it “interesting”. Confirm data if possible, then let it loose to WUWT/the public?
Dave in Canada, you said what I tried to say. The science is really immaterial as the general public does not have the background to judge it. Instead they will judge the demeanor of the debaters as they have been mislead as to the facts. The media is manipulating this. Watch it disappear unless there are enough of us who have been doing independent investigation or if honest brokers are not given the opportunity to educate the propagandized masses.
Benjamin (18:27:12) :
Morano did not get his facts mixed up, he never said Obama was not going rather that “Copenhagen was going to be a wake anyway, President Obama had said the U.S. wasn’t going to do anything..” as in Copenhagen was going to be a meeting resembling the death of Global Warming as we know it and the U.S. is not going to make any real commitments to reducing CO2 not that Obama is not going. The shows host and yourself misconstrued what he said.
Peter Hearnden (09:40:35) :
wait a minute.
How many times was Morano interrupted by the rude interviewer as opposed to Watson? How many times did Morano tell Watson to shut up? How many times did Morano tell Watson to stop shouting, talking? Who’s doing the character assassinations?
Watson is typical of the closed minded unqestioning sausage factory known as the university system in England. And before you pull me upon that, i’ve been through it. I can only re-iterate the words of England’s leading highbrow during the50’s. Aldous Huxley wrote that in England a boy goes to a good school to receive half an education, then onto uiversity to have it taken out of him.
That aside, Morano was asking Watson to review his position. What did he get? ridicule and totalitarian gall