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.
Incidentally this overwhelm is the only strategy that AGW proponents can use. At least those asking questions about it are using scientific empiricism to emphasise its errors. The response it no explanations, no descriptions – nothing but overpowering browbeating . The chief explanation is because there is no scientific basis behind it so they have to use the methods employed by inquisitions.
I didn’t hear Mr. Morano say anything that would justify a public insult on the part of the old punk pretending to be a scientist. In fact, he almost wasn’t given any opportunity to speak.
It seems that some British comments here express a sympathy for the British accent more than for any understanding of what actually has been said.
Get over your national complex of inferiority, gentlemen.
Morano needs to understand BBC interview techniques and British conditioning to Authority….
As an American he thinks that it is ok to simply respond to what someone is saying…. Which it is, but not in BBC world.
Anyway Morano did ok in my view….. The British Prof’ completely lost it… Quite shocking really if you are English. The man was foam flecked and raving…. To an English man’s eye, anyway;-)
Hi all… some updates from Australia… yesterday, the Greens got beaten (and beaten badly in my opinion) in two byelections that they said were a referendum on Climate Change and the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”… that’s our Emissions Trading Scheme or Cap&Trade if you like.
I’m now finding that over the past week or so, people are not as scared to ask questions about Climate Change and they are starting to get it…. “How can it get colder if carbon dioxide is going to make things hotter?” was one question I was asked….
And I’m with Poptech as well….
Don’t let them off the hook!!!
Fight!… It works… It’s the only thing that ever has.
If nothing else, this thread has certainly been an interesting experiment in the psychology of eye witness testimony. What it has very effectively demonstrated is the persistent truth of the old saw that says “the eye sees what the mind wants it to see.”
Poptech (18:19:57) :
While you will find most people agree that the fraud, if such it turns out to be, must be aggressively pursued, this is not the site for it. This site is more about exposing the truth than the pursuit/prosecution of fraudsters. That is best left to the motivated agenda drivers and politicians.
As things have reached a bit of crescendo since ClimateGate the number of excitable posts here has increased dramatically, which is, of course, totally understandable… this site operates best when the discussion stays at or below the cynical sarcastic quip level of discourse.
At this stage far too many people are ignorant of the state of play… in Australia people quote 70-80% of the population surveyed has no idea what an ETS is or how it operates, despite the fact that we almost had one legislated last week… appalling state of affairs.
I have half a mind to grab some big pieces of chalk and scribble “What is ClimateGate?” on the pavement around the city centre. Once curiosity is piqued people will Google it and start to learn… some people at least. It needs to go mainstream viral.
I, like the next person, do not particularly like the label ClimateGate*, but it is useful in that it is instantly recognisable, catchy and easy to type into Google (despite the lack of autosuggest).
* Despite being accredited as the coiner… ironic eh?
After some fair amount of searching, this from Feynman is the closet thing that came up (and it’s not quite close either):
Ref.
did he say right in the end ‘what an ass hole?’
Poptech tells it like it is. They will steam roll us if they can, as that is their only recourse. Have been watching that happen for 30 years. It is time to speak up.
Bulldust wrote, This site is more about exposing the truth than the pursuit/prosecution of fraudsters. That is best left to the motivated agenda drivers and politicians.
Oh! So now you control Watts Up With That? Has Anthony retired?
Bulldust (20:02:03) :I have half a mind to grab some big pieces of chalk and scribble “What is ClimateGate?” on the pavement around the city centre.
That would be fantastic. How do we organize a media bypass campaign?
AND Poptech (18:19:57) :
Watson isn’t in denial. I think he knows what’s going on and is involved. He was erratic. Here we have one of the most pretentious, condescending professors I’ve seen in a while and Morano didn’t take advantage. The reason I posted the arguments they made is to show that Morano didn’t put the knife into his victim. He was aggressive as you mention but didn’t score a kill. I’m telling you that Watson just motivated his AGW following with his performance. His persecuted visionary routine is going to sell among greens that believe they are persecuted visionaries.
The world has just suffered through a dot.com bust, a real estate bust, a banking bust…. all the while the major media and experts said it couldn’t happen. The AGW bust is coming soon. That’s the message I would give… that the public has been lied-to and betrayed once again. Climategate is the early sign of the collapse to come. My way is much simpler than Morano’s and will cause doubt among the AGW camp. Is that agressive enough for you, or, would you prefer a brawl on-air? 🙂
Bulldust (20:02:03)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this being posted on this site. The topic, climategate is being discussed between one skeptic and a university scientist. Where the university scientist tells the skeptic, to shut-up, rolls his eyes like a child and calls him an a-hole. This is exposing the truth of the behavior of these scientists as Anthony titled it appropriately, “Scientists behaving badly”.
Certain things need to be said for what they are. The code released is FRAUDULENT not some university exercise in the creation of new definitions for commonly used English language words. Just like MIchael Mann’s hockey stick code was fraudulent ect…
The kids glove treatment of FRAUD is not going to cut it.
For some reason certain scientists think that if they can BS enough they can get themselves out of lies. Just like the emails show, Michael Mann believed getting scientists to sign a letter in support of his paper can replace the scientific method. If skeptics tried to pull this they would be called out as using a “denier” tactic, yet certain IPCC scientists have been getting away with it!
The truth is what this has always been about.
We are not playing tiddly-winks. The global warming fraudsters want to indoctrinate and enslave our children. There is no greater cause than fighting the lies and fraud of global warming and the government control that will follow the government’s solution. Our parents and grandparents fought WWI and WW2 to deny the great schemers from enslaving the population. The schemers have not vanished, they have reinvented themselves but now come wrapped in a green sheet.
I think the BBC chose Morano with great care. Well aware that he would create a great contrast to Watson in both style and demeaner. The host then clearly went out of her way to allow Mr Watson all the time he needed to express himself while cutting off Mr Morano just before he could make any point. Thereby giving the impression that Morano was trying to talk over the host when he was actually just finishing a sentence in progress.
It’s pretty obvious that the intent of the BBC was to present Mr Morano as a stereo-typically boorish, rude, dumb American. Unfortunately, they rather surprisingly presented a boorish, rude, dumb Brit, as well. (Actually 2!)
JDN (20:38:45) :
I agree Morano did not score a “kill” but that was because he was not allowed, like the good professor, to go off on a long BS diatribe. He was constantly interrupted, not allowed to finish his points or respond to the professor’s BS claims. Give Morano more time and he will easily finish the job. He did it to Joe Romm in their debate and embarrassed Romm, making him look like he has never had a serious debate on the issue,
Marc Morano vs. Joe Romm
I cannot believe the crap I am reading about this from left-wing rags like Newsweek, it is utterly unbelievable.
I believe all methods and tactics need to be used to get the message out and no one should be afraid of calling BS to BS.
The public at large is stupid to the issue, because they all “care” about the planet and their “children” as if the rest of us do not. We are “evil” they are “saviors”. They believe that fighting pollution is a good thing, when this has NOTHING to do with pollution, CO2 is NOT pollution! They “feel” that renewable energy is “good” and do not understand it is not economically viable nor that it, cap and trade or an ETS will make their energy costs skyrocket. They flat out are economically illiterate and have been brainwashed their whole lives that capitalism and the western way of life is “bad” and now are “guilty” of living longer healthier lives than the third world. We are dealing with mass insanity.
Everyone who “believes” in global warming as a doomsday scenario subscribes to a fallacy. They key is asking someone why they believe it. You will be very surprised about what you find out.
Poptech (19:27:55) : Benjamin (18:27:12) :
No, I’m not misconstruing anything. Read my first post and then my response to Canadian Dave. Was yet another honest mistake, where I momentarily was mixed as to who said what. Apparently not having good day in the ol’ mental department, so I’ll call it quits with the posting today.
Dear Professor Watson,
Only a fool believes that the real issue is whether or not the world’s climate has warmed in the last 100 years. Everyone and their mother knows that it has. The issues are whether or not the warming is abnormal, unnatural, or a threat to the world.
You are a liar, a base, intentional liar. Most men of character would rather be thought an arsehole than a liar any day. Like many people, you need to learn the difference between mannerisms and manners. Your mannerisms are quite smooth and soothing. Your manners are atrocious. Again, you are a liar.
Professor Watson states that using tree rings to reconstruct the temperature anomalies over the past 1000 years “works well until about 1960, then it goes wrong”.
How can he claim that?
The period of reliable instrumental measurement overlap with the tree-ring proxy data before 1960, is only about 60 years and in any case, both series represent anomalies (not actual temperature) — surely they can’t be overlaid to represent a continuous series.
As a layman, I have never understood how the different proxy series making up the ‘spaghetti’ graph (using much of the same data, I believe), can be overlaid to represent anything meaningful — it is amusing how they miraculously coalesce around 1880, when the instrumental data was becoming available.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Can the fraud be that transparent?
I see your point Smokey, the positions could be reversed but my point still stands, it’s a hissy fit and it’s just drama, not ‘hard evidence’. I think the ’cause’ becomes skewed when topics of any skeptical nature become meritorious. Then it becomes about the attack.
When people start to lose an argument, verbally at least, they usually resort to verbal abuse.
Good one Watson, one more nail in the AGW coffin.
“The data goes wrong at about 1960 for reasons we don’t have to go into”
You can now see what those reasons are:
Briffa et al. (1998b) discuss various causes for this decline in tree growth parameters, and Vaganov et al. (1999) suggest a role for increasing winter snowfall. We have considered the latter mechanism in the earlier section on chronology climate signals, but it appears likely to be limited to a small part of northern Siberia. In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.
Watson’s answer to the “hide the decline” question was completely obfuscatory. Admittedly many who haven’t followed the science closely incorrectly assumed that “hide the decline” meant they were attempting to conceal an actual decline in global temperatures. In reality the reason the decline needed to be hidden was that it revealed that their reconstruction suffered from a severe case of the “divergence problem” which occurs when the algorithm established to match ring width to the temp record of the calibration period fails to match the instrumental record temps when extended forward. Though Watson is correct about many attempts being made to justify the divergence, in reality it is prima facie proof that the proxy is worthless. If the proxy can’t match the record going forward, you have to be either a fool or a fraud to claim that it can provide an accurate record going backward. This is the real reason they had to “hide the decline”, because it proved their work was worthless.
Political commentators and other amateurs may be forgiven for misinterpreting this, but Watson is supposedly a scientist and must obviously be aware of what the truth was. Given the performance of the moderator and Watson, Morano was the only one in the piece who wasn’t acting like an anal orifice.
Well this is a little off this topic but its funny as hell. Remember how the Railroad Engineer in charge of the IPCC originally blew off what was happening in Climategate, then all of a sudden he does a 180 spin and says they ain’t going to sweep it under the rug? Well this might be the reason why: He just found out what Phil thought of him taking over the IPCC and his attempt to stop it:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
Alimentary my dear Watson.
Or to quote Tom Lehrer; ‘Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it’.
Maybe the Mercury Monkeys should be replaced by baboons?