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.
I don’t know what program most of you were watching but as Morano started the interview the female interviewer cut him off several times. It became quite clear very early that he would not be give fair time to respond or comment so I don’t blame him one bit for talking over them. It was either that or be cudgeled by the lopsidedness of the interview. Watson’s behavior was inexcusable. This man is supposed to be a learned professor. He came off as a childish (to use a slightly cleaner version of his own word) ahole.
Watson’s eyeroll is the same as when Dee Dee Ramone was asked about his hooking for heroin days: “I’d rather not talk about it.”
Bulldust
Unless your accredation comes under your real name I can find no one who directly credits anyone with coining the name. Intersetingly enough, Wiki refuses to call it that. They list it under – don’t laugh now – Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident.
So here is a man (Watson) who accuses sceptics of engaging in character assassination
who ends up with what is in effect a character assassination.
Incidentally, I am convinced he said ass not arse – the man can’t even insult people properly in his native language.
And in agreement with an earlier poster, in the whole interview, Morano got less than 20% of the time, and the presenter, Martha Kearney, cut him off at least twice before he could complete his points. What an arsehole.
Climate Heretic (16:18:03): I disagree with you.
woodentop (16:01:48): Sorry pal, but that’s rubbish.
The need for source code readability, maintainability and quality certainly depend on the context in software engineering. I addition this is not the main point here, let us assume that the source code is poor quality as you suggest, does that help us in any way? NO! I think we need a much more PRAGMATIC point of view here, KILL YOUR DARLINGS (in software), we need to COMPILE the code, EXECUTE the code to determine WHAT it is doing!
i hav read alot of responses and i really like kate 11:18:11. at first i was somewhat critical of morano but now i hav a more balanced reaction. thanks kate!
April E. Coggins (20:36:38) :
Nope … just saying that if we stoop to Watson’s level we will lose. We are starting this race with a major handicap after all. AGW has been rammed down the throat of the populace for some time now and needs to be countered with balanced arguments. The more we get excited and rave about the ludicrous statements made by the AGW mob… the more they can point & laugh, and we lose cred with the ignorant* majority. Every time the Glenn Beck’s of the world rave about the AGW debate I get the feeling it is two steps forward and three steps back.
In Australia I want to see people educated on the meaning of the ETS:
1) To their hip pockets;
2) To energy-intensive industry (and hence jobs);
3) To the huge bureaucracy that will be required to manage it;
4) etc…
Once people understand point 1, if nothing else, the support for an ETS will evaporate quickly. This is the way to win the debate against the legislation. So far the media and government have avoided, at all costs, to explain any detail whatsoever.
I certainly don’t control this site LOL… I just saw how it used to be prior to the ClimateGate incident and how it has become more excitable since. We have lost one valuable contributor already due to overly enthusiastic debate aimed at him. IMHO it would serve the purpose of this site far better to be moderate in our debates with a dollop of sarcasm for light relief. But that is just my opinion.
I did FORTRAN professionally for 20 years before moving to C++. What I have seen of the CRU FORTRAN code is not holding up to any standard whatsoever, it appears “thrown together” without any consideration of maintainability.
It really does not matter whether the people writing this code were “smart” or not. What matters is that the result is of very poor quality.
Reply to Joe Romm’s following slur:
[JR: The flaw in you “logic” is that the the people who rejected the science before are the ones rejecting it now. Nothing could ever change their/your views, so the repetition of the basic scientific process would serve no purpose. The data has been available for a long, long time. It is of no interest to 99.9% of disninformers, since there views are not fact-based.]
Wow. Joseph M asks for the basic tenets of the scientific method to be followed, objectivity, replicability, dispassionate appraisal, and he gets this in return.
If the data has been available for a long, long time, why does Mann in one of the emails ask the recipient not to pass his intermediate results to anyone else “in case they fall into the wrong hands”?
These intermediate results were exactly what published scientists and statisticians had been specifically requesting for years.
Your slur on those wishing to critically examine the claims of these secretive scientists as not being interested in facts does you no credit Mr Romm. It is you who is trying to downplay the significance of the facts about these scientists revealed in their *at long last* publicly available emails, code and documents.
I saw this last night and remarked on it immediately
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (02:57:28) : It really does not matter whether the people writing this code were “smart” or not. What matters is that the result is of very poor quality.
No. That’s complete nonsense! We need to COMPILE the code, EXECUTE the code, REVERSE ENGINEER how it is supposed to work together with the RAW data files in the dump in order to CONCLUDE exactly what it is doing.
Complaining that the source code is poor quality does not help us in any possible way, that’s certainly a dead end a RED HERRING that draws attention away from the central issue which is whether they have ADAPTED the code to the AGW hypothesis. Imagine that we manage to find accurate digital proof that the code reveals CONVENIENT ADJUSTMENTS – that would really be something.
artwest (11:38:42) :
I repeat, virtually every mainstream TV station worldwide, commercial or otherwise, will have similar restrictions on international viewings and for the same reasons.
Yes there are copyright and broadcasting regulations….
But I still think that where there is a will there is a way…
For example: http://wwitv.com/portal.htm lists [so they say] 3000+ TV channels that either broadcast live on they web or provide video on demand.
Professor Watson makes much of ad hominen attacks by sceptics, however I note from the emails and elsewhere that the global warming fraternity are not averse to handing it out, especially to Stephen McIntyre, never mind the tasteless remark regarding the late John Daly. The whole business is shameful, which is decidely disappointing as this is an issue of considerable importance. In a way it is indicative of modern Britain, a nation whose talents are mostly tempted to cheat and lie to further whatever ends serve their own interests. As an Englishman I feel ashamed.
Marc Morano had better be careful – Prof. Watson may challenge him to a duel with his weapon of choice probably being a handbag!
Is he for real! His co-workers have been caught dead to rights, with their own words condemning them at every turn. Even if he feels that their words have been taken out of context, perhaps he could explain the computer codes.
When the UN appoints a scientist to head its enquiry I may give it more credence, when organisations and governments only appoint economists to head these things, then the fact is that money is the real concern.
In Australia people are about to be educated alright, because the new leader of the Opposition is going to make the Government explain it’s legislation in plain words, and give real costings instead of the “pie in the sky” waffle we have been given so far.
We have a Prime Minister who apparently speaks Chinese fluently, but can’t string together a coherent sentence when asked to answer a straight question on any subject. In 2 by-elections this weekend to replace retiring politicians in the Federal Parliament, all the pundits in the MSM predicted a swing to the Greens because the Opposition blocked Carbon Emission Trading in the Senate (Ironically aided by the Greens, who thought it didn’t go far enough). The result! – A ringing endorsement for the Opposition.
The Prime Minister wanted Australia to lead the way for the world on climate change – he may get his wish, but not the one he hoped!
May we live in interesting times!
Henry chance (12:57:22) :
About the only Watson has going for him is Moral and intelllectual superiority./ That is exactly what has crumbled.
Agreed.
By calling him an “assh*le” we was trying to put Moreno down for his intellectual inferiority and his moral inferiority for being American…
I absolutely agree that the interviewer let the alarmist rattle on but kept cutting off the sceptic. Appalling, but not unexpected.
In a sense, watson is somewhat right. Whether there was even warming going on is one of the questions that still must be answered.
I’ve reached the point where i WANT TO SEE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THIS 20TH CENTURY WARMING TREND because until the scientific method of independent duplication of results has at least occurred, I don’t trust what these TEAM clowns have put out to date. Based on what I’ve seen out of them so far, I don’t think we know if T has actually risen or fallen by half a degree C. However, this seems to make me an agnos-T-ic rather than a T-ru believer or an a-T-istic denier ty*e.
Actually, I don’t particulary care what went on T-wise during the 20th century because it was natural variation as co2 ghg contribution would have been insignificant in the real world although I’m rooting for a decine once Antony’s (and other’s) audits get finished just because of my dislike for these team climate scientologists and dendro phrenologists who have distracted me from other interests and have attempted to negatively impact my life – along with 6 billion others.
Sadly, any enlightenment on this debate is not furthered by this kind of superficial interview technique. The interviewer didn’t follow up on any of the responses in a useful way but just moved on to the next headline accusation. The journalism is like something out of a primary school debating class.
The interviewer did not give Morano a chance to answer the points made to him. The first interruption came on his first reply, and so it continued.
Watson looked increasingly agitated – even though he was being given much more freedom to make his points. And he was allowed to sweep the divergence issue under the carpet with a comment along the lines of “it’s all a bit complicated”.
If that interview has been a game of footbal (soccer for you yanks) we would have concluded that the referee’s interventions had spoiled the game.
It all reminded me of the spoof political debate on the comedy show “Knowing Me Knowing You with Alan Partridge”. All of the main failings of the Newsnight interview (plus more) are in this video clip. Watch it and enjoy:
Truth and rationality are inextricably entwined. At its core, the AGW/CC Belief system is a festering, stinking cesspool of fraud, deceit, and lies. Those like Watson who buy into it are also buying into a thought system which is essentially irrational. This is one reason why they make such poor debaters and why, when cornered they retreat to their reptilian brain. They are handicapped going in, which is why the cry was “The Debate Is Over”, why so many of them refuse to debate to begin with, and why, when they do, they get their arses kicked.
SamG (18:01:29) : 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.
Shows you are not paying attention – the first requisite of good science! 🙂
Hidden in the “fluff” are many very important points that are being sifted and collated and recorded for future use by a lot of readers. Sure, it’s horses for courses. But take just one example: Bulldust showed that the exact airspace used by the interviewer Kenney, Prof Watson and Marc Morano was divided almost exactly in the ratio 2: 1: 1. This is evidence of ongoing BBC bias.
REPLY: Check the updated video in the full context – Anthony
Thanks for posting the extendend segment, Anthony. At the end, things degenerate, as they do on TV, but a much more valuable presentation of views before that. I consider myself more or less standing corrected.
Funny how several here construe my comments as support for the AGW people. Is there no concern for standards of debate or discussion among these commenters?
Mark Morano did not deseve to be called an “ass hole” based on that interview. He was at a huge disadvantage not being in the studio and Professor Watson had about 3x the air time to talk and make his point. Add that to the fact that Morano was quieter on microphone than Watson (deliberate, by the BBC I’m sure) he was merely trying to be heard while the professor mumbled and was clearly struggling.
Ass hole, no, enthusiastic, yes!
Across the pond (and perhaps also on this side to a lesser extent), it’s important to realise just what a trivial organisation the “prestigious” University of East Anglia is. It’s simply a minor educational establishment overly expanded in the recent ridiculous concept (promoted by both political parties) that 50% of the country’s youth should have a University degree. So what do you do? You create Universities out of (almost) nothing and staff them with eminent Professors who come out of (almost) nothing. Don’t be surprised at what you get.
I suspect the BBC told Watson before the interview that he would be featured and his counterpart cut short. It was all planned. However, they did not realize that Morano would make his points so quickly. The BBC announcer tried to cut him off but was not quick enough. In fact, it made it obvious they were biased. I think Watson got more and more frustrated because it was not going the way he thought it would.