Scientists behaving badly – part 2

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.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

334 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ronald Myers
December 6, 2009 8:23 pm

OT, but I need help here. I’m a layman trying desperately to understand as much as I can. The impact of all the AGWers slinging of ‘hash’ is that I really am beginning to get lost.
Global warming IS still on hiatus, isn’t it?
Man’s influence on temps is still unproven?
Are we losing ice on a global scale or not?
I’m sorry to sound so stupid, but I’m beginning to lose my footing! I thought I knew what was going on, but this whole Climategate thing has brought out a bunch who would like to blur the lines to lessen the impact.
Is there a place I can look for a sort of state-of-the-world summary? w/o AGWers influence?
Thanks!

Pete M.
December 6, 2009 8:38 pm

Have you noticed how the tv anchor never let Morano finish his lines of thought?
She kept on interrupting him in mid-sentence every time he was making a point.
Too much money is at stake here. People dont want to lose their jobs, and I feel like people who still have an ounce of integrity and uphold moral values are very few. Its sad. Johnson accuses the skeptics of “character assassination”, yet he freely calls Monroe an asshole after telling him to shut up.
I’m starting to wonder if this whole scandal was cooked on purpose to wag the dog.
“You see the tail moving, you assume the dog is wagging it, and enjoying it, but maybe the tail is wagging the dog, and the dog is enjoying the attention! “. Some people are definitely benefiting from all the attention because there is no such thing as bad publicity. Look how the stars of hoolywood keep on getting in trouble and live on scandal after scandal to get attention drawn upon them.
Its sickens me and I feel like vomiting.

Fred
December 6, 2009 9:44 pm

To be fair, he was an asshole.
Mr. Asshole behaved much worse than Mr. Scientist.

nevket240
December 7, 2009 12:27 am

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
folks.
Steve is an Australian Senator who has publicly doubted Gores business model. He is asking for names on a petition which you can E-sign through the above link. Most importantly he is asking for a Royal Commission.
please sign.
regards

Dave Wendt
December 7, 2009 2:15 am

Fred (21:44:35) :
To be fair, he was an asshole.
Mr. Asshole behaved much worse than Mr. Scientist.
You appear to have identified an additional anal orifice who didn’t even appear on the program.

SamG
December 7, 2009 2:16 am

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.

Lucy,
It is a given that the BBC are leftists, as are the ABC in Australia. But irrespective of AGW, are the media not already biased about everything? Of course they are.
To be honest, I found Morano irritating, as well as Watson.
I hope we can win this thing because the AGW movement is pure evil but for the conservatives, this is a policy; a way to win votes. Already, the skeptics are becoming associated with the republican party, conservative journalism and Liberals in Australia. This I don’t like because as I constantly reiterate, it reinforces partisan politics, not middle ground. But as Anthony says, beggars can’t be choosers! 😉

Ron de Haan
December 7, 2009 9:11 am

Climategate: Know Your Boreholes From Your A**holes, Dr. Watson; Peer-Reviewed Studies You Should Have Read
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/climategate-know-your-boreholes-from-your-aholes-dr-watson-peerreviewed-studies-you-should-have-read.html

Tony B (another one)
December 7, 2009 10:02 am

What we need is a well-versed, scientifically competent spokesperson, able to articulate without rising to the bait. It would be so good to see a proper debate chaired by Paxman or Neil, with none of the soundbite responses used by the Alarmists being allowed – no mantra, just facts.
So, we can leave the BBC out of any such arrangement, and sadly Channel 4, even though they did everyone a service by broadcasting the Great Global Warming Swindle. They appear to have bought into Copenhagen almost as desperately as the BBC.

Sally June
December 7, 2009 10:46 am

If Watson thought the other fellow was making ad hominem remarks, he should have ignored them and responded to the real critique, The fact is that he whined about being attacked and addressed NONE of the criticisms. OK, his point that sometimes figures are “tweaked” for articles so that the message of the data is clearer to see is a valid one. But this debate is not about “tweaking one line of data,” but invalidating the whole basis for their conclusions. He refused to respond to the real debate here. I think he was unprepared for the exchange. He should have had some real rebuttal to what he could have anticipated the other guy would bring up.
IMHO, Morano was playing by the rules, forcefully stating his points. Certainly, I think he deserves to be able to finish his sentence without being shouted down.
How I wish Michael Crichton had lived to see this. He would have been overjoyed!!

1 12 13 14