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.
I agree with you guys on Marc Morano. He really did not help the cause.
I am sure Christopher Monckton would have handled himself in a much more classic, gentlemanly fashion.
Bad, bad interview….all around.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Did you wonder, as I did, what amount of pollution was produced flying Jon Snow and all his cohorts to the Amazon? There seems to be nothing so hypocritical as a ‘warmist’ on a mission to ‘save the world’.
There is a huge amount of pro-AGW nonsense in today’s Daily Telegraph. None so deaf as those that do not wish to hear and none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
What is really upsetting is the ludicrous equation of sceptical views on AGW (or MMCC) with a lack of care about waste and pollution and greed.
I have spent a lot of time the last few weeks investigating this story. I’ve read countless news stories, blog postings and commentaries, scientific debates, all in an effort to understand the issues. Of course, there’s nothing much on TV about it where I live in Canada so this clip is the first I have seen.
IMHO, Marc Moreno is a boor and should shut up. He was rude and obnoxious which contributes nothing to this incredible story. And frankly, it makes me wonder about the credibility of this site that it would post this particular clip as more evidence that the scientists have been behaving badly.
This post and clip does nothing but damage the image of skeptics.
Well, it is obvious that these people feel VERY threatened by anyone who disagrees with them in a public way.
Ask yourself, how much government funding went to “climate science” 20 years ago?
How many people were working in that field. Were the people working in that field household names constant on the front page of the newspapers? Were they jetting around the world attending vital conferences on the setting of economic policy by the various nations of the globe? Were world leaders asking their opinions?
No.
If it turns out to be all made up, they go back into obscurity and have to scratch for money just to get enough disk storage for their data.
Mr. Morano appears to have just graduated from the Paul Begala School of Broadcast Journalism. And his website seems to have the look and feel of The National Enquirer. He is not doing our side any favors by appearing on TV in this manner. Unfortunately, the media will probably want him to appear on the tele in the future since he can be such a devisive and agitating figure. And the public will see him as representative of ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers.’ Anyway you look at it, he is bad news.
Watson has shown more of the AGWs colors. He has denigrated himself and the University that he represents . Hopefully someone at the University has noticed. He should be removed for his shallow childlike performance.
Some may enjoy following the breadcrumbs here:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
There is a new entry on the site titled Climategate — with an interesting historical twist
I have not seen elsewhere.
Apropos the sites other entries, I cannot address their accuracy, with two exceptions:
I have read extensively about the death of Vince Foster, which was clearly a murder covered up by MSM, and the London Telegraph’s own Ambrose Evans-Pritchard got me started on the strange inconsistencies in the Oklahoma City bombing, which was clearly a government sting operation gone awry. (Timothy McVeigh was an insignificant bit player.)
I find the material there about 9/11 quite compelling, but am unable to do personal research.
The point, I guess, is that the truth about Climategate may never “come out” for the mainstream, uncritical world. It would not be the first time.
Just saw a CNN piece on “climate-gate”.
Overall it was pretty fair in it’s reportage except that it gave the last word to Gavin Schmidt who of course tried to claim it was nothing to be concerned about.
“Ignore that man behind the curtain.”
‘Fudge Factor’: UK Programmer Explains Problems With CRU Climate Data Software,
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaGkUIrDk
Prof. Watson needs to be put in a home for deranged scientists. A place something like this.
Was he talking about the asshole in the Ozone layer?
Morono was loud and chirpy. But the point is what he said was true.
All Watson could quote was a dataset which showed the world warming. Well whats new? He cannot point to a data set or proof that the world is on course for runaway warming. His self serving assumption is that warming is man made and dangerous.
But where is the proof? So certain of their ‘proof’ are they that they hide their data from scrutiny.
BTW I believe that in the same Newsnight programme a credible programmer said the leaked code was junk (I paraphrase but that is the effective conclusion).
Some clever person may like to put that video up.
artwest (09:32:21) :
The mainstream TV network sites of most countries block viewers from outside their country – including the US TV Networks – it’s to do with rights.
For their own in-house productions for which they hold the copyright?
Doesn’t seem to stop BBC World Service [to name just one]…
Doesn’t seem to stop the BBC trying to sell their own programs globally…
Possible European restrictions on simultaneous live broadcast on the web…
But sounds like selecting the “data” to fit the required “answer” to me….
American Psychological Association says IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE YOU ARE LEGALLY INSANE AND THEY CAN LOCK YOU UP WITHOUT TRIAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS!!
http://www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.pdf
sgi .. you said “Of course, there’s nothing much on TV about it where I live in Canada so this clip is the first I have seen.”
Your comment is confusing especially since you also wrote, “I have spent a lot of time the last few weeks investigating this story.” Golly, Climategate was indeed slow to get out in Canada (slow in MSM generally), but this surely this cannot be the first you’ve seen. Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote. Seems clear enough.
If this is the first you’ve seen, then you’ve been looking in the wrong places perhaps:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2009/12/03/thenational-rexmurphy-091203.html
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/30/11975486-sun.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/the-buy-side/dont-let-climategate-melt-down-your-portfolio/article1389653/
Moreno may have come off as churlish, but the real Embodiment of Evil in the room was Watson. The fraud and fabrications that the Hockey Cru promulgated were designed to widely punish humanity and inflict mass suffering under false pretenses. Just like the Nazis. Neither Moreno nor I wish to be victimized by fascist con artists posing as scientists. Though his demeanor was agitated, his message was worthy.
Not only is the Prime Minister calling climate change skeptics flat earthers but so is his side kick, Ed Milliband, the environment secretary.
I think Professor Watson’s strange eye rolling and head movements are probably due to some form of OCD rather than arrogance. It doesn’t excuse his warmist opinions or his language though.
Actually, I believe Morano’s entire site “comes on too strong” and I rarely look at it. Sometimes he will have a link to something I can’t find anywhere else but the site design is cluttered, it looks like he is trying to be the Drudge Report of anti-AGW news.
He doesn’t seem to be so much about finding truth or discovering why or what, but more about aggregating every single bit of news he can find that is anti-AGW (just as there appear to be sites that promote a pro-AGW position).
It doesn’t take a great scientific mind to aggregate links on a web page and doing so doesn’t make anyone an authority on the subject. I fail to see why he would even be interviewed to begin with.
Watts, McIntyre and others ARE actually doing something to dig into the “why”. And I don’t get so much that this site and others (CA, tAV, Blackboard, etc.) are spring loaded to be anti-AGW as they are anti-“just trust me” when it comes to what is billed as scientific process.
The 7th cavalry is riding to the rescue of AGW in the form of none other than the UN: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was “firmly” standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.”
“Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was “very clear” and called doubters a “flat Earth group”.
He said: “There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change.” I wonder if he was talking about himself and Ed. Miliband?
Anthony, I presume Prof Watson is from the University of East Anglia, not the United Arab Emirates.
Morano and Watson have both been criticised, probably fairly, by many posters above. I would like, however, to criticise the “professional” presenter, who should have controlled both, and the unseen director who should have been in the ear of the presenter.
In addition, I think it a bit rich of Watson to accuse sceptics of ad hominen tactics. I thought it was RC that had developed ad hominem attacks into a substitute for any form of debate.
“No sir. the issue is not whether there has been any warming in the last 100 years but what caused it.”
The issue is not warming. The issue is whether there is even an issue. We have warming and cooling and stagnant periods, and until someone figures out what the normal variation of those periods are, and whether any one period is actually digressing from that normal variation, there is no issue.
The ideal solution would be for an international consortium of scientists (much like IEEE), to first figure out the standards for taking measurements, publish the standards, then have people apply those standards to various measurement devices/locations (with some period of time for reassessment), and a central location for collating all of those measurements (raw data). Proxies would have to follow the same rules, of meeting standards, with a central data location for the raw data.
In other words, we could act as if it is real science, with real expectations and standards, rather than a cobbled-together mash.
I believe in climate change, I don’t believe in man-made climate change.
I believe in global warming, I don’t believe in man-made global warming.
I think everyone realizes Morano’s site is a drudge style headline compendium…it’s not trying to be anything else. The bottom line is he gets the message out, gets a ton of hits…people who may or may not be daunted by some of the technical sites
can go there to review any links they’ve missed. How is that bad? If Morano comes across as abrasive now and again so what?….plenty of Alarmist have made themselves look far worse. Watson is the perfect example.
The global warming people are only used to being listened to in a hushed, reverent silence. They have had it all their own way for twenty years, have been cocooned in their own little world created by billions in taxes, and have never faced any sort of rigorous questioning about their methods, or the truthfulness of their alarmist assertions.
Now, their status is under threat, and their beliefs questioned, by a lot of people who have access to skills and knowledge that could be considered as being far in excess of their own. This can lead to a horror of an interview in which what they are saying is flatly contradicted by someone armed with superior information. I am not surprised to see them in such obvious distress.
It ‘s nice to know that whatever is happening with the climate doesn’t depend on all the hot air being generated by both sides. Ultimately, the climate will depend on precise and exact physical and objective laws of physics and chemistry…not the the subjective laws of human political systems that ALL SIDES are guilty of skewing their way for their own petty political gain.