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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
334 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tj
December 5, 2009 1:24 pm

Is everyone sure the final line wasn’t made just to get everyone excited about the final line?
The moderators, or whatever they call themselves, of these “debates” should be squeezed out of the picture. Most media/news debates are either scripted or nearly worthless. The opposition might just be controlled (fake) opposition no matter how infuriated one pretends to be. Constant interruption by aggressive hosts annoys me. If Morano is genuine but his delivery is aggrevating then he should be replaced by a calmer scientist rather than allow him to actually weaken the case of those skeptical.

KeithGuy
December 5, 2009 1:25 pm

Thankyou adamskirving for posting the link to the full clip.
What’s really interesting in the discussion(?!) is the way that Prof. Watson is trying to distance himself from the importance of “the diagram”, which he states that they “tweeked” by “plotting temperature data from thermometers with tree ring data”.
Isn’t this the same diagram that once stood twenty feet tall behind Al Gore.

Lichanos
December 5, 2009 1:29 pm

Mark (08:14:54)
This comment has it right. And the following, that said it’s a bad interview. Silly of you, Anthony, to feature this sort of “jugular journalism” as having more than “entertainment” value. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were on TV with a Morano clone, but you were on opposite sides – is that how you’d want to discuss the issue?
Childish…
REPLY: Check the updated video in the full context – Anthony

crosspatch
December 5, 2009 1:30 pm

I believe climate changes all the time,
I believe that humans are quite capable of changing climate but this is mostly local changes. I believe we ARE capable of changing climate on a global scale through such things air pollution.
I don’t believe CO2 is causing a problem. I believe they have intentionally connected to a gas that is a direct result of energy production.
It is quite shrewd, actually, and it goes like this: You demand a reduction in CO2 production while denying any increase in nuclear energy generation. This forces generation to a narrow choice of technologies. Once you have energy generation “gated” to this narrow choice, you invest millions in them. You have through regulation created a “sure thing”. Then you sit back and reap billions in profits as government and industry is forced to pour trillions of dollars into those technologies.
Quite sickening, actually.

Deadman
December 5, 2009 1:40 pm

An apposite quotation from Thomas Love Peacock:
MR PANSCOPE.
I beg leave to observe, sir, that my language was perfectly perspicuous, and etymologically correct; and, I conceive, I have demonstrated what I shall now take the liberty to say in plain terms, that all your opinions are extremely absurd.
MR ESCOT.
I should be sorry, sir, to advance any opinion that you would not think absurd.
MR PANSCOPE.
Death and fury, sir—
MR ESCOT.
Say no more, sir. That apology is quite sufficient.
MR PANSCOPE.
Apology, sir?
MR ESCOT.
Even so, sir. You have lost your temper, which I consider.equivalent to a confession that you have the worst of the argument.
MR PANSCOPE.
Lightning and devils, sir—
(Headlong Hall, ch. 6)

Neil Crafter
December 5, 2009 1:48 pm

Anthony
In the first sentence you refer to a “UAE Scientist”. I think this should be “UEA Scientist” as Prof Watson does not appear as if he is from the United Arab Emirates!!
Repy: Fixed. Thanks. ~ ctm

Ron de Haan
December 5, 2009 1:55 pm

Don’t judge a guy on one single interview please!
I have heard and watched other interviews with Morano that were ok.

Paul Vaughan
December 5, 2009 1:57 pm

The biggest optics problem right now is tolerance of the “whether or not” distortion.

Michael
December 5, 2009 2:00 pm

Al Gore may make a secret guest appearance in Copenhagen with President Obama on December 18th, sources say. We Are Change in on the alert.

Ron de Haan
December 5, 2009 2:07 pm
December 5, 2009 2:15 pm

adamskirving BINGO for pointing out how the moderator continuesly interrupts Morano, allowing him about 1/2 the time of Watson. Her bias was clear.

Phil A
December 5, 2009 2:18 pm

Off topic but not point point burying it several days back.
Regarding PROVE IT! at the London Science Museum I noted the 6058 votes cast in favour in the exhibit and happened to wonder how that compared with visitor numbers.
The Science Museum gets about 2.6M visitors per year. Thus in 5 weeks that PROVE IT was running, it received around 250,000 visitors.
Thus the fraction of Science Museum visitors who responded to PROVE IT! in the museum was about 2.4%.
I think with a 97.6% avoidance rate, one might reasonably start to suspect an inherent bias amongst those that chose to browse that exhibit!

Ron de Haan
December 5, 2009 2:21 pm
Pops
December 5, 2009 2:22 pm

Marc Morano is used to the more vocal ‘cut & thrust interviews’ you see on US tv all the time, so he was always going to make sure he got his point of view across. The sad professor was out of his depth from word one… but I’d just love to be a fly on the wall when he next tries to give a lecture to a bunch of tittering twenty somethings. What an ASSH*LE! His words, not mine.

photon without a Higgs
December 5, 2009 2:22 pm

lichanos (13:29:16) :
Mark (08:14:54)
This comment has it right.
This is all you fellows have: grasping at straws.
Do you think that the average person watching the interview would agree with you?
Do you find anything wrong with Andrew Watson?
Would you like to focus on the science instead of the people involved here?

photon without a Higgs
December 5, 2009 2:25 pm

lichanos (13:29:16) :
Mark (08:14:54)
I see desperation in both of you.
It’s odd to me that seeing how politicians debate in the UK what is seen in this video is, in comparison, tame. I don’t think the average folk in the UK had a problem here like you lichanos, and Mark, do. Nothing is shocking here. The world keeps turning.
What I saw in this video was more a revelation of the elitist global warming scientists attitude. And the more that is revealed to the world the better.

dmayes
December 5, 2009 2:26 pm

Mark Moreno is a poor spokesman. In this interview he has the rhetorical high ground. The evidence in the emails and in the code is sufficiently damning that all he has to do is to clearly and calmly summarize them. They speak for themselves, and bombast and shouting are distracting and undermine his credibility. This is really quite a shame, as he was in a position to present good information to a large audience, and blew it, really.

D. King
December 5, 2009 2:29 pm

The new steady state of the Climate Science environment.

December 5, 2009 2:32 pm

Debate time tracked….
48 / 15 / 31 /26 / moderator interrups with supportive defense comment of her own 2 /35 /22 / 2 ( “what an ass hole”) total for Watson 159 sec
35 interrupted 21 cut to watson 3 /25 and again commentator interrupted Total for Morano is 67 sec.

MikeO
December 5, 2009 2:35 pm

The number of climategate google hits has dropped by over a million in one day. Anyone know the mechanics of this?

Zeke the Sneak
December 5, 2009 2:38 pm

Bob Dylan song adopted by Copenhagen climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8396803.stm

That should be “What’s a Sweetheart Like You Doing in a Dump Like This.”
Got to be an important person to be in here honey
Got to have done some evil deed
Got to have your own helm when you come in the door
Got to play your harp until your lips bleed
What’s a sweetheart like you doin in a dump like this?

JB Williamson
December 5, 2009 2:42 pm

Only one in two voters accepts man-made climate change, according to new poll
Telegraph article at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/6737353/Only-one-in-two-voters-accepts-man-made-climate-change-according-to-new-poll.html

Invariant
December 5, 2009 2:42 pm

Today the largest Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has written a guide “Climate for beginners 20 things you should know about before the climate summit in Copenhagen.”
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.aftenposten.no/klima/article3406910.ece
Enjoy. Here you find all the standard arguments; the science is settled we make no room for doubt. Oh wait, they mention that the lack of warming the last 10 years, but they do not regard that as a failure of the climate models – minor oscillations are expected… If the models fail, how do we know that our climate knowledge is accurate? Let us check with the latest 5, 10, 20 and 30 years linear annual global surface temperature trend, according to satellite-based temperature estimates (UAH MSU and RSS MSU) as provided by the Norwegian Ole Humlum,
http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#TrendDiagram%20UAH%20RSS
I wonder if the models are adjusted if the current cooling trend continues.

Kum Dollison
December 5, 2009 2:43 pm

Seeing the full video makes All the difference. Marc did okay.
The Skeptics, though, have to start holding their feet to the fire on this “it doesn’t disprove the *Science* meme.”
What “Science” is there to “disprove?” All we have is some hypothesis, backed up by falsified data. There “Is No” Science.

Mike A.
December 5, 2009 2:43 pm

I have been following this stunning chain of events and really can’t believe all this is actually happening. All I’d like to write down right now is that I am greatly indebted to WUWT and Anthony’s determination and priceless contribution not only to science but also to the common folk’s understanding of all this mess. It’s difficult to put into words how amazed I am at WUWT’s firepower. Best anti-AGW machine gun(ner) one can possibly stumble upon on the net. Keep up the good fight!

1 5 6 7 8 9 14