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.
Having read the comments before I watched the video I was prepared to feel a bit uncomfortable with what some here perceived to be the bullying attitude of Morano toward Professor Watson.
Heck. I think Morano was good-natured, direct and patient with the interruptions and accusations of character assassinations that Watson spewed at him.
I didn’t have my stop watch handy, but I think Watson got more air time, too.
The smarter institutions will act to “take out the garbage” and start over.
And then look at what the data says AFTER it’s been restocked.
Like the Fonz used to say: “it only takes 10 seconds to wipe out 20 years of cool”.
Likewise, you cannot have leading scientific institutions and centers of higher learning going around with scandalous grafitti sprayed on their good name.
The longer version puts it all into context.
Morano did nothing wrong, he was constantly being cut off while trying to talk, and is everyone forgetting the satellite lag???
On the contrary, I think Watson looks like a total piece of crap. As I’ve always said, PLEASE LET THEM TALK… they dig a deeper hole every time. Arrogance is something most people despise in anyone.
And yes, I’m in awe of the irony of accusing someone of character assassination, then calling them an as$hole on live TV. It’s brilliant!
Someone ought tally up how much time Marc Morano was allowed to speak, as opposed to how much time Professor Watson spoke. It seemed to me that even the interviewer had more speaking-time than Marc Morano.
2 minutes and 38 seconds of the 6 minute 29 second interview have passed before Mr. Morano gets a word in edgewise.
Given the focus on Professor Watson, I hardly blame Mr. Morano for butting in, and making various back-ground noises such as chuckles and sighs.
The surprising thing is that Marc doesn’t tell the BBC to shut up, and rather it is the good professor, (who has had an unfair amount of the speaking time,) who tells Marc to shut up.
I suppose it is because the good professor is not used to giving skeptics any time to speak whatsoever.
Poor, pathetic Watson. His AGW/CC religion is circling the drain, and he’s in complete denial about it. Morano mopped the floor with him, and it was delicious to watch. The only thing Watson could come up with was “it’s warming”. Duh, we knew that. He and his ilk are in bunker mode now, with mortar and rifle fire all around, and compadres deserting left and right. They deserve anything and everything coming to them.
Marc comes off MUCH better in full context; following Kum Dollison’s lead posted at (14:43:29), I would have to say The Warmers, though, do have to start holding their feet to the fire on this and “actually prove the *Science* this time” instead of manufacturing the data (like the last time) …
Thanks ‘Kum’.
.
.
.
You know what? They (The CRU et al) don’t think anyone will notice the code that was also leaked. All that is mentioned lately (besides skeptic sites) are the emails and “documents”. Where are the easily read summary’s of the far more damaging aspect of this whole thing? They claim the science is still sound: Not if it’s based on that code it aint! I wish I were more capable, but this is where some splainin’ would be good.
Slightly OT but relating to men behaving badly… I see Gavin @ur momisugly RC is still “moderating” posts. On the following thread on “unsettled science”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
I posted (and now I wish I had copied it here as in past moderated posts) a question to him. I basically noted that there was a new openness in the moderation at the site and wondered why this was suddenly the case after the ClimateGate incident.
Needless to say he moderated that one into the bit bucket too LOL. They completely refuse to recognise their past bad behaviour, and as if the current “openness” makes up for it. RC is still “moderated”.
NOTE: Nothing I said in the post was rude, just merely pointing out the fact that I knew from personal experience that 3 polite questions I posted had been previously moderated to the “bit bucket.”
I’m going to defend Morano and lay into the BBC. When I tried your clip Anthony I still got the short version though it said it was the long one. When I saw the true long one at U-tube I saw that miserable screeching kitten producer completely short-changed Morano time-wise while giving Watson all the time he wanted, proportions about 3:1. I think in the circs Morano was very good-humoured about it. And given the chance, he would have shown he knew the science that matters a lot better than Watson. When he tried to explain he got interrupted.
.
GOOD; The world-class eye-roll by Prof. Watson is still in there too at 5:46 …
.
.
.
im a skeptic but i do think morano was not acting with the utmost class himself on this interview. there are many battles to come and dont think that these emails will be the be all and end all. skeptics may be feeling good now but lets not get carried away. act with class and you will lead more people away from the alarmists.
Mike A. (14:43:52) :
All I’d like to write down right now is that I am greatly indebted to WUWT and Anthony’s determination and priceless contribution…..Best anti-AGW machine gun(ner) one can possibly stumble upon on the net.
I agree.
I wish there was advertising for WUWT. I am certain there are many people who would like to know there is a web site like this.
As I listened to Andrew Watson go on and on about character assassination, I wondered what he would defend this email from one of the CRU team?
Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don’t think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the
huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with
nothng better to do seems like a good thing to do.
How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but
I was unable because he doesn’t have such a paper because he has not done
any constructive work!”
There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan’s message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct
if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleo data, and can only be used with caution as the
metadata do not exist. It doesn’t mean they are worthless and can not be
used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a
trivial manner will undermine his case.
Kevin
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=790&filename=1177158252.txt
Ron de Haan (14:21:15) : This is better news from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm
I’ve programmed FORTRAN for 15 years, and I do not agree that the CRU FORTRAN code is poor software engineering – sometimes the smartest people writes the worst code, less smart developers need easy and structured code with high readability to understand what they are doing…
I think it is vital that all of the CRU code is compiled and executed using the data files also present in the dump. How are these programs supposed to work? Sure, some reverse engineering is required…
I watched the whole 6+ minutes. While this Professor Watson is an insufferable ass, Marc Marano does not acquit himself well at all. He does not respond to the science points raised by Watson, and allows himself to be steered off topic by the idiot moderator. This is the second ‘debate’ I’ve seen him (the other was on Fox), and in both instances he comes across as brash and amateurish.
We need spokesmen who speak with more authority. How about John Christy? Or Will Happer? Or Anthony Watts? Anthony of course has the most experience on TV, which would stand him in good stead.
/Mr Lynn
What I find deeply irritating is the way Watson complains about people getting “personal”.
The AGW’s have been personal about rational scientists from day one.
OK, a bit of Saturday night fun. The UN have chosen Dylan’s ‘Hard rain gonna fall’ as the meme theme. The BBC invites us to suggest a theme song for Copenhagen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8396803.stm
Title, artist and a sample of the lyrics please.
I’m going with Sitting on the dock of the Bay by Otis Redding
So I’m just gonna sit on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
Ooo, I’m sittin’ on the dock of the bay
Wastin’ time
Look like nothing’s gonna change
Everything still remains the same
I can’t do what ten people tell me to do
So I guess I’ll remain the same, yes
Was Morano ever faintly impolite? Perhaps.
As others have pointed out, though, Watson got in A LOT more talking time in (by my reckoning about two minutes for every one of Morano’s). Those accusing Morano of “boorish” Americanness would do well to watch the full clip and focus on the quietly haughty and petulant performance by Watson (except, of course, when he completely lost his composure.)
Before you think to ill of Morano in particular, and Americans in general, please listen to the last 10 seconds of the video a few times. When Watson calls him an “—hole,” Morano laughs with true joy, (a) because he knows that this is a disaster for his adversary and (b) because he knows what has just happened was FUNNY.
“KeithGuy (08:28:37) :
Obviously the term a…hole is used by scientists as a clever way of describing someone with an alternative viewpoint.”
Keith, I agree…this is similar to the use of the word “trick”. It doesn’t really MEAN a$$hole…
JimB
on seeing the whole thing I think Morano was not as bad as the original shorter clip suggested
Invariant (15:20:31) :
This focus by the BBC on the computer programmer comments could be their way to get attention and blame off of the scientists and on to the programmer.
One way Marc Morano was able to get several points in was to begin a sentence, (at the four minute mark,) with “Professor Watson, what do think of…”
Clever technique. Of course the good Professor becomes quiet, because he believes he is going to have a chance to indulge in some splendid pontificating. However Marc’s question goes on and on, naming scientist after scientist within the UN who were not known to be skeptics, but who have become skeptical.
In this manner Marc Morano gets to talk a whole twenty seconds without being interrupted. However, after twenty seconds both the professor and interviewer seem to catch on to Marc’s clever ploy. Marc gets a final point in, and it is then, at the four minute thirty second mark, that the good professor asks, “Will you stop shouting!?”
Terribly sorry, old chap.
I spent a year at an Scottish boarding school when in my teens, and rather than being excessively polite, my schoolmates good-heartedly baited and tormented me on a regular basis for being a boorish American, however I learned to tease and torment back. At that time (1970-1971) both the English and Scottish struck me as being mentally tough, able to fiercely debate, and very difficult to upset.
What in the world has happened over there? Since when have you good fellows become so delicate and easily offended?
Perhaps there are two sides to the British. Hitler met one side in 1938, but then met a totally different side in 1939.
correct that M Kearney did a biased (timewise) interview and also interrupted Morano more than (t) Watson. No surprise.
BBC has an AGW agenda. Noted by former employee Peter Sissons, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling–bosses-scared-it.html
We in the UK should organise a mass withholding of BBC license fees (in the UK if you have a tv, you have to pay £120 a year to the BBC/ Gov’t
For those trolls who have a problem with Moranos chuckles and sighs while Watson was talking; do you remember Al Gore debating George Bush?