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.
re:PSissons, also see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/bbc_stifles_climate_change_deb.html
As a Brit, and hence more attuned to the accent, Prof. Watson does use the American “ass-” rather than the British “arse-“. I’m led to suspect that he’s spent a lot of time on the other side of the pond.
Do give them plenty of time to talk, but don’t let their claims go unchallenged.
These damn co2mmunists are nothing but a bunch of climate-whores who are willing to prostitute their integrity for the sake of increased funding dollars and career advancement. Their actions and behaviors are just disgusting.
I think that Morano argued poorly. He let Watson get away with the standard, the planet is warming mantra. The subject is anthropogenic warming, more precisely CO2 as the driving factor. Copenhagen is about CO2 and taxation, not about whether the planet has been warming for the last 10k years.
That kind of language on camera coming from a ‘scientist’ in an interview is very unprofessional. He lost it and whatever argument he was making.
” Invariant (15:20:31) :
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…”
Sorry pal, but that’s rubbish. From 20+ years experience (though not in FORTRAN but another 3GL), I’d suggest it’s the other way round. Remember maintainability…
photon without a Higgs (15:44:33) : 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.
Yes. And most scientists writes codes themselves too. Let’s forget about the quality of the code and instead determine exactly what it is doing. The CRU code is as important as the Davinci Code, I agree with INGSOC (14:58:37) that we should from now on focus mostly on the code, both scientifically, technically and rhetorically!
Caleb (15:45:33) :
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.
Feminisationfeminism and politicalcollectivenesscorrectness have taken their toll. Wimpy boy bands haven’t helped either. There are still a few of us who can hold our own against outspoken Americans though. 😉I think Morano was brash but fair. He should got a shot in at the end though when Watson floundered around the rise in temp being the main issue.
Invariant (15:20:31) :
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 disagree with you that ” less smart developers need easy and structured code with high readability to understand what they are doing” because I have worked on some pretty advanced code and all coding requires a minimum of documentation, the more the better not just for others but for the orginal programmer. As a developer of enterprise applications for vertical markets that integrate or convert a large number of legacy applications and huge amounts (billions of rows) of data myself I can say that improperly structured and designed code is not an option as a professional developer. I have gone back over earlier coding work when I believed as you do ( my first couple of years ) and cursed myself for my lack of documentation.
I explain it to my staff this way if I only wrote a blog that contained the verbs and nouns you might be able to follow along but never really know if you understand what the intent, the reasoning and the conclusion was. You would not have the information necessary to know if the blog was wrong or your assumptions were wrong.
They need to fire the whole bunch, wherever they happen to be. The funding agencies should immediately request full refunds, with interest. Anyone suspected of violating any laws should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and if found guilty punished appropriately. They should shutter the CRU and use the facilities for something else. I know what! “The Gore-Hansen-Jones-Mann-Briffa Alchemy, Astrology and Fortune Telling Institute.” That would be more respectable than what they have now.
Professor Watson reminds me of all the Smug people in this Southpark Episode who love the smell of their own farts.
I realize this is low-brow, but you need to see this episode to see how similar they come across.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103216/
I’ll amend that. After watching the full version, Morano did try to get a response in. He said “Warming? Is that the issue?” while the presenter talked over. The full version had Watson smugly declaring “What an asshole” on camera too, whereas on the earlier version it was just audio.
I detect a battle going on inside the Beeb. Some techy has sneaked a fuller version online after an earlier exec editing decision.
@ur momisugly Harold Ambler (15:35:47) :
Loved your insight about Morano’s laughing at Prof. Watson’s nahnee, nahnee name-calling. His occupying the moral high ground made that spontaneous joyful laugh quite appealing.
Anthony: I have been following your blog closely for over a year now. I truly appreciate your efforts, and results, as well as those of the others who post here. I am a PhD statistician of more than forty years experience. I have never been convinced by interpretations based on extensive modeling and data manipulation. My few personal encounters with AGW advocates have not been fruitful. I would like to offer a quotation which I have used throughout my academic career. It goes “The aim of all education is to put and to answer the following two questions: 1) What do you mean? and 2) How do you know?” I would love to put these questions to the UEA group on many levels. I apologize for not knowing the author of this quotation. If you or anyone else knows, please let me know.
Obama behaving badly, making promises he can’t keep!
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/inhofe-dishonest-for-obama-to-promise.html
Climategate: Willful Ignorance
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate-willful-ignorance.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm
I have programmed in fortran. I agree their work is slooppy and patched together. I also see they shoulb be ashamed to have it viewed.
We need the raw uncooked data and write new software from the beginning.
Bob Duncan (16:34:29) :
I would like to offer a quotation which I have used throughout my academic career. It goes “The aim of all education is to put and to answer the following two questions: 1) What do you mean? and 2) How do you know?” I would love to put these questions to the UEA group on many levels. I apologize for not knowing the author of this quotation. If you or anyone else knows, please let me know.
According to Google by tomorrow morning, the questions are in a quote from you. And damn good questions they are.
I’d add two more:
3) Why is this what you are focusing on?
4) Do you think everyone else should be concerned about it too?
I refuse to throw anyone on my side under the bus. Watson got 3 times the coverage, typical of the BBC and Mark didn’t do anything to be critized for. He wouldn’t have gotten the time he had if he just sat there.
If you want a study of the science, you can turn to Climate Audit, WUWT and Icecap will give you a broader view with come politics included, if you want an in your face recap, Junkscience and Climatedepot are your spots. They all have their place and after years of being impuned and besmerched, it is about time we stood up and let these “scientists” know that someone is going to challenge them.
As for the BBC, if you watch any natural program they have produced and broadcast on Discovery, NatGeo, Science Channel and the History Channel over the last 10 years, they all, without fail, have the obligitory reference to the “world heating up due to man-made global warming. They have a financial interest as large as anyone. Having to scare you with astroids and ghost isn’t nearly as easy, and if it is proven completely wrong, they will look stupid at each rerun.
My first impression of that interview is that Dr Watson got a lot more airplay than Morano, which may explain why he was chomping at the bit to blurt out his piece. So I took the time to analyse the start and finish time of each speaker and the following real data fell out:
Intro/Interviewr: 99 seconds
Dr Watson: 192 seconds
Morano: 96 seconds
So even teh interviewer/intro had more time than Morano, and Watson had double the exposure of Morano… yep that’s balance for ya. Also notable was how the interviewer interrupted Morano a couple of times despite his minor air time.
Raw Data for verification purposes:
Start Fin Int Wat Mor
0 39 39
39 87 48
87 92 5
92 108 16
108 118 10
118 152 34
152 158 6
158 194 36
194 197 3
197 227 30
227 236 9
236 270 34
270 306 36
306 312 6
312 320 8
320 328 8
328 346 18
346 350 4
350 375 25
375 384 9
384 387 3
TOTALS 99 192 96
Meh spacing removed stuffed up data dump in previous post.
For those into body language:
– Excessive blinking
–> showing romantic interest (if their pupil is dilated)
–> sign of stress
–> could be lying
I doubt Watson has a romantic interest in Morano, so the next two look pretty reasonable.
http://www.bodylanguagesignals.com/Eyes.html
Hey, my vidcap is up and running!
I would have posted the whole pre-amble as well, but Google does not like material more than 10 minutes long. I have the rest and will post separately if people are interested.
Watching this live, I got really annoyed at the continual interruptions as Morano tried to make his points, both by Watson and by the interviewer. Morano might not have delivered the best message possible, but who would if you get interrupted inside 10 seconds every time? This is typical of BBC bias on this topic – go easy on the AGW alarmist but talk over the skeptic. I thought Morano kept his cool remarkably well in the circumstances and at least he did not come across as a patronising pillock like Watson.
It is time for someone like Paxman, or Andrew Neil, to host a proper debate, with the right speakers from the skeptics side, those that actually understand the science, and can cut through the continual crap spouted by the alarmists.
And yes, I did laugh out loud, at the end. He said what? I had to t
Table entries in order:
Start time (secs)
Finish time (secs)
Seconds air time (secs)
Person (Int=Interviewer, Wat=Watson, Mor=Morano)
0 39 39 Int
39 87 48 Wat
87 92 5 Int
92 108 16 Wat
108 118 10 Int
118 152 34 Wat
152 158 6 Int
158 194 36 Mor
194 197 3 Int
197 227 30 Wat
227 236 9 Int
236 270 34 Mor
270 306 36 Wat
306 312 6 Int
312 320 8 Mor
320 328 8 Int
328 346 18 Mor
346 350 4 Int
350 375 25 Wat
375 384 9 Int
384 387 3 Wat
Morano was better.