Gosh, I try to keep a semblance of decorum here at WUWT. I get upset when name calling starts and moderators are trained to clamp down on this sort of thing. That being said, can you imagine the caterwauling that would ensue if I wrote something like this piece below?
Andrew Revkin and I disagree on climate, but we maintain what I deem to be a civil, professional tone when we correspond. That’s how it should be. Foul language isn’t needed to get points across.
Joe Romm at Climate progress just showed his true colors by not only allowing such foul behavior, but actually encouraging it in the form of a guest post that he edited. I don’t buy Romm’s excuse that he was trying to “show some of the real anger over Revkins column”.
In my view, profanity is the last refuge of the disingenuously desperate.
Warning – foul language follows
Here’s the guest piece from Climate Progress, the last few paragraphs follow:
So, here’s a challenge for Andy Revkin: Do not write another word about climate science until you have spent one whole month as a visitor in a climate research institute. Attend the seminars, talk to the PhD students, sit in on meetings, find out what actually goes on in these places. If you can’t be bothered to do that, then please shut the fuck up.
Update: On reflection, I think I was too generous to Revkin when I accused him of making shit up, so I deleted that bit. He’s really just parroting other people who make shit up.
Update #2: Oh, did I mention that I’m a computer scientist? I’ve been welcomed into various climate research labs, invited to sit in on meetings and observe their working practices, and to spend my time hanging out with all sorts of scientists from all sorts of disciplines. Because obviously they’re a bunch of tribalists who are trying to hide what they do. NOT.
– Steve Easterbrook
=================================================
Gosh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[snip -OTT ~mod]
Re The use of profanity…
My mum always says “Bad language indicates a poor vocabulary”
I tend to agree
J
It looks like the hyper-warmists are circling the wagons and shooting inward. Why go after a well placed fellow traveler? Revkin is hardly a skeptic. He accepts the creed that CO2 is the cause and the only cause of warming. He accepts that there is warming.
Now that the wheels are falling off the strong case narrative, the cultists are looking for their betrayers. Deviation from the party line, in even the most minute particular, leads to instant and vociferous excommunication.
Which makes the hyper warmists sound crazier and crazier.
It is the same group of folks. They actually do not need Joe Romm egging them on since they are quite capable of going off all on their own. Perhaps the vitriol and pure unreasoning rage will get Andy Revkin to recognize that perhaps, just maybe, any cause that demands such strict adherence to doctrine may have some fundamental flaws.
“Expletive deleted.”
That begins to sound something akin to the Nixon White House tapes!
To wit: “I want that (expletive deleted) hauled before a (expletive deleted) grand jury and get his (expletive deleted) cut off and shoved up his (expletive deleted)!!
:o)
Do you toe the line
Or do you think for yourself?
Andy revs ’em up.
========
Anthony,
Don’t get involved in family squabbles. Just sit back with popcorn and cola.
If you can’t argue the argument, argue the arguer…
Andrew, you are always welcome around these parts if you are interested in some reasoned and civil debate.
The AGW movement continues to disintegrate along classical cognitive dissonance lines. The more skeptical resistance, the more political failure, the more the science goes against them, the more shrill and out of control they will be. And the more sane, disinterested people will sit up, take notice, and write them off. Let it happen.
An honest soul, but
Andy didn’t read the Bish.
Review Real Climate.
=============
He camps by the dunes
While the storm bends true belief.
Blow ye wind, blow hard.
================
This is one way you know they have lost the climate fight.
This is another way:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/How-you-know-the-climate-fight-is-over-101807708.html
And this one puts the cherry on the cake:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed
Dr. Spencer in the mean time hits the nail on the head with this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/dump-the-ipcc-process-it-cannot-be-fixed/
I think Climate Progress can close their shop now.
Here’s a challenge for Easterbrook, by his own reasoning:
Spend a month in Hitler’s bunker before you go flapping your lips re Nazis.
Spend a month in the halls of Congress, so as to become a political expert.
Spend a month in Cambodia to really, really get next to Pol Pot.
Spend a month in a bar to understand alcoholism.
I’d hate to see his code if this is his best reasoning.
I know Romm’s a jack@ur momisugly#^ but honestly, he doesn’t need your time.
Nice Kim
Revkin’s piece seems sane and rational, climate science’s response does not.
Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless. It is like criticising someone for not wiping their shoes before they step into the pigsty. The language used actually seems pretty mild to my ear. Of course I’m from down under where we like our langauge strong to match our beer.
I have a translation for the usage of the… colourful metaphors…
“Your honour, I’d like to strike [Andy Revkin’s] comments from the record.”
“Why?”
“BECAUSE IT’S [colourful metaphor]ing DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!”
😉
I am a geologist and a modeler of hydrologic systems. I work with other geologists, hydrologist, engineers all the time who are experts at mathematical modeling, numerical simulations, (and on and on) and they should all certainly knpow what they are talking about because it’s what the ye DO for a living, right? And they are responsible for our water supplies and cleaning up Superfund sites and protecting wetlands and rivers and beachfronts. Well, they ARE good at what they do, but what they are ALL invariably bad at is conceptualizing how their piece fits into the REAL WORLD. They all come up with the most outlandish predictions, begin their modeling with pre-conceived ideas and generally miss the boat completely because their concept is WRONG from the outset. But they have COMPUTER MODELS so everyone believes what they say. You would roll on the floor laughing at the parallels with cliamte predictions which I am dealing with right now in water resource management modeling. The predictions make NO SENSE if one only stops and says, OK is this actually possible in the real world, and the answer is, of course, NOOOOOO!
a comment I just posted there:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Inconvenient overlook says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 30, 2010 at 11:35 pm
The NAS Report did not support the Mann Hockey Stick graph as you, and Nature, claim:
“Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” ”
NAS Report, page 4
http://books.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I’ll get back to you on if it clears moderation. It will be comment #72.
Indeed not worth my time.
In support of poor Romm, perhaps WUWT should be renamed to WTFUWT
Notice Steve Easterbrook didn’t try telling Dr. Curry to STFU until she spent a month in meetings with Climate Scientists before saying they have tribalist mentalities……Oh wait…… Dr. Curry is a Climate Scientist and has sat in more Climate Scientist meetings then Steve Easterbrook. Maybe Steve and Joe ought to apply their own standards to themselves, until they sat in that amount of meetings and publish the amount of climate papers as Dr. Curry.
This is just the Alarmists going after Andy Revkin for stepping 2″ off the Alarmist Reservation.
Ian H at 8:23 pm : Criticising someone for the use of strong language on the internet seems a bit … pointless.
But this is a scientist speaking in a science debate and explicitly identifying himself as a scientist. In large part he is indignant that his group of scientists are being accused of tribalism.
Yet his response is a tribal shriek of profanity, bringing to mind a baboon display. It also reminds me of Ring Lardner’s immortal line, “Shut up, he explained.”
Hey – I think Steve Easterbrook may be on to something!
Introducing: The 2010 NASA/NOAA Klimate Kamp!
Spend a fun filled week with your favorite climate scientists! Located near scenic Lake Hockey Stick, Wisconsin!
Take part in lots of fun activities:
* Count tree rings in the Dendro tent!
* Make up scary climate press releases for the camp newspaper. Scariest press release wins a special prize – getting their entry published in the New York Times!
* Dress up like Jim Hansen or Al Gore and protest a local power plant! (Warning: dressing up like Al Gore may induce cold/freezing weather events…)
* Sing special Global Warming songs around the campfire, like: “Home on the Range – with Solar Panels and Windmills”, “Hindcasting Honey o’ Mine”, and “Polar Ice Blues”!
* Play find the hidden climate thermometer game! (Hint – it’s near the barbeque…)
And much more….
Contact your local Climate Service representative for details.