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.
the arrogance of King may spark a few silent expletives on WUWT!
30 Aug: Guardian: Juliette Jowit: CBI to host climate change ‘clash of the titans’ debate
Former government chief scientist Sir David King, in the green corner, to take on arch-sceptic Lord Lawson in public showdown
The CBI will host the event at its annual climate change conference in November…
“It is important to deal with the climate sceptics’ arguments and deal with them fairly robustly,” said King. “I usually avoid the climate sceptics because I seem to be giving them airtime. [But] Lawson is a well-known speaker, so it is not as though I’m taking somebody lightweight on.”…
(Lawson): “The cause of reasoned debate on this issue in the UK is not helped, of course, by the fact that there is no difference between the policies of the three political parties so far as global warming is concerned.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/cbi-climate-change-debate-king
Steve E. gives the name Easterbrook an unworthy trashing.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/
I have just posted the following comment over at http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/andy-revkin-climate-science-aclimate-journalism
Comment 73. Now let’s see if it gets pulled.
Forget about Global Warming, this is now all about Blogosphere warming with fire-roasted words and blazing language.
btw… Global Warming is the feeling I get when backing up against the heater after shoveling too much snow.
Commentary:
“violence is the last resort of the ignorant.” Isaac Asimov
There’s “Profanity is the weapon of the witless,” but I find no author for it.
Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple.
–David Keuck
“Hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.”
Richard Sharpe
August 30, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I’m a software engineer specialising in instrument control and test and measurement. As such the work I do is used to support science. But it is not science. Even when I am developing new programming paradigms, it is more math then science. I have also found the kids coming out of college with Computer Engineering degrees, are much better programmers then those with their freshly minted CS degrees. The CS students are also subjected to much more intense Marxist indoctrination, though it seems all students are subjected to that to some degree.
Science is the employment of the Scientific Method. Anything that does not do this is not science.
BTW, I would much prefer to be doing real science, but alas, it is impossible to get a degree in wildlife biology or ichthyology without being saturated with Marxist nonsense. I found this intolerable. Fortunately, one can teach oneself math.
As a computer science grad, I think it is important to relay what the “science” actually is in the instruction. There are a few different ways this is taught from university to university, which is where the confusion starts. Just because its called Compsci does not mean its a science persae.
Namely at most places its more similar to engineering in that you are taught “given x algorithm, generate y program.” There is nothing wrong with this, its just the application of something already proven so to speak. Applied mathematics might be a better term for it, or perhaps applied mathematics on a computer.
Now the education I received was more similar to science in that we worked with proving the correctness of programming and the main focus was generate algorithm X and prove it works through the science process. I won’t get into details on this, but its more science related in that new ideas and processes are tested and graded based on correctness and usage of the process. The application is not as important in this effort so to speak. You could use any language, and any technique, but the same idea applied: Was your algorithm correct? If it was, and you showed this, it was more important then getting the correct answer so to speak which as an engineer would be a critical error. Engineers work and get fired over the correct answer, so in the end it is a critical difference.
Getting my masters was probably what put it all together for me, since I then started working on data modeling and the correctness thereof so to speak. It might be a different story for others, but for me anyway most of my post-grad work and professional work is around modeling. Now granted, I do not model anything close to as complex as climate, and I do have issues understanding a lot of what is going on with the modeling thereof, but in the end it gives me a glimmer of problems and issues with the correctness of the models.
I can’t seem to understand the methodology on how to come up with correct modeling behavior for climate. The few ideas I did come up with have too many issues to really be applicable….The current GCM’s are so flawed its funny that anyone even tries to take them seriously.
But that is digression, I admit I have some issues understanding the modeling of the Earth’s climate system, and I can’t see how any CompSci major could hope to figure out that he knows what he is talking about from spending one month at it. I have been working at this for over a year now, and still I can not understand even close to the big picture.
I have worked with what little is available on the web and what not (RC all the way to this site/climate audit, etc), but without complete documentation and code, I find it hard to understand why people perform algorithm X in these cases. Its tough from my perspective because as I was taught, the algorithm itself is more important and proving it correct is the first step in the modeling process. You use statistics for a complex system to accomplish this, but the layering of so many “trade” terms and variables makes it so tough to understand that I am sure only about 10 people truly understand the big picture (one of which is I am sure S. Mcintyre)….
Anyone claiming to really know what they are doing from my background is either incompetent or “drinking the kool-aid” if they only spent a month in the labs. It would take much more work to truly understand what is going on, and I bet you would probably get more informed here then in any climate science lab in the world.
But that is just my two cents. Don’t knock my profession, it does have its roots in science, but in most cases just like any science discipline, it can get wrecked by mis-using it, and there is confusion since most schools teach an engineering approach to the major…
I don’t know what you folks are getting so excited about. Mr. Easterbrook is a scientist, writing for the benefit of other scientists and the content of his paper therefore includes technical jargon (if you will) that doesn’t mean the same thing to laymen outside of climate science circles that it does to those within. I’m sure Joe Romm et al would be happy to explain the use of “fuck” and “shit” within the context of the lingo used by the climate sciences community if the rest of you would just stop challenging their conclusions and give them an opportunity to perform their science without debate or awkward oversight.
There’s nothing quite so bloody as a war between different sects of the same religion.
Kan says:
August 30, 2010 at 9:26 pm
“Hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.”
I was thinking the same thing. They don’t like deserters much don’t they?
Am I imagining it, or is someone ready to take their brown shirt
and black boots out of the closet if a former ally disagrees with
the party line ?
By the way, anyone who’s studied maledicto in spoken
or written form knows Mr . Easterbrook is a fluffy puppy when
it comes to rude expostions.
I suspect his thoughts are as shallow as is his verbiage.
I am convinced (no, I have no evidence, but am convinced by their behavior) that Joe Romm, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and probably a lot of the other ‘extreme warmists’ have a LOT OF investment MONEY tied up in CCX (the carbon exchange which is basically worthless) and/or other ventures, perhaps through Al Moron ( . . oops, excuse me, I meant Gore).
They have to do EVERYTHING they can to try to keep the global warming alive, to try to resurrect their investments. Especially in light of the latest IPCC evaluation.
Now that would be something for an investigative reporter to look into, if that might be possible ( . . too ‘subtle’ of a hint for anyone out there . . . ? )
They are becoming even bigger JOKES in this arena than I have thought them to be.
Ah, Steve Easterbrook, a rather small tick riding on the global warming dog. He will, of course, drown when the dog he has chosen to ride is thrown in the pond of rational thinking. In the meantime, he believes the yapping of a dog is proof of something greater than what it really is.
The Master again clearly and effortlessly demonstrates that he controls not only the intellectual and scientific, but also the moral and ethical highground in the war against the Warming lie. Hurrah!
I posted this comment over 2 hours ago at Climate Progress:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/quote-of-the-expletive-deleted-week/#comment-470675
It still says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Four comments have appeared after it. I have to get to sleep. I’ll look in the morning. Be really, I don’t care because I feel like I need a shower now for being at the web site.
Hell hath no fury like a climate ‘scientist’ with a threatened ‘research’ grant.
Another possible explanation for this behaviour is that for the past couple of weeks global temperatures have been falling like a stone threatening 2010’s title of being “the warmest year ever”, which it isn’t. If the current rate of decline continues for a couple more months, a lot of climate ‘research’ grants are going to dry up.
Ian H says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm
“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.”
Ian, I understand where you’re coming from, just as you understand that the standards of civility here at WUWT are representative of a large minority of people in the US. Perhaps you can explain to your fellow countrymen why the Where-the-bloody-hell-are-you? tourist advert bombed with so many of my fellow Merkins. 🙂
Dear Anthony,
it’s not *that* hard to maintain civil relationships with Andy Revkin who is both polite and – arguably – closer to “us” than to “them”. Of course, I maintain such relationships, too. The real challenge in testing your sainthood would be to spend a month in an office with Joe Romm and maintain civil relationships with him. 😉
And there may even exist people who are less compatible with the interpersonal peace. Needless to say, it would be preposterous for me to claim that I could maintain peaceful relationships with them. They would deserve something completely different and I think that I would try to give a part of it to them. 🙂
Best wishes
Lubos
REPLY: A month? Easy time. Fortunately I have a secret weapon; I’m mostly deaf without hearing aids. I’d just take them out and smile a lot. – Anthony
Fantastic post Anthony… this is a view of the real thing.
This is nothing more that what cults do… discipline a member who has stepped out of line to the script… an attempt to show their shun so the person will eventually come crawling back into the fold, sorry of their sins and can be re-programmed to know their fault and repent and to never repeat (Revkin). They just attempted this with Dr. Curry. After reading the links to the other sites… this whole Climate Progress bit makes me sick, it’s really sick, just follow the 50 or so links. Barry L got it close on “Delusional Disorder” but he was closer when he questioned that it may actually be a cult (see his comments http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/quote-of-the-expletive-deleted-week/#comment-470601).
And Barry, you said you couldn’t resist, you shouldn’t, the faster people see what these once-scientists, if they ever were real scientists, have morphed into the sooner this sorry fiasco can end. Your comment above was needed.
Enough money to get a PhD, the equations, thousands of memorized papers, and the fancy words does not a scientist make. It is the skeptical, humble, questioning of always yourself first as the scientist that makes you one and most of the great scientists in history. Most of these PhD’s in climate science have clearly lost their way if they ever had one, probably they just bought a guaranteed life-time-long job and, of course, expect people to call them scientists.
( The 50 or so links mentioned can be found under:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/andy-revkin-climate-science-aclimate-journalism and the current data doesn’t support these claims. )
Typical new-age pagan rubbish!! Don’t learn by looking at the facts, learn by some form of cultural osmosis.
In science the facts speak, in climate “science” the people speak and the facts remain hidden!
I have no beef with the use of profanity. It rolled right off my tongue when I was young and I thought it made me seem cool.
I do object to anyone claiming to be a scientist wanting to silence any other scientist by telling them (forcefully) to shut up in this manner.
Since its not accompanied by any reasoned perspective or involvement in debate, it just becomes noise.
Something to tune out really, more heat than light!
……I’d just take them out and smile a lot. – Anthony
There you go being provocative again 🙂
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“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
A little context would be helpful…”
“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this
newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere
was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes
prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high
level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.
Then your bit above…then this bit…
“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only
one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is
occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.”
Or people could just read the whole thing if they be bothered…http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
[Snip – I’d let this one go under normal circumstances, but we are all going do our durndest to exude sweetness and niceness for a while — right, guys? And thanks in advance for your trouble-free, good-spirited, and enthusiastic cooperation. ~ Evan]