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.
Revkin is learning the true meaning of tow the line or else.
Like most religion there is no room for dissent of any kind in Warmism.
Revkin must redeem himself immediately with a follow up piece explaining the errors of his previous article or else live a miserable life outside in the doldrums of the real world like the rest of us.
Joe Romm needs to have his mouth washed out with soap. He also needs to go on a good deprogramming course to rid himself of the silly notion of the CAGW conjecture.
Living ones life defending the indefensible is bad for ones mental health.
Anthony – your intolerance of incivility, combined with tolerance of contrary views, is the reason your blog is doing so well. Please keep it up.
You wouldn’t ordinarily expect such language from a naturally brilliant mind like Joe
Rohm’sRomm’s (with a demonstrably higher IQ than even Obama!), but I guess it’s the old nature versus nurture thing. Reflects on yo mama, dude.The anger we see over on the other side arises from having their religious beliefs challenged and being unable to defend them. I usually avoid religious arguments except when others are trying to destroy the economy or fly airplanes into buildings.
People like that should be punished by simply being ignored. If no WUWT readers go to that silly little website, it will just fade away.
Does anyone but skeptics read Romm’s blog anymore?
Perhaps you guys should stop going there then he would not have audience.
Wow. Helpdesk guy lashes out.
Andy Revkin responded a bit in the comments: “Speaking of fallibility, I’ve got to add that I love how Joe Romm has repeatedly described — as breaking news — my admission in 2009 that I make mistakes. Only the Pope, and Joe Romm, appear to be infallible.”
I love the smell of dissention in the morning. It smells like
*sniiiiiifffffffffff*
victory…
I’m not a climate scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night…
Expect the tone from the Alarmist True Believers to get even more vitriolic and obscene. It was bad enough when they were winning the argument and the world was their ever warming oyster, now that their influence is starting to decline, other views are being heard, and their plans for stifling world affluence are waning, they will not go quietly into the night. I’ve noticed the same thing on a lot of left/right political forums, economic forums, etc. The implosion of Big Govt socialist economic and societal policies is resulting not in any apparent introspection by their supporters but by them getting increasingly angry, vile, and aggressive against those whose ideas are being proven correct. Go figure eh?
Sad but true this seems to be the way that alarmists carry on. If the science was good then the bad language would be unnecessary.
Larry Fields: August 30, 2010 at 11:22 pm
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. 🙂
Ummmmmm — we’re “Murricans,” Larry. “Merkins” are entirely something else.
Except for a few Murricans I’d consider to be genuine merkins…
It’s a sure sign they’ve lost the argument. If you have good arguments and intelligence, you don’t need to resort to profanity and tantrums. In Japan and Germany, you lose all respect with that kind of behaviour. They’ll think you’re still in puberty.
Well, as grandpa used to say “When you show your ass, everybody sees it.”.
First Judy Curry stepped in it, now Andrew Revkin, It is amazing how Romm throws potential “allies” under the bus with astonishing regularity and vehemence.
So Andy Revkin, once the darling journalist of the warmists, is out on his ear for having a Damascene moment?
Looks like the AGW snake has begun to eat it’s own tail…
😀
I don’t see how anybody can say they believe in CAGW based on the science, when it relies on the output of complex computer based models which they can only be responsible for a small part of. When working on hardware simulators I would believe everybody else did their job correctly if the output fitted the requirements, but would harldy accept that the entire thing was correct because the simulator ran and my tiny bit was responding correctly to its inputs. Sitting around with the other engineers telling me about how clever they were would hardly persuade me to want to take responsibility for the whole thing.
As I understand it, even if the computer models were a completely accurate description of the earth the tolerance of the results due to rounding and quantising would be larger than the claimed temperature change after a century. You are a computer scientist or engineer depending on what you do, but as with everything the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Isn’t that sweet! (Unless your from the US South or have watched the stupid mortgate commercials you probably won’t get this one).
“invited to sit in on meetings”
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express
The most extreme censure and punishments are reserved for the heretics. Non believers are looked on more with distain, but vary from the “true faith” even though still a believer and they bring out the knives. (Watch your back Dr Curry).
UK Sceptic says:
August 31, 2010 at 5:27 am
So Andy Revkin, once the darling journalist of the warmists, is out on his ear for having a Damascene moment?
Looks like the AGW snake has begun to eat it’s own tail…
—
It is after the oil which it hopes will cure it.
This situation has arisen because the scientists are funded based not on being right, wrong, honest or dishonest but on how loud and alarmist their proclamations. Somehow we have to get to a situation where scientists are judged and funded based on the quality of their science. It is highly worrying that institutions you would expect to value their reputations are prepared to put their name to some of this stuff. I can’t currently think of a single scientific institution I would take at face value. It really has come to something when an engineer views the proclamations of greenpeace and the royal society as having equally little merit. There are real environmental issues out there, and who now is going to have the credibility to carry public opinion? The UN? Nasa? Greenpeace? WWF? Government science advisors? The BBC? It may come down to blogs like this and climateaudit to save the planet, the environmentalists should show a little more civility 🙂
Climate Science and Computer Science have similarities. Not only are they both in their infancies, they both seem to attract some who specialize in infantile behavior. Fortunately both also attract many people of quality, and progress is made.
With checking this morning I see my comment did not make it through moderation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/quote-of-the-expletive-deleted-week/#comment-470675
How juvenile. Like a post-adolescent who just moved out of a house where his parents forbid profanity.
There’s no profanity (though there’s a little bleeping), but I’m having a spirited conversation with a true believer here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978379711
You guys might find it interesting.