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.
It is not the profanity that bothers me here; it’s the double-standard. I guess all those journalists who write uncritically about AGW should also refrain from further comment on the subject until spending a month in a climate research institute!
– Dave
Dear Anthony,
I have some strong astigmatism in eyes (caused by keratoconus, one in 1,800 people) – and I know what the gradual hearing loss means from the experience of my dad. Still, it’s more likely than not that Romm would find a method to make you genuinely upset using other tools and senses that don’t require a perfect hearing. One month is a long time and try to think about all the 5-6 senses you have and what can be done with them! 😉
Yours
Lubos
Romm’s site facilitates and promotes this type of sophomoric behaviour.
I disagree. I have an excellent vocabulary, and I’ll curse when I feel the need. Sometimes you just need that release that a good, well-placed expletive will provide. The problem with Mr. Easterbrook is that he doesn’t realize there’s a time and place for everything.
Despite everything, Andy still “trusts” i.e. has faith in climate science. Perhaps he would like to do a post here to explain why. He might even learn a thing or three, such as the fact that science by consensus isn’t actually science at all, but a Belief system.
It is most unfortunate that the English language contains so many expletives but then we borrow from so many others.
The grace and power of words is immense, the beauty of prose can be a scalpel if used correctly and to a nicety.
I am a sinner but I also that know that, there is no need to resort to profanity, once you do that – then the argument is lost.
Being given invitation to ‘certain scientific circles’ is merely a mark of conformity, ie you are invited because; ‘you are one of us’, it doesn’t necessarily mean you are there because of your famed insight, intellect or integrity, though this helps. It is the same in all social circles, science should be open, honest and at times sociable but always open to people of opposing views, this doesn’t appear to be so in the climatology claque – a ‘closed shop’ is what they are.
So we stand outside the tent, micturating inwards figuratively speaking!
It’s impossible to swear/be profane if you aren’t religious. You can still be rude but that’s another matter entirely.
I’m not much for salty language but as others have pointed out above, it’s a sign the #$@*!&-ed wheels are falling off the &%*$#!!-ing wagon.
The profanity doesn’t matter.
Revkin is the biggest, most reliable mouthpiece the environmental movement has ever had. Insanely, some of his most vehement critics are environmentalists.
Insane people, they are everywhere, and they don’t even know it.
The easily-offended appear to be providing a negative feedback to the profane, but don’t be fooled by appearances. It is the desire of the profane to offend, so such “negative feedback” it is actually received as a positive feedback. This is how “naughty words” become empowered.
There is no cause for alarm. It’s a win:win for both classes. Those who take offense win points from other snobs that are above the use of such outcast words. Those who give offense win points from other linguistic rebels and daredevils. The empowerement of choice words benefits them all.
And then there are those who don’t care… =)
Check out the H.L. Mencken essay “Hell and its Outskirts”.
Its not the language I object to, its the assumption that after a whole month hanging around with PhD students he is now an expert able to offer a critique more insightful and more worthy than the rest of us.
Holier than thou much?
BenD: Thanks for the clarification on what a computer scientist is. As an (old) engineer, it seems to me that even if an algorithm is correct, getting the wrong answer is still a no-no. Now, I have to do a little research other than Wikipedia to understand that idea.
By the way, many engineers have gotten wrong answers and kept their jobs. Remember the NASA space probes crashing because of miscalculations?
M.A.DeLuca II: You have understanding beyond four letter words.
Well I’m happy that most of the posters (here) seem to be able to sort out who said what. I don’t think I was able to for sure. So which one IS the “computer scientist”. Is it Joe Romm or Steve Easterbrook, or perhaps someone else.
In the extremely limited dealings that I have had with Andy Revkin directly; he has been cordial and conducted himself respectfully. He may have mellowed a bit since he changed his role with the NYT; and that is probably good, because it probably makes him better as a Journalist if he is more open minded; and he does seem to be that; although I am sure we differ considerably in our views of the climate issue and AGW.
I would agree with those computer scientists who say that computer science is NOT science. However I would add that some of what passes as computer “science” is more properly in the field of mathematics research; and some of it is quite esoteric.
So it would be a mistake to relegate “Computer science” to some lower rung on the knowledge ladder. Certainly there are computer scientists that are a darn side smarter than some who perhaps do qualify as scientists.
As for me, I certainly am NOT a computer scientist; but I do believe I am a Scientist; even a halfways good one.
Between trying to skim this at work while on hold with my credit union while trying not to take up too much of the work at it, I’m completely lost as to who said what to get to trigger this cat fight. Maybe I’ll try again tonight, but I hope Hurricane stuff will take priority.
Note to self #1 – I should get out more and keep up with what the other guys are saying.
Note to self #2 – It’s mayhem out there, and all the interesting stuff is covered at WUWT.
Note to self #3 – Are the warmists getting desparate and frustrated and striking out at anything the moves? See #1….
The warmists appear to be a losing political campaign – they are shaking up the staff and eating their own.
hopefully this circulates widely or goes viral
it will definitely alienate folks
Profanity is the will of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully.
Sounds like Andy Revkin is one step from being tried for heresy and excommunicated (at best).
If the Church of CAGW ever gets its house in order, it will come after us, the infidels.
For George E. Smith et al:
On computer scientists and software engineers.
I started college as chemistry major, but I had gotten advanced placement and didn’t need to take the first chemistry course. Somehow I thought I had enrolled as a chemical engineering major, but it really didn’t matter as my first computer programming course set my future career. At the time, CMU didn’t have an undergraduate computer science course, so theoretical types became math majors and practical types became electrical engineering majors.
Along the way I concluded three things:
1) Scientists are people who discover or invent new tools and understanding about how the world works.
2) Engineers are people who take those tools and build systems that never existed before.
E.g. scientists discover radio waves, engineers build radio transmitters and receivers.
Metallurgists and concrete chemists provide tools that civil engineers use to make new roads and bridges.
3) The period when the scientists and engineers do not have a strong distinction is a “Golden Age”.
E.g. people who designed the first computer timesharing systems had to understand and deploy queuing theory, data structures, memory allocators, etc. Early networks needed communications theory, protocol designs, etc. It was a very exciting time, even it did bring us spam and RealClimate.
Genetic Engineering is in its own Golden Age now, on that will last a lot longer than computing’s. Once there are catalogs of enzymes listing attributes like yield vs. pH ranges, temperature, etc. will the genetic engineers start to separate from the geneticists.
Some computer scientists have split off into their own semi-esoteric world. Others manage to keep one foot on the ground and still help the engineers find better ways of doing things.
Oh – Steve Easterbrook is the computer scientist. I’m not sure how that relates to visiting climate scientists, though a PhD is a required ticket before one is allowed access to some scientific circles. I’m not sure if climate science is one of those circles, us riff-raff on the web seem to have ignored some of that etiquette. (And haven’t published in the proper peer-reviewed journals to boot!)
“How many computer scientists does it take to change a light bulb?”
Modeling several thousand instances of lightbulb changes suggests that
the bulb in question is too dangerous to change until all power is removed from the circuit, necessitating a complete shutdown of the electrical grid, until such time as
a suitable replacement bulb, newly designed and manufactured by a foreign subsidiary,
can be located and produced in enough quantity to ensure that should the new bulb be ineffective that they have a sufficient supply of samples to locate a bulb worthy of being inserted into the receptacle.
Until that time all power to the district will be shut down and more models commissioned to ascertain the effects on working conditions, of the new bulb.
A report will then be issued recommending that all bulbs be repplaced with the new one and that any further research into “lightbulb change” is not only unnecessary but counter productive and positively anti-science.
This will be reviewed by a suitable commission from the UN and recommendations made for legislation abroad, based on the findings of the “Lightbulbologists”.
Hm. A lot of good spirit, jolliness and wit. You are a good bunch,
but I wonder what will you do in 10 years when climate policy
is effective and climate scepticism out of wind? Maybe you will
rename the site: Up With Taxes?
Bill Tuttle says:
August 31, 2010 at 4:29 am
“Ummmmmm — we’re “Murricans,” Larry. “Merkins” are entirely something else.
Except for a few Murricans I’d consider to be genuine merkins…”
Yes, I’m aware of that other meaning, but I stand by my spelling. And no, I cannot take credit for the idea. An online Canadian friend, who was tired of his countrymen being labeled as a Canucks, deserves the credit (or the blame). Occasional self-deprecating humor is good for the soul.
I was told by my parents that someone resorts to swearing because they do not have the education to express themselves any other way. I can vouch for it. When I lose my cool I revert very quickly to my mother tongue I can swear better that way 🙂
Merkins keep Mr. Willie warm at night.