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.
a computer scientist ? does he design and build computer chips ? because a programmer is certainly not a scientist …
talk about jock sniffing …
Jay Currie says:
August 30, 2010 at 7:59 pm
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.
Well Judith Curry was the first non-person, now Andy Revkin. I wonder who is next for “nonpersonhood”…
Watts, 29 August: “I love the smell of bullshit in the morning.”
Watts, 30 August: “In my view, profanity is the last refuge of the disingenuously desperate.”
Hilarious!
REPLY: Oh I anticipated some troll like you would say this, and so here’s the reality: learn the difference between an expletive and a profanity.
I assume then you endorse Joe Romm’s publication of profanity in the purpose of denigrating another person and their right to free speech and to publish as a reporter in a free press? The other difference here is that I used an expletive as comedic satire, where Joe’s guest author used a profanity for the purpose of denigration. Big difference.
– Anthony
“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.”
I’m from down under too. Colourful language is indeed common here (with considerable help from Hollywood) – but not in scientific debates.
Steve McIntyre described the language and tone of the Climategaters as ‘trailer trash’ in tone. And I don’t believe that this level of verbal crudity and personalised abuse can be routinely indulged in without interfering with scientific objectivity.
Incidentally to Larry Fields (August 30 at 11.22 pm) who didn’t like our Lara Bingle’s promotion of Australia with that silly ‘where the bloody hell are you’ commercial: a leading Australian journalist said that Americans should simply give Lara this advice:
“Mind your own *#!@*^*# business.”
Though I consider myself a computer scientist, I agree with those that say that computer science is not really a science in the sense that, say, physics and chemistry are sciences.
The foundations of computer science are in discrete mathematics and even mathematical logic, to some extent. The abstract model of computation (the Turing machine) upon which all computability and computational complexity theory is based is essentially a mathematical entity, so are algorithms. Formal languages, automata theory, etc., etc., these are all rightly considered a part of mathematics, in my opinion.
To the person who said that proving the correctness of programs is like a science (Ben D., I think), I also disagree. Proving that an algorithm implements some formal specification of a program is a mathematical endeavour that involves pure analytic reasoning. There is no need for any empirical investigation of the kind required by other scientific disciplines.
I look at it this way. Mathematicians can construct formal systems and essentially decide what the “rules” (or axioms) are of these systems, regardless of how they relate to the real world. They can then have fun deducing all the consequences of the rules, which is essentially what they do when the prove theorems. This is a deductive process.
In science, on the other hand, the scientists are not defining the rules themselves, but rather trying to figure out what the rules are (i.e., the laws of nature), and they do this by formulating falsifiable hypotheses and then subjecting them to empirical tests, which either disprove the hypothesis or add weight to it. This is essentially an inductive process.
Of course, since math is a tool used by science, the two disciplines necessarily collide and a formal system that is used to describe the laws of nature better relate to the world in the right way and not some arbitrary way.
(I have a feeling that someone is going to mention Philosopher Willard Quine here, who famously declared that the standard distinction made between the truths of mathematics and science has no merit. Maybe that’s a topic for another post. 🙂
– Dave
I am guessing that Joe Romm’s bitterness toward Andy Revkin is not just that he is publishing heresy, but that he can get away with it. The UNS Global Warming has sprung a climategate leak and due to a hold full of post normal science and socialist baggage it is sinking fast. There are not enough life boats for all the fellow travellers, but Andy has a guaranteed seat. Remember the climategate email suggesting “be careful what you include Andy on, he may not be as reliable as we thought”? Mr Revkin has evidence in writing from the Hockey Team showing that he was not an unquestioning believer. He will be able to join the politicians and bankers on the life boats. Joe has to go down with the ship. Methinks Joe Romm should stop whining, man up and join Al and Maurice on the rear deck. It’s a calm starry night and the band will be playing the Internationale.
If the agw alarmists are stooping to foul language, this is a sure sign they know they are losing the argument.
If they start using foul language directed towards you, do not respond. If you really want to piss them off – ignore them. Besides, why wrestle with a pig; You’ll both wind up dirty!
Re my earlier comment above, it turns out climateprogress did not pull my comment. I like doing these little experiments. Tamino failed a similar one, but it seems that Romm will allow some criticism to stand on his blog.
david elder says:
August 31, 2010 at 3:56 pm
“Incidentally to Larry Fields (August 30 at 11.22 pm) who didn’t like our Lara Bingle’s promotion of Australia with that silly ‘where the bloody hell are you’ commercial: a leading Australian journalist said that Americans should simply give Lara this advice:
‘Mind your own *#!@*^*# business.’”
David, I wasn’t the least bit turned off by the Bingle advert; I was simply pointing out what should have been obvious to your marketing research guy. And I really would like to visit your charming banana republic someday. Oh, wait a minute; you’re not a republic yet; you’re still subjects of the Pommy queen. 🙂
To Ben D:
Gday. When I was doing my Diploma of App Sci in EDP, I was told I wasn’t bright enough for CompSci. Oh well.
I think it’s pointless to try and evaluate the algorithms our learned colleagues use to build and power their models, even if they are correct. The point is not the correctness or otherwise of the models, it is “deus ex machina” argument: This was modeled on a computer so it must be correct.
Most people are sufficiently awed by computers (even, or maybe especially, the computer fanbois) to not dare question such an assertion. Sad, that.
Can someone whip up a little JavaScript that models the level of in-fighting to be “worse than previously thought”?
I recommend a Joe Romm variable, a Monbiot variable and then a nice randomizer for the Gore Effect. Go ahead and make all the assumptions you feel necessary and if anything looks too complicated just make something up and refer to yourself as an authority – it’s good enough for NASA, CRU and other places that use acronyms, so it’s good enough for everybody.
Ron House says:
August 31, 2010 at 4:43 pm
One of his minions was here and scuttled back, so as to allow a modicum of dispute to appear there.
The authority of this blog is ever-growing and it was powerful even before climategate.
You can refuse to publish my comments, of course, but your idiotic contradiction remains up for all to see. This post was not about any objection to bad language – it was simply an attack on someone you don’t like. Next time, try to choose something to object to that you’re not also guilty of.
RW says:
September 2, 2010 at 11:44 pm
You know what happens when you continue to argue with someone that has left the room?
You look like those street people that talk to themselves.