This is curious and amusing. A few days back it was reported that there was a CG2 email from Phil Jones where he laments some skeptical slides being used in a powerpount lecture at UEA. Turns out that wasn’t the case after all.
From email 2639
This annoys me too. I’d read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!
Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.
But look at how it is proposed to deal with the problem – Mick Kelly suggests having Greenpeace invade the lectures:
That’s amazing re Alan Kendall (always thought he was rather a loose cannon). And, no, he didn’t contribute to 1A01 in my day – sure I’d have spotted had he done so! Who’s convening 1A01 nowadays? I’d call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for
the students’ sake at least! Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 Good luck!
I was surprised to learn that over on Bishop Hill, the lecturer Ian Kendall says in comments that he used slides from WUWT and from Jo Nova. He also laments being a lone voice in a sea of alarmism.
“First a needed correction. It is alleged that I used Climate Audit material in my teaching materials. Upon reviewing this material I find not a single instance of illustrations from that estimable site (sorry Steve). Instead most came from Watts up with That or from JoNova’s excellent site.” This relates to email 2639, where Phil Jones (incorrectly apparently) said that Kendall used CA.
My, my, how quickly it becomes evident to me that hitherto I was wise to refrain from blogging. By trying to defend UEA as an institution I only gave opportunities for further attack .
1) I choose not to add to the criticism heaped upon some of my colleagues; in my judgement this would add little – I’m sure that they are fully aware of my opinion of them. To refrain from adding to their woes is my right and those of you who choose to question my motives here only shine a light on their own predjuces.
2) I have criticised from within, but mine was almost alone voice and easily ignored. I have always been concerned about the fallout from Climategate, for the university’s good name (which in many respects it fully deserves) but advice I offered was ignored – as is its right to do so.
3) I still teach part-time at UEA, and still ask students to question the evidence about AGW for themselves – but not to first years students anymore. I never preached an anti AGW message (how could I, I don’t have a grounding in climate science) instead I showed students evidence and argument they were not hearing and asked them to draw their own conclusions – FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
I am truly astounded by the attacks on myself and from people I would previously have considered to on the same side of the fence.
I am also appalled by the rightious indignation expressed by some respondents. As if they have a god-given right to criticize and further to suggest/ insist upon the wholesale destruction of an institution on the basis that some of its actions offend.
Lesson learned
Apologies from my typos and spelling. Latter never my strong suite and always believed the old saying that poor spelling a sign of intelligence. Perhaps too much reliance upon “spellchecker” in recent years.
I’m happy to help. I’m constantly amazed where I see material from this website being used. And, congratulations to Jo Nova too. She’s far better at conveying science in her artwork than I could ever hope to be.
I’ll add “conspiring to disrupt a person’s work w/ advocacy groups” to the list.
@Getting warm – That was excellent satire….well, I hope so for your case.
Mike Spilligan says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:56 am
Anthony Watts at 8:29 – I was surprised to see your response to Getting Warm. I thought his comment was an attempt at sardonic humour and I cackled a bit at it.
=====================================
Yep, I think Penn State was the big clue !!
Graham Green says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:55 am
“Poor spelling is a sign of being slapdash.”
The content of a document is seldom of any interest to the pedant.
Footers and headers are very interesting for them. And fonts.
Just like for the man with the pointed hair.
Getting Warm says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
“…”
Where?
“Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
So EU Warmist “scientists” ponder sending the EU’s paid Eco thugs. Reminds me of the SA, and doesn’t surprise me in the least.
‘Getting warm’ Doesn’t that mean being close to finding something? At least if he’s looking for enlightenment, he’s in the right place.
On the education (anti-propaganda) front we can claim a new victory!
From tips and notes:
Bill Thomson says:
December 3, 2011 at 8:55 am
Coke cancels global warming polar bear campaign:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/coke-cancels-global-warming-themed-cans-after-outcry/
Way to go EVERYONE! Keep up the pressure – we are having an effect. GK
Bloke down the pub says:
December 4, 2011 at 10:36 am
‘Getting warm’ Doesn’t that mean being close to finding something? At least if he’s looking for enlightenment, he’s in the right place.
Best yet.
Those cans may become collectors’ items. I’ve got six stashed away, and am off to buy more for that reason.
@getting warm. Nice try at a thread hijack. Make everyone look elsewhere instead of at the issue under discussion. I will repeat it, so that no one misses it:
“Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
Mick Kelly: “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 Good luck!”
UGH, this is a “brown shirt” mentality which crops up over and over again on the political left (it’s actually rather rare outside the leftie activist groups and campus groupthinkers, since real world people of various persuasions (a) wouldn’t do it or even think about doing it, and (b) would know they couldn’t get away with it even if they were inclined that way.
The myriad vicious disruptions of speakers (usually visiting) over the years on campuses has come almost entirely from the “progressive” politically correct left, is utterly despicable, and is rarely condemned or opposed.
DirkH and Roy UK – that was a joke, look at the end:
“Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
Just appreciate that they have a sense of humour, and get back to the important stuff.
To emphasize my point, what underlies the Mick Kelly comment is far more despicable and troubling than merely the evident fact that he is a nasty leftie hack with only contempt for dissenting views. The “have Greenpeace invade his lecture” — even if not intended as a serious plan (I have no idea what was ‘really’ in his mind) — shows a contempt for freedom of thought and expression, whether “academic” freedom or in any other context.
This comment is merely one reflection of a huge and widespread problem, a kind of “chilling” effect on thought, speech, and activity which is promoted widely by the activist left. And it is not only only against the ideological “right” or libertarians etc. — anyone capable of any range of moderate, thoughtful, skeptical thinking without regard to ideology is well aware that most campuses are hostile to open, free discussion of many sensitive subjects, especially where any “politically correct” views and agendas are involved.
@Mike Jonas
Interesting that you think the suppression of free thought, expression, and academic teaching is a fun “joking matter”….
I have seen and known far too much of the vicious groupthink of such activist mobs on campuses and beyond to think it was a fit subject of light-hearted joking.
It is generally people who approve of the widespread climate of intimidation and coercion aimed at suppressing freedom who can think it’s a joking matter to talk about activists “invading” someone’s classroom.
If only it were due to rejection of CAGW, rather than an all-too-predictable problem with Diet Coke fans spitting the stuff out after a mix-up. Not so good for sales and marketing, that. I could just imagine Pepsi executives dying to get their hands on video of the above…
The term “cake” science could also be taken from the theme to the game Portal. It’s a fun song although you need to listen to the whole things to get the implications:
“Getting Warm”
Is your roommate “Hugh Pepper”??
Thanks for the belly laugh !!!
Look people – “Getting Warm” is a CAGW enthusiast and advocate, who was orphaned from accuweather’s old blog. He only reads his own comments and gives no consideration to other arguments. He is only here to regurgitate standard AGW talking points. He has been doing it for years, so there is zero possibility, of bringing him out of his Zombie state. He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth. You are all wasting your time thinking he is somebody redeemable. He thought we would all be dead, a long time ago, and will not revise his paradigm, just because we thrive instead. GK
Mike Jonas says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:52 am
“DirkH and Roy UK – that was a joke, look at the end:
“Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
Just appreciate that they have a sense of humour, and get back to the important stuff.”
Mike, I saw the smiley. Yet for SOME REASON it never occured to ME to harass people I don’t agree with by sending them a crowd of eco thugs; not even as a joke – maybe because I am not a totalitarian ecocollectivist on the taxpayer dole pretending to be a scientist????
Furthermore, I am also not hare-brained and irresponsible enough to crack totalitarian jokes on my business e-mail accounts.
Billl Hopkins says: “It sounds like Kendall is attempting to do what university faculty are supposed to do and that is teaching critical thinking. And you can’t do that without presenting all sides of an argument.”
That was my take on the entire subject, Bill. See my comment on the thread at Bishop Hill. Many criticized him for not sticking his head farther above the parapet. He’d already attracted Warmist fire just by his teaching method. Who are we to say he should have done more? If he had, he’d surely have been given the “big cutoff,” and then who would teach the full picture at UEA? I think there was far too much “friendly fire” on Bishop Hill for someone who showed as much gumption as Kendall did. As a teacher myself, I respect him.
Mike Jonas says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:52 am:
Thank you Mike for pointing me in the direction of understanding the finer points of web speak and humour.
Maybe a quick e-mail to Greenshirts is in order:
Quote from greenpeace: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. 🙂
Is that ok now? Maybe my funny bone is malfunctioning after all the cr@p I have heard from the alarmists these last few years.
Seconded, jorge. @lan Kendal is a gem. What is really alarming is that in a supposedy world class institution there is, apparently, only one of him demonstrating academic free speech amongst all the conformists. Would someone like him be recruited to the staff today?
I was at the London School of Economics at the height of the Cold War in the late 1960s and there was a spread of opinion in the Sociology faculty (yes, I know, another politically motivated rather dubious -ology!). We all knew which professors were rooting for which side of the ideological divide, marxist or classical. But it was “balanced”. It is frightening that there is no balance at all at CRU. The students will really get the message that contrarians are cranks.
I think there would have been a more open and academically searching debate if Climate studies had been centred on Oxbridge. Sorry, I’m not being a snob! I’ve been arguing this for years.
Are we at the point yet where it is ethically, philosophically, and legally OK to call them “Climate Change Conspirators”?
I think so.
No matter what negatives the AGW believers post here you publish their posts – I have only ever seen insulting comments censored and often only part removal still allowing the context.
Compare that to a pro AGW site like SkepticalScience where the moderators don’t have even the courage of their convictions and allow robust debate.
When it becomes obvious the adoring “right” minded posters are losing a debate the moderators step in and totally remove “inconvenient” posts.
They allow the “faithful” to hurl insult and abuse at a sceptical poster but remove even non offensive replies in defence of the indefensible.
This is so typical of the pro AGW side and to my mind a person who will not involve in debate is intellectually insecure in their position and – like a spoilt child – resorts to insult and invective when their intellect isn’t up to a robust challenge in their “religion”.
Well done for maintaining your willingness to allow the AGW believers their posting “rights” even in the face of some disgraceful examples of lack of decorum.
PS – SkepticalScience is a disgrace – especially for the use of the incorrect “K” in the word sceptic – when I went to school you would be reprimanded for poor spelling.
I am a geologist. One of the first lessons I learnt in Earth Science is that a visual diagram, chart, section or map conveys much more than a page of text. I used it in my turn when coaching students, that clearly-labelled diagrams were the fast lane to high marks. I am not surprised in the least that WUWT sourced this fellow’s lecture slides, because Anthony Watts exemplifies that skill.