WUWT – helping to educate UEA students on climate

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.

Dec 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM | ‘@lanK

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Darren Parker
December 4, 2011 2:26 pm

Cake sounds like Supercool from Upright Citizens

u.k.(us)
December 4, 2011 2:28 pm

“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.”
===========
Yep, the radar has detected the imminent threats.
Will it be able to track the coming onslaught ?

December 4, 2011 2:56 pm

Getting Warm says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views
========================================================
GW, slip your finger into your nasal cavity and switch your brain to the state of ‘thinking’. Once in that state you are free to commence the enlightenment of ‘education’ including ‘challenge’, ‘ethics’, ‘morals’, and most importantly, ‘science’.

December 4, 2011 3:00 pm

Lucy Skywalker says:
December 4, 2011 at 9:34 am
=======================
How unfortunate, Lucy, that Briffa was so easily bought-off with a few pieces of silver.

December 4, 2011 3:12 pm

Streetcred says: December 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Agree. Seems that there is a “decline” [of standards] to “hide”.

David Ball
December 4, 2011 3:48 pm

Getting Warm says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
“Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.”
Is the “We” a veiled threat? Is it an indication that there are groups who monitor and try to derail anything that opposes their agenda? If the alarmist science is so solid, Getting warmer, why resort to guerilla tactics? Why hide behind a pseudonym? Stand up and face us with honor.

JPeden
December 4, 2011 3:50 pm

Getting Warm says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
Anthony,
Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.

Yes, you’re getting warm indeed, but you left out from your own practice of the Climate Scientists’ post normal methodology the critical “or else!” and “before it’s too late!”

December 4, 2011 4:12 pm

“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.” – Surely you know by now that this stuff cannot be parodied. There isn’t anything extreme enough that it could be an exaggeration.

John West
December 4, 2011 4:19 pm

G. Karst says:
“He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth.”
They’re not replying for GW’s sake. To ignore such comments would only serve to create a perception of not being able to answer instead of not wanting to answer, hardly safe if your goal is to present an alternative to the CAGW paradigm to those that may be just starting out in a quest for “truth” concerning CAGW.

johanna
December 4, 2011 4:23 pm

Richard M says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:42 am
Getting Warm says:
on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
… respected (ditto) bodies:
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
You must be unaware that Anthony has a close associate, Mr. K Watts, that is a paid in full member of UCS and consults with Anthony on a daily basis.
—————————————————————————–
Well said, Richard. I also point out that K. Watts not only meets all the educational qualification requirements for full membership of the UCS, if he has successfully completed an obedience course, he has exceeded them.

December 4, 2011 4:33 pm

Getting Warm, read the following analysis of the Climategate Inquiries :
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf
If you still believe that the Inquiries were impartial, competent and thorough then there is no hope for you.

Skiphil
December 4, 2011 5:17 pm

@dcfl51 says:
December 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
WOW, thanks, I hadn’t seen that document before. That is a disgraceful record of ‘whitewash’ inquiries, and it does not matter how many such superficial inquiry bodies are formed, when the mandates are far too limited, such mandates as exist are neglected, the staff and procedures utterly farcical, the ‘evidence’ largely not even sought (or ignored), then ‘whitewash’ is the kindest word that can be offered (even if McKitrick tries to be a bit kinder and non-judgmental in shying away from the ‘whitewash’ word).
All of the inquiries re The Team and Climategate are scandalously bad.
Only the more general IAC report on reforming the IPCC would seem to have any credible value at all, and even that one was shallow and highly protective of bad practices in the past.
Anyway I with all who say the IPCC needs to be abolished – it is not a scientific but a political body, badly formed and poorly run (except in terms of certain ‘progressive’ agendas advanced).

Julian Williams in Wales
December 4, 2011 5:26 pm

I have never seen any requests that Phil Jones and others should release private emails, only those done in their official capacity as staff member of CRU at the UEA. I am sure if Anthony Watts or Willis were working for a university, and were the centre of a scandal, they would open their emails for public scrutiny.

G. Karst
December 4, 2011 5:58 pm

John West says:
December 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm
G. Karst says:
“He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth.”
They’re not replying for GW’s sake. To ignore such comments would only serve to create a perception of not being able to answer instead of not wanting to answer, hardly safe if your goal is to present an alternative to the CAGW paradigm to those that may be just starting out in a quest for “truth” concerning CAGW.

Point taken – rebuttal required.
I was not really addressing the blog but was indirectly telling GW to buzz off. You have exposed my “ugly toad”. GK

RockyRoad
December 4, 2011 8:37 pm

Getting Warm says:
December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am …
Please release all your e-mails immediately!! I’d almost bet Anthony would do that WHEN (and this is an imponderable guess) they release all their emails first.
Hell, we can’t even get Mann to release his stuff from the UVa, and the taxpayers PAID for it. And Mann won’t do it under threat of the LAW, no less! And neither will the big-wigs at the UVa that undoubtedly see such revelations as the end of their gravy train and their careers!
So go pull your joke on the Occupy crowd or something–that’s the true level of your request.
(Don’t you find it rather confusing…nay, even remotely suspicious that it takes a whistleblower to reveal what these “climate scientologists” are up to? Any level-headed human with an ounce of inquisitiveness certainly would.)

James
December 5, 2011 1:21 am

On the subject of dyslexia – its a big problem for me.
Last week I went to a toga party dressed as a goat!

Roger Knights
December 5, 2011 3:26 am

Rosco says:
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.

“Sceptical” is just the UK spelling. Here’s what I’ve posted previously on the matter:
Stephen Brown wrote:

“sceptic (English, and correct, spelling) “

Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :

“The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”

Harry Won A Bagel
December 5, 2011 3:48 am

“…we might pocket our pride and copy.” We didn’t. 🙂

Peter Miller
December 5, 2011 4:05 am

Anthony’s adage is not one I have seen before:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
It is another way of saying conflicts of interest, something deeply embedded in the practitioners of ‘climate science’.
If they told the truth, i.e. “the global climate is changing, the activities of man are obviously having an effect, but it’s no big deal as the change is mostly natural climate cycles”, then they would all be swiftly out of their well-paid jobs

Alberta Slim
December 5, 2011 4:59 am

I thought “Getting Warm” was his “handle” based on all the hot air being released during his/her pontificating.

Steve C
December 5, 2011 5:42 am

Anthony, I did enjoy your link above to the article in the O.C.Register. Comparing it with the drone of alarmist rubbish we’re fed in the UK media (pace Delingpole and Booker) it was like a breath of fresh air.
I found it a bit worrying, though, that Mr. Landsbaum could say, apparently seriously, “Thank goodness for bad economic times.” It suggests that he hasn’t connected enough dots to realise that both the economic collapse and the AGW saga are works of the same vile power interests, whose sole aim he himself excellently captured in the previous paragraph – “It’s always been about control and money. Their control of your money”. Quite so. I hope he passes by WUWT occasionally and notes this comment.
As for Alan Kendall, good for him. “Mentioning the unmentionable” in academia is never easy – ask Denis Rancourt, another popuar lecturer who dared to mention the links between science and politics and met … difficulties.

Mike M
December 5, 2011 8:10 am

Quoting Upton Sinclair, now that’s a really low blow Anthony! 😉

Craig Moore
December 5, 2011 9:31 am

…where he laments some skeptical slides being used in a powerpount lecture at UEA…

Shouldn’t that be “powerpout?”

Mike M
December 5, 2011 10:31 am

Hey kids, let’s have a contest to guess the true identity of ‘Getting Warm’. Is he/she a government employee or university grant recipient? An IPCC summary writer or NYT green news blogger? A politician or a Solyndra executive? Perhapsmaybe a retired Los Alamos scientist like Chick Keller?

Mardler
December 5, 2011 11:12 am

GettingWarm cites the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as impartial.
Nuts!
It’s as impartial as the Parliamentary enquiry lead by Lord Oxborough, he of the directorships of companies that, he hopes, stand to profit from green policies.