Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Dear Bora;
I know, I know, like many people I didn’t think it was possible for Scientific American magazine to sink any lower. I loved Scientific American as a kid, the “Amateur Scientist” column was a godsend on the ranch. But then, slowly your magazine morphed, first into less-science, then non-science, then non-sense, and then finally anti-science. I (like many people) quit reading the magazine years ago. Your hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg, for example, was disgraceful. For me these days Scientific American is known by its shortened name, ScAm.
But now, it’s even worse. You, Bora Zivkovic, write a blog titled A Blog Around The Clock: Rhythms of Life in Meatspace and Cyberland. And who are you when you are at home? Your mini-bio on ScAm says:
Bora Zivkovic is the Blog Editor at Scientific American, chronobiologist, biology teacher, organizer of ScienceOnline conferences and editor of Open Laboratory anthologies of best science writing on the Web.
There’s more there, you’re not just a blogger, you’re the Blog Editor, and you teach introductory biology, not the advanced kind, at Wesleyan College. Got it.
And on the 28th of January, you took all of us low-lifes to task on your blog. You say some commenters are a problem, and your solution to the problem of inconsiderate people asking scientific questions on a ScAm blog is quite simple:
Automatic Computer-model-based Censorship.
I can only bow my head in awe. I mean, what better way is there to keep you from answering people from WUWT and other sites who might want answers to actual scientific questions, than not allowing them to speak at all? Let me give other readers a glimpse into the future of scientific discussion, your brilliant plan for hands-off blog censorship … here it is, and as you explained, it involves computer models (emphasis mine)
If I write about a wonderful weekend mountain trek, and note I saw some flowers blooming earlier than they used to bloom years ago, then a comment denying climate change is trolling. I am a biologist, so I don’t write specifically about climate science as I do not feel I am expert enough for that. So, I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.
See, Bora, the beauty of your plan is, you don’t even have to think about censorship once you do that. The computer does the hard work for you, rooting out and destroying evil thoughtcrimes coming from … from … well, from anyone associated with Watts Up With That, or with Steven McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit, or anyone that you might disagree with, or who is concerned about “alarmists”, you just put them on the list and Presto!
No more inconvenient questions!
The beauty part is, censorship in that manner isn’t personal or based on prejudices, it’s gotta be 100% scientific—because hey, it’s based on a computer model, and the modelers constantly assure us that model-based science is the real deal. For example, a noted advocate of computer models and transparency in science posted this insightful comment in support of your fascinating proposal for secret hidden computer-model-based censorship of unwelcome views …
Astroturf pay-4-trolling outfits? I gotta say, Mann has lost the plot entirely. He’s sounding like one of those goofy ads on the insides of matchbook covers, “DON’T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY—Make Money With Your Computer At Home While You’re Trolling!!! Call 1-800-ASTROTURF now!”
I swear, there’s no way to parody this stuff, Bora. You and Mike, you’ve truly outdone yourselves, your idea of computer-model-based censorship is worthy of the modern ScAm you work for.
The sight of a so called “scientific” magazine advocating for hidden censorship based on where someone might comment or their saying the word “alarmist” or where they might find some particular fact, well, that is an abomination, Bora. It makes me fear for the students at Wesleyan College. Do you turn people away from your classes as well for disagreeing with your revealed wisdom, or because they may have read my biology piece about extinctions on WUWT?
Unlike your pathologically computer-censored blog, here at WUWT we just ignore the jerks, or I metaphorically beat them severely about the head and shoulders for bad behavior … but we don’t censor them for reading or citing your or any other web site, ever.
So how about you have the stones to do the same, my friend, and you stop hiding behind your pathological computer models from folks who read or cite this web site?
Finally, Bora, you are (of course) free to comment below on my open letter and defend your position. Unlike your site, where I could invisibly be made a non-person and my ideas prevented from ever seeing the light, here at WUWT we actually DO preach and practice science of the old-fashioned, transparent kind, where even the advocates of hidden, under-the-table censorship like yourself and Michael Mann are free to comment. And if we do snip someone’s particular comment for being a jerkwagon, we note that fact, we don’t just sweep them under the rug like you do.
I won’t be surprised if you don’t show up to defend the indefensible, however. I’d be a fool to expect that kind of honesty and forthrightness from a man who secretly destroys unwanted questions from his scientific opponents …
But I invite you to surprise me, my friend, I’m always overjoyed to see a man moving to become an actual scientist, one who listens to and answers inconvenient questions from his scientific opponents … heck, who knows, you might just learn something.
Of course, I am aware that no one will be able to cite this open letter on your blog, you’ve erased that possibility already … gosh, that’s science at its finest, Bora.
How do you justify this to yourself?
Has noble cause corruption really affected your moral compass to that extent, that you not only invisibly censor people whose scientific views differ from your own, but you actually attempt, not just a pathetic justification of that underhanded action, but an even more pathetic and anti-scientific celebration and and advocacy of such hidden censorship? These questions and more, I invite your answers.
My regards to you, Bora … and I’m totally serious about your sneaky, invisible trashing of people’s comments based on where people post and what they might cite—your kind of cowardly hidden censorship is absolutely antithetical to science, as is conclusively proven by Michael Mann’s approval of your plan.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought Borat was the name of the bizarre, but funny guy.
“Denier” is not on the list? So, BoraZ is a denier of real science…..
That is unfortunate to hear that SA should feel the need to filter comments. I was about to subscribe again. I have to say that I have enjoyed reading the articles and comment section on this site. It has been educational. I have followed the climate story for the last 4.5 years, mainly at Newsvine. That is how I found my way here about 3 years ago. Newsvine just recently changed the format at their site. They went from having open to all conversations with the seeder moderating off topic/inflammatory remarks, to a new system of ‘Nations’ that you can join in with, if allowed. Naturally the hard core AGW proponents mostly banded together in one main Human Caused AGW Nation. Proudly, I was one of the names that was banned from ever joining their Nation. And I am just a goldminor. I sense a similarity between their mentality and what this new editor at SA has done. The level of negative attack as a form of debate is off the chart at many sites. There is a sea change coming. I also have good memories of what SA used to be like.
“I swear, there’s no way to parody this stuff, Bora. You and Mike, you’ve truly outdone yourselves”.
What is more worrying is not that we get a few odd crackpots like this. But that the wider scientific “profession” tolerates their quite ridiculous views. And I don’t mean censorship …. just that gap that usually opens up between the e.g. drunk and the rest of the people on the train.
It’s no big deal; all fanatical followers of strange cults have the same attitude towards anything which they disagree with, possibly best summed up by the expression:
“Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
I would just like to say Al Gore is the finest man of our age as he fights the eveil deniers, and chmpions the cause of Gaia. Watts and people of his ilk are evil and should be stoned for the witches they are. We are not warmists or alarmists but truth tellers all /sarc
That’s one pissed off rant.
I won’t be renewing my Scientific American subscription.I have decided I cannot trust the judgement of their editors.
James Allison says:
March 6, 2013 at 12:49 am
Actually, that’s me being nice …
Thanks,
w.
Well said, Willis. I may not be American, but I am Scientific and used to devour the magazine regularly. My “Amateur Scientist” CD is one of my more treasured possessions, (and warm thanks and greetings to Forrest M. Mims III, above, for his contribution thereto). Now, I scan ScAm on the magazine stand or in the library, shake my head and put it down. I hope Bora and his ilk are proud of the destruction they’ve achieved. And as David Delaney points out above, New Scientist has gone down the same road to irrelevance. I am very glad I’m not starting to learn about science these days: there isn’t a single magazine worth opening any longer, still less buying.
Mark observes that “Since computers do not understand natural language “naughty word” filters can easily end up matching considerably more than expected.” Indeed. People who live in Scunthorpe, in the UK, were among the first to notice this. 😉
The word “Alarmist” exists in the dictionary, “Alarmist n. A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger.”
So this nincompoop is banning English?
I wonder how Al Gore feels about having his name banned…
Regarding being “snipped,” this site at least admits you exist, and has your name there as a person who has had the honor of being deemed out of line. Often this site explains why you have been snipped.
Before WUWT existed Accuweather had a wonderfully rowdy “Global Warming” site. I especially remember two fellows who called themselves “Patrick Henry” and “Brookline Tom,” who, as Skeptic and Alarmist, used to go at it, day after day, week after week, month after month. They both supplied links, and it was a wonderful education. The moderation at the site was so poor that the people posting had to moderate themselves, and, for a time, that policy actually worked. (One moderating factor was the wait between posting and seeing your words on the site; it could be eight hours, which gave people time to sober up, and even, on occasion, to submit an apology.)
It was sad to see the moderation of that site become restrictive, and to watch the site change into an echo chamber. All the learning stopped.
The reason we have two eyes is because we need two views. A Cyclops has no depth perception.
I have been snipped at Climate Audit, but knew it was because I was not being calm, cool and collected, and was only contributing passion. I didn’t mind it, because I valued the steady objectivity I could find there. I wrote briefly about it: http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/welcome-back-climate-audit/
I confess to being hot headed and making mistakes. I like WUWT because I can depend on other posters to correct me.
If you have the guts to stand up for your beliefs then there will be times you stand corrected. That is far better than falling uncorrected.
Like many of the readers of WUWT, I grew up with SciAm and my favorite sections were The Amateur Scientist and Mathematical Games. My first exposure to SciAm was in 1964 and I have most of the issues from 1965 to the early 1990’s. Conway’s game of Life was responsible for boxes of computer output in 1970 when video display terminals were simply not available to me.
I remember issues in the 1970’s being packed with true science and I used to look forward to every issue of the magazine. Then, there seemed to be a gradual shift away from science to anti-science. The magazine seemed to be increasingly dumbed down and followed a statist ideologic path instead of dealing with science. I found myself buying fewer and fewer issues and, when the magazine jumped on the CAGW bandwagon, I totally stopped reading it.
It was SciAm and Analog magazine that first introduced me to the theory of CO2 induced global warming and, considering these magazines had been reliable sources of information in the past I assumed the theory was correct initially. Of course, I don’t just accept theories blindly and began to educate myself about climate and atmospheric science. As I did so, it seemed what I was finding was increasingly at odds with what was published in SciAm. The articles seemed to be more religious than scientific in nature and I went with what the evidence was showing, not with what the religion of CAGW was proposing.
Analog SF/Science Fact was an excellent magazine when JW Campbell was editor but under Stanley Schmidt has become a propaganda arm for CAGW – I let my subscription lapse 3 years ago after having read Analog since 1966. I was quite disturbed by the statist perspective of one of Schmidt’s novels serialized in Analog in either the late 1970’s or early 1980’s and this seems to be his personal view that societies priorities must trump those of individuals. Campbell’s Analog magazine was when the individual was still supreme and it was individual effort that got things done, not bureaucracies. The transition from the SF of the heroic multi-talented individual to the era of the wimpy metrosexual in two generations is scary to behold.
The early SciAm Amateur Scientist articles were quite impressive in terms of what one could do with relatively simple equipment and I continue to tinker to this day. The current perspective is that many of the experiments and pieces of equipment described in the Amateur Scientist are far too “dangerous” for individuals to be tinkering with, somewhat like the idiotic modern “Chemistry sets” one can buy today which essentially allow one to perform no interesting chemistry. I wonder what the current response of the safety obsessed would be to the home xray machine that was in one of the pre-1960 Amateur Scientist columns. This was a very simple device using a high voltage source and old vacuum tube which I built and fogged some film with.
Fully agree with Willis’s new acronym of ScAm for a once great publication.
Who opened the nut job copboard.? My god Mosher, you have become the epitomy of a complete screwball AGW and in only 3years.
Willis, thanks for an interesting piece from one grumpy old man to another. My problem, though, is that I don’t have your abilities any more.
Thanks again, Willis. I linked to this post on my site. (I figured it deserved a blaring tabloid headline: “Scientific American Bans Al Gore”)
It will take a week to ten days for that obscure headline to start appearing on search engines, but I’m chuckling now, imagining a raised eyebrow or two.
Now please stop writing great stuff, Willis. I’m suppose to be doing my taxes.
Not all bad. His ban of the use of the term “Al Gore” might catch on.
Yip the trend toward dogma in science is a little worrying.
I could have accepted the house rules if they hadn’t been biased; if they’d refused to accept citations to skepticalsceince and filter comments with the term “denier”. It would be very strict but at least balanced.
Words from a typical Stalinist.
I don’t see a problem with banning trolls from denying facts.
I stopped reading Scientific American for good years ago when the Editor suggested in an editorial in that magazine that, following the Iowa (or was it Kansas?) Board of Education’s decision to teach creationism in Iowa high schools, that colleges and universities should discriminate against applicants from that state. How despicable, yet how characteristic of the Left.
I also have fond memories of Scientific American articles praising Chile’s solution, in the 1960’s, to inflation. Indexing. It was real funny, before I gave up on NPR, to hear them in the 1980’s do a show about countries who had been overwhelmed by inflation. Chile was the poster boy for their show, whose efforts to fight inflation they mocked.
Nothing is beneath these people. Nothing. And, they are everywhere.
“… send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts…”
Hey that could be great. Any reference to alleged energy imbalance where W/m2 is spelled (rather than abbreviated) would be trashed automatically. The whole movement could end up disappearing up their own fundamentals.
On the one hand he admits not being a climate scientist and on the other he assumes comments with certain words “contains erroneous information”.
Right there is the problem with the debate. They make a lot of assumptions about those that disagree with them. Oil funded, denier, right wing etc. None of which I am.
‘As a high school biologist I base my conclusions on global warming on flowers blooming this year earlier than they did years ago. That surely proves conclusively that those experts who say that global warming over the past 15 years has not happened are completely wrong and I won’t listen to them’
I too grew with ScAM, and knew Jearl Walker as co-author of my freshman physics textbook. Then I discovered ScAm’s lack of doxastic comittment, no skin in the game. How about, “If one cannot be wrong, one cannot be correct?” Or, as E. T. Jaynes might have put it, it is all adhockery. Make a falsifiable assertion and let it stand or fall on its merits.
Bora responds… kind of.
https://twitter.com/BoraZ/status/309190950658375683