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.
Fortunately, I don’t care who Bora Zivkovic is or the content of his blog. And I also don’t subscribe to Scientific American (though I once did)…that magazine went belly up a LONG time ago…
Censoring “Warmists” “denialists” “alarmists” would definetly up the level of discussion. But censoring links to specific sites(with the exception of nsfw stuff), now thats just asking for trouble.
I think it’s time for WUWT to start its own magazine. Is it not one of the top scientific website out there? Are there not many scientific contributors to the site? Does it not already have a huge pool of readership? Could it not put together a great editorial board? A quick survey to show how many would buy a one, two or three year subscription right away could diminish the financial risk. I would not be surprised it would supplant SA in no time. A back to roots project with things people love about science in it… Time to branch out and use the notoriety of WUWT (and see some reactions on the other side!)
Thanks W
I too used to delight in reading Scientific American. Now I sadly avoid it for such anti-scientific censorship. SciAm editors now a priori censor Christians for their beliefs, regardless of their scientific or inventive expertise. See their incredible censorship of Forrest M. Mims III
This is anti-Christian political correctness run amok. Contrast the founders of modern science, almost all of whom were devout Christians. e.g. Mimms quotes:
Contrast the founder of the Scientific American, Rufus Merrill Porter
How far today’s Sci Am editors have fallen from the dreams of Rufus M. Porter to today’s anti-scientific anti-Christian censorship. Their actions are directly opposed to the Declaration of Independence, and the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Western Civilization. See The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi.
“Scientific American” is scientific like the “Union of Concerned Scientists” : Accidentally, at best.
Willis,
Note that the hot earthers will complain about the very things they do.
This seems to be simple projection. ie massive funding, censorship, blah blah, and so on.
It is my considered opinion that they approach things from a 100% political stance.
Example: the term astroturfing and the admission that I believe the skeptical science blog had a bot all set up to do their voting for them, or set up to seed all the skeptical blogs with comments. I don’t remember which. Nevertheless, they engage in the very unethical practices that they accuse others of.
IMHO your rant was indeed too kind.
The “link to WUWT” censorship can be thwarted by using http://www.webcitation.org/ to archive the post then citing it from there. I archived this post. The archived URL is http://www.webcitation.org/6Euu3dCpl and can be used to link to this post on Borat’s blog, bypassing his filter should anyone choose to do so…
Of course, the meanest trick of all is that while they’d censor us for mentioning alarmism or Watts, his casual references to early blooming flowers passes without difficulty. He’s just an objective observer! He can’t help it if he notices such things! It’s what makes him all sciency! However, unbelievers noticing the severe cold in Alaska, or the lack of forecasted sea-level rise is just a form of cherry-picking and should be ignored as such.
Steve C says:
March 6, 2013 at 1:00 am
. Now, I scan ScAm on the magazine stand or in the library, shake my head and put it down.
I flip it and turn it around, then place it back on the stack with other unwanted copies.
Vindictiveness is an art form…
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
No comment required. Just suggest you read the article.
Will the computer model screen for the word “Denial” or “Denier”. And If I spell Al Gore as “@l G0re” and “warmist” as “w@rmist” or “w@R^^1st” will it get dumped?
It’s also interesting that this braniac knows that no post could have any value at all and contain the words “Al Gore”. I think he may be right! /sarc
Fellow Group Thinkies
Have you got invasive thoughtcrimes entering your inbox ? ? ? Well….the editor of ScAm has an app for that ! ! ! Why be a bore with the other group thinkers singing “Kum-ba-ya” and you asking embarassing questions involving REAL science. Don’t be that buzz kill BORE….get BORA.app…and finally be a Thinkie FREE Science Twinkie ! ! !
Actually, I don’t know if I should be concerned about this or unconcerned. In some respects who cares what this insignificant hack does? But if he would become significant, however, then his vision of censorship is frightening.
Another step on the path towards proving that this is now a purely religious fight (on their part) and no longer a scientific one. A person who goes to Borat’s blog and casts doubt on AGW is treated in the same way as one who might attempt to cast aspersions on L. Ron Hubbard at a Jon Travolta fan blog.
Maybe what’s happened is this – journals such as ScAm and New Scientist are no longer run by any actual “scientists” but instead by high school teachers like Borat who crave the status that comes from being thought of as a Real! Scientist! And somehow they have manipulated their way into control of a few old names because they desperately craved the Status that gave them, a status they could never get from their own (very limited) abilities.
And so OF COURSE they go all in on political agitprop! Getting attention from their emotionally needy friends is all their involvement in this arena was ever about.
Trafamadore:
I rather think, in the context, you meant ‘complIment’, not ‘complement’.
Willis: They are running scared, aren’t they?!
I was a kid when I discovered SciAm in a vast collection at the home of my eldest brother. A science lecturer himself, he dismissed it as trash. Maybe the fact it had been amassed by his wifes previous husband influenced that. But anyway, that was 1960s ScAm.
I became an avid reader over the following years founded in articles on such topics as how to DIY a laser, that my brother was happy for me to “abstract” by ripping up his marital rivals huge collection.
It wasnt until my thirties that I happenned to read a SciAm article on a topic that by then I was an expert in. It was such appalling trash I was dumbfounded. the scales fell at that point. I wrote a letter. No reply and not published. Never again for me to glance at such dross.
Now this. SciAm trying to expand its Dross Footprint across debate, even among those who electively have avoided the rubbish. Well my reaction is to say, accept it and figure out how to exploit it. Try to lure their commenters into using the censor words. Devise circumlocutions. And Mr Watts, set up a few hundred free-to-host (ten minutes to build) proxy sites with names like “mannenvironment” etc, that merely carry a link directly to here. Better still, link them to a page set aside for that purpose.
That Bore thinks he’s clever clearly illustrates there’s no fool like an old fool. As in JuJitsu, use his move against him.
” Stephen Richards says:
March 6, 2013 at 2:03 am
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.
##################
That is interesting. In years gone by such comments would be disallowed.
Willis: you know he will never read this letter to him, you 1) posted it on this site, 2) included all the keywords he is filtering, and 3) most certainly doesn’t give a rat’s-hoot what any of us on this site think about him or Scientific American because he is filtering us out to start with. But it is kinda funny to what lengths he and his cohorts will go to ignore us. I wonder if they also sit around all day long, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming, “LALALALALALALALA – I CAN’T HEAR YOU – LALALALALA!!”
REPLY: Mosher, your point 1 isn’t fully true as written. As I recall the decision, it had to do with the fact that after you pointed out the model/chart thingy, you then launched into an off-topic rant about how people that don’t get it should be talking about it here. You seemed to miss the distinction that synoptic models and climate models are entirely different animals. I use and trust synoptic models every day, because they constantly get better as they are rapidly tuned by comparison of output to reality. There’s a strong feedback for improving the code/skill and and the science behind it.
############################
1. It was not a rant.
2. I made a point about logic not people
3. No cursing, no swearing,
I wrote: If you accept the output of a model as truth, then you are commited to accepting the inputs and the physics.
PERIOD.
That’s it. I cited a couple papers. mentioned no one by name. called no one a nut as I have been called above. The topic was temperatures. the chart was model output.
I gave 3 links to documents. And I commented on LOGIC not people, not a single soul.
REPLY: I’m sorry Steve, but I don’t agree with your post rationalization of your comment. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but you did indeed make a rant in that comment and the innuendo was that anyone who couldn’t understand the difference between the model types was stupid. Besides, models (synoptic or climate) never make truth, they make estimates. Surely you must know this. People are free to accept what estimates are valid based on the demonstrated skill. The 2M NCEP model I cited that you objected to has demonstrated some excellent skill at collating the past months global surface temperature, while many climate forecast models can’t even be verified yet, and those that can haven’t been all that skillful.
The complaint you made was apples and oranges regarding model types and model skill and you were the one that missed the difference while insulting others. Like I said, that moderation of that particular comment was a kindness.
– Anthony
My long running subscription to ScAm (not as good as an old time fantasy magazine, but often still hilarious /sarc) is about to run out this spring. I’ve tried because of the great article every so often but will just let it go and remember the good. Others have mentioned a few of their favorite authors and columns.
Like many others, I too gave up on SciAm back in the 70s, but my reasons had more to do with time and money… not enough of either. ;-> Imagine my surprise when I leafed through a recent edition of SciAm to find that it had morphed into a strange combination of People Magazine and “vital science-y issues ‘n’ stuff”.
I do have in my possession a collection of ancient, hard-covered editions of Scientific American from the late 19th century. Here are a couple of headlines:
July 20, 1872 – Machine for Bunching, Wiring and Inserting Bristles in Brush Backs
October 12, 1872 – New Methods of Docking and Excavating Canals and of Reclaiming Wasteland
Fun reading for those rainy weekends.
ty
Thanks for the suggestion of using shortened links to avoid Borris’ anti scientific spam filter.
A shorter link to this page can be obtained via v.gd
i.e. http://v.gd/ChpghN
Forrest M. Mims III
As a reader, I would welcome reading any posts you could contribute on WUWT topics.
ho ho. I just had a quick look at that blog
you can mention Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein, but not Al Gore
it’s a funny old world
The best way around the blog filter is to write about the science without the pejoratives. Write civilly. Novel idea.
Andy Wehrle