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.
Here is what I tweeted to Bora
@Nitetrain_1
The ScAm Gets Worse—An Open Letter To Bora Zivkovic http://wp.me/p7y4l-lbz via @wordpressdotcom @MichaelEMann Will you respond @BoraZ?
And here is his quick response.
Bora Zivkovic @BoraZ
@Nitetrain_1 @MichaelEMann I responded last night….with laughter. No need to drag myself through that mud. Will not feed that troll.
He has completely missed the point. He is an example of the problem with their side of climate science.
my first exposure to SciAm was a 1954 issue my dad had purchased. i fondly remember smuggling the Pompeii issue into fourth grade so i would have something to read instead of the books they wanted us to read. i gave up on SciAm several years ago when i could no longer stomach their politicizing ‘science’. it was sad, somewhat like watching a beloved family member sinking into dementia. i still hope for their recovery, but do not have much optimism.
“That is interesting. In years gone by such comments would be disallowed.”
In a discussion concerning how excessive comment editing and deletions destroy any chance of real debate, Steve appears to wish that there was MORE editing and deletions here than there are.
Someone’s Internal Irony Detector is broken. (shades of Sheldon Cooper)
“I am a biologist, so I don’t write specifically about climate science as I do not feel I am expert enough for that.:
Key and telling: won’t determine for himself the truth or semi-truth of CAGW with an ou that he is not competent to do so, but attacks those who question the IPCC narrative. A follower of authority, an acolyte of the White Coat.
And seeing flowering plants earlier? Within his lifetime: a “scientist”, a “chronobiologist”, whatever the hell that is, who does not recognize that his 50 years (perhaps) of personal experience means little to none at a planetary level.
A chronobiologist: would that be a paleontologist, or just someone who is older than “we” are?
[snip – while we disagree with Bora, that’s over the top – Anthony]
Willis,
Great post, and…
The comments, both positive AND negative, remind me of why WUWT is so good and so important. My conscience forces me to put another Grant in the tip jar.
Russ says: March 5, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“….. I will admit thumbing it (SciAm) in the supermarket to see if they changed…..”
My choice is the National Enquirer. You can have more trust in what they report. Besides they have cleavage.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Read SciAm from my father’s stack from ~1950-68, and subscribed myself into the late 90s. They like NatGeo, quit that ~’92, editorialized science, made it not-science, and not worth reading. This past year I gave their Science Mind, I think that’s what they call it, a try. Even for the more subjective subject of perception, or whatever one wants to call what the mind does, it is vacuous.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 6, 2013 at 12:59 am
James Allison says:
March 6, 2013 at 12:49 am
That’s one pissed off rant.
Actually, that’s me being nice …
Thanks
—————————————————–
Willis somewhat OT but one of the many things I find very attractive about WUWT is that Anthony regularly posts links to Press releases highlighting the “alarming” results of yet another research paper written by yet another self climate scientist. You all know the type of press release – the “its worse that we thought” that are often just plain stupid and innacurate and usually gets our collective blood up to boiling point.
If time permits I go look for the Alarmist climate scientist’s email address and write a quick note pointing out that their press release and research findings are the subject of a post at WUWT. I also mention how widely WUWT is read and of course what a friendly and considerate bunch we all are! I then go and invite the scientist to join the discussion here and perhaps be kind enough to respond to some of the queries and questions being raised.
Mostly I don’t get a response however would bet my last dollar these Alarmist scientists will invariabily follow my link through to the relevant Post here and at read some of the comments. I see value in doing this because these self called climate scientists get to see first hand, and perhaps for the first time, how large the skeptical community have become and also the extent and diversity of the group knowledge base. A large extended community made up from many different cultures and countries that we all appear to enjoy being associated with – I digress.
I do like to think that the action of inviting these Alarmist Climate Scientists here may encourage them to pause and ruminate a little about the huge credibility gap between their research findings and the reality of how our climate works.
Not that I am old enough to remember, but didn’t SciAm trash the work of the Wright Brothers while supporting the work of Samuel Langley.
REPLY: Indeed they did, the article is here: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
It seems they changed their tune later though:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-wright-perspective
– Anthony
trafamadore may be speaking from experience. At the university where I got my engineering degree (some many years ago), the basic courses were taught by those with PHD’s that knew the material well and how to explain it to novices. However many of the 3rd and 4th year courses were taught by those in graduate programs that had to teach along with doing their own work and weren’t always that helpful or able to explain clearly. In other words, those instructors had neither the experience, the knowledge or the incentive to teach well. There was a major complaint by a group of students in one of the engineering classes being taught by a Physics major (who was removed from teaching that course) who apparently had no interest in teaching engineering students at all. Saves some money for the school but doesn’t do much to instill confidence in their curriculum.
”Who opened the nut job copboard [sic]? My god Mosher, you have become the epitomy [sic] of a complete screwball AGW and in only 3 years.” — Stephen Richards
“That is interesting. In years gone by such comments would be disallowed.” — Steven Mosher
Maybe in years gone by you weren’t an “epitomy.” But keep on trying to guide us on the path to scientific righteousness, anyway.
There is some good outrage here, but how many will take the time to comment over at Sci Am. There is no subscription required to post (yet) and it still remains a good platform to give readers pause over the terribly biased stories. There are only a few skeptics “holding the line” there and they could use a little support from WUWT. Keep in mind there is an unofficial 2 link limit, and comments do disappear. Keep copies so that they can be reposted after a cleanup, if necessary. Always clear your cookies and return to see if your comment survived, to the public in general, as your comment may appear to your browser, but no one else’s (bastards).
Yes it is tough blogging, but there are lots of young people there who are only being exposed to the skeptic view, by a few. There is opportunity here to make a difference. IMO GK
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have seen Mosh rail against those in the other camp just as often as those in this one. Albeit, here he is usually railing against AGW skeptics.
While I don't always agree with Mosh (or with anyone!) I never have felt that he is insincere or in the tank for anyone or any side. Although, he may be faster to comment than to think sometimes! A problem I fall into as well…
Caleb: Yes, I remember the “no holds barred” battles at accu-weather, as well as your excellent contributions. Live well and prosper… alas… the blog, unfortunately, did not. GK
As a lad (I’m about Willis’ age), on rare trips to “the city” I was allowed perhaps 50 cents to spend on back issues of Scientific American, and I think they were 10 cents in the used magazine store. These were the magnificent days of the columns of Martin Gardner and C.L. Stong, and of real informational articles. These articles were review articles, and a student could learn a lot and be enthralled by science. And a particle physicists could get up to date on biology, for example, and vice versa. Something like 10 years ago, someone destroyed Scientific American. I don’t know the details. I myself affirmatively cancelled, and cringe every time I see the issues on a newsstand. It is heartbreaking.
I dropped my ScAm subscription about 8 yrs ago, for the many reasons already cited.
I’ve since subscribed to American Scientist, whose content quality is similar to ScAm’s heyday in the 1970s and 1980s.
However, AmSci lacks articles comparable to Martin Gardner’s or the Amateur Scientist … to be fair, those wouldn’t fit in with AmSci’s mission.
I held a continuous subscription 1972 through nov 1, 2002. That was when SciAm introduced their SciAm50 Award and gave one to Fran Pavely the California legislator who has done so much to this state and thus the world as her anti science positions have promulgated. Perhaps WUWT could start their own “Whatsies” award. Warmist Theology Founders, WTFs can be recognized for their efforts. Needless to say a few lifetime achievement nominees will need to be intelligible in order to give others a chance.
Mann, Bora, same arrogance.
Mosher has been censored here, yes!!! Scandal!!!?????
All about ONE post, apparently…
Looks like Mosher is more at ease here than talking about meteorological events and their genesis.
In Soviet Sc-Am Russia, Bora edits you.
@Forrest M. Mims III As much as any other human, you influenced my early life for the better. Poor, in Georgia, I didn’t have a lot of educated influences. I spent a lot of time reproducing your circuits. I graduated from Ga Tech and went on to retire from a large National Laboratory, In my early career as a circuit designer, and later, as the rich adventure that has been my life developed, I credit my discovery of my enduring love of science and technology to your little books. Thank you.
I’ve got a question/observation … how is it *some* comments at YouTube are getting ‘filtered’.so’s only the original poster can see his posted comment, YET, when logging in via another PC (same IP addy BUT not logged into YouTube) the *comment* doesn’t display, but rather shows up tagged as spam!
(This was NOT based on a “case sample of one” either, it was replicable several times over as of a couple days ago.)
YACoC – Yet Another Case of Censorship*?
(*Of course, YouTube is free to do as they wish, honesty and openness with the subscriber/user base being THE issue.)
.
I was a subscriber of Scientific American in the 1950s and even invited publisher Gerard Piel to be a speaker at USC Medical School in Los Angeles in 1965. He accepted the invitation and spent several days with the medical students. Alas, the political drift in the magazine led me to end my subscription in the early 70s. It’s a shame to see what has happened in recent years as grant seeking seems to be one source of the corruption. By the way, I believe Richard Feynmann took over a freshman Physics course at Cal Tech for several years. I have a set of recordings of the lectures that someone made. They are a treasure.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:15 pm
“Damn, you’re that Forrest Mims? Well done, my friend, and to your predecessor as well, that’s where I learned to build a Hilsh Vortex Tube and a Wilson cloud chamber. That was my favorite column, even including “Mathematical Recreations”. Must be sad for you to see how the mighty have fallen.”
Amen. That column was remarkably popular. You could walk into the philosophy faculty lounge and some of them were reading it. I recall that on one occasion they asked me to help them build a device that Gardner had described in a column published on April 1. They were so excited.
Nice comment Willis, maybe this reality/spam filter, Boris is so proud of serves another purpose.
Sure its great for reinforcing groupthink, but ScAm has fallen on hard times, unlike WUWT they probably have no willing volunteer moderators.
Consider what rate of pay may be necessary to keep a blog moderator engaged at that moribund institution.
It is all done with cookies (see my post above). Clear cookies. Revisit without signing in. You will now see what everyone else sees (bastards). GK