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.
Wavefunction stated:
“Bethe, Garwin and others’ 1984 Sci Am article on SDI is supposed to be a clear and unbiased analysis of the problem. Many other articles appearing after that have criticized the technical feasibility of SDI and underscored their fundamental conclusions. The basic problems have been analyzed multiple times over, for instance by Postol, Lewis and Garwin and have been found to be the same (simple countermeasures, futility of mid-course deflection). It’s not a question of engineering, it’s one of basic physics.. . . . ”
Wamron replied:
“Re Wavefunction….nope, wood for trees, SDI, along with its cohort of contemporaneous programmes, was a resounding success: the USSR is no more.”
My observation. . . . . wow!
If the USSR had just read Scientific American, they would have known that there was no way that the US could have developed SDI — and would have encouraged the foolish Capitalists to squander billions of dollars on such a foolhardy scheme, and not worried about it at all. It would have been the USA instead of the USSR that went bankrupt and dissolved!!
From my memories of that era and those articles, I got the impression that the authors would have been much happier if the USA instead of the USSR had wound up on the ashheaps of history.
Scientific American should have just comped the Ruskies a few copies of their most excellent magazine — it might have changed the course of history!
Have to add my comment here too. As a scientist, I find that sort of behaviour reprehensible. Not so long ago we scientists were being reminded that public consultation meant we had to take on board every opinion and validate it, simply because it was an expressed opinion. I personally believe that all opinions on AGW are valid. Expressly because it is our tax dollars that are paying for the response.
1) Insufficient reply; does not expurgate YouTube on it’s presumed ‘responsibility’ (from my perspective under ‘implied contract’, if any *, with a YT subscriber/user) regarding keeping a comment-maker aware of the status of his (or her) comments’ visibility (esp. during ‘comment wars’ or comments on controversial subjects) when comments are in or out of view by others, e.g. un-logged-in YouTube site visitors.
2) I saw the comment was ‘hidden’ though the use of a **2nd PC** which has never been logged into (but has been used to simply visit) YouTube, THEREFORE it should bear *no* user login cookies. I made this a little clearer in my 2nd post above on this subj, although I thought I had stated so in my 1st post.
Further comment? Hopefully something new, uncovered, as ‘cookies’ have been mentioned *twice* now.
.
* Not sure if addressed in YouTube TOS or TOU – terms of use/service – or not)
Forrest Mims III – I remember the incident. SciAm was good when I was in highschool and college and science always interested me but that was before it went all witch-hunty.
Open minds allow open discussions. They don’t allow noise, rants, or vulgarity, that is neither freedom or discussion. Somehow those who claim to be most sensitive to pollution wish to use acrid smoke to pollute the places of others just because they disagree instead of discussing the issues point by point. Tolerance and openness admits no burning of heretics and where there is smoke – from either the post or comments – there is fire.
As much as I hate the irony, most people who have found the right side, the truth of the matter, are the ones that do things in the open, encourage debate, allow discussion – even when things are not so clear that they will win, and I will include climate science here. Fearmongering is not an argument. Nor is an adhominem attack, insult, or appeal to authority “He’s a professor at a nice university”.
I would hope and am starting to believe there are growing numbers of people like me each day that read unwillingness to debate as weakness itself in the position, and intolerance and insults as direct evidence of the position as error.
How the heck did religion get into this?? Good science does NOT rely on or require religion. Period. Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a belief.
Bora finally gave up, and booted me from his twitter list. My postings below. Its interesting to read his. He does not know what an ad hom is, and thinks its ok as long as its true. For true intellectual tolerance and support of freedom of expression, one needs to follow the threads to Pharyngula.
https://twitter.com/LesJohnsonHrvat
And yes, I gave up on SciAm after decades of reading it, when they became PolySciAm.
RE Billy Liar @ur momisugly 1:24 PM
Thanks for that link to the story about the English Daffodil crop being four weeks late. I can always count on the people replying at WUWT to alert me to things which, (despite being 99.9% off topic,) are things my mind simply grabs,
O Olson says:
March 6, 2013 at 3:38 pm
…… Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a belief.
————————————————–
A distinction without a difference.
BTW, if I remember correctly, site rules prohibit discussions of religion (and I assume that includes atheism.) Personally I support that policy, but I think “drive-by” slamming of religion is a bit disingenuous since any direct response would technically be a rule infraction and I have never seen it further objective discourse.
BTW, Bora Zivkovic better watch out – there’s one scientist wandering loose that has created his own “parody” site called vvatts up with that (using a double “V”, not a “W”). So we should all help Bora’s spam filter out by using that variation, and knock out discussion of an alarmist site with it.
Sorry, Russell Seitz, you picked the name out. If Bora decides that that version is ok, then expect it to lead here, not to your site.
Re Ben Wilson…No, you have that totally inverted: The USA DID invest in SDI and that DID force the USSR to squander THEIR billions on trying to develop counter-measures. For example the collossal Energya Polyus programme, to field a space battlecruiser armed with a megawatt laser specifically for attacking SDI sattelites but also able to dispense nuclear orbital mines. A project which reached hardware stage but failed to attain orbit, falling somewhere over the Pacific, Icarus like, the very peak of the USSRs failed attempt to compete with SDI and similar projects.
It was precisely by engaging in large scale investment in military R and D on all fronts that the USSR was forced to compete, whilst being engaged in military action via proxies whereever the opprtunity arose, being ultimately driven into the ground, bankrupted and busted.
This competition included the USSRs own SDI, featuring such wonders as ground based energy weapons for use against spacecraft, the monumental Sharyagin (pardon the spelling) phased array radar complex (only meaningful as part of an ABM system) and the worlds first operational anti ballistic missile shield around Moscow, which actually remains operational in modern Russia.
It should also be remembered that at the time of Apollo-Soyuz and supposed orbital detent the USSR was theonly country arming its space crews. The USSR was also the only country to orbit armed spacecraft for use against other spacecraft. Specifically a 23mm cannon aboard a Salyut station, orbited and test fired on orbit.
I think your conception of what happenned in the Cold War has some gaps.
Forrest Mimms is also writing for MAKE Magazine, once described as a sort of McGyver’s Practical Mechanics. I’ve been a subscriber since the first edition. It’s a magazine you can (generally) read without gagging over political correctness or lefty orthodoxies.
Oh good, looks like someone else pointed out that you can do things like use tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/acnub5c which makes the whole “censoring links to a site with a bot” concept rather laughable, really.
Even funnier is the fact that you and I can–with surprising ease–read words like dneeir wmrasit and aamirlst with the letters rearranged, but I’m not quite sure automated filters are up to the same task.
Dude, it says a link to Watts, not a mention of the word “watts”.
Reading is fundamental.
Many moons ago, I was explaining and reading about the names of VW models which, when they went to alcohol-cooled, adopted names of winds.
“Bora” is one of those names (used outside the USA for the “booted” version of the Golf Mk4). At the time I paraphrased the US Navy definition as:
(emphasis new)
Just an amusing coincidence. No prescience required.
I just wonder how sore his buttocks must be after sitting on the fence for so long.
Great writing Willis, you comments are as interesting as your essays.
cheers
Wamron. . . .
I remember exactly what happened. . . . which you summarized quite nicely.
I thought I was being fairly obvious at my attempt at a “tongue-in-cheek” observation — which was to assume that the Scientific American articles on SDI were completely and 100% accurate — (which I don’t believe now and didn’t believe then) —
But if they had been accurate, than all the USSR would have had to do to save billions of dollars. . . was read Scientific American.
Somehow, I suspect they did read it — and rejected it’s conclusions too.
From trafamadore on March 5, 2013 at 9:31 pm:
Dinialist?
You obviously must be lying, as WUWT obviously does not [snip] for poor spelling.
Interestingly, Googling that spelling quickly led to a Motley Fool board posting where “AGW skeptics” were challenged by a 2011 LA Times piece about how global warming will lead to more open space in Yellowstone Park etc, as the massive forest fires will hit too often for the trees to grow back, etc.
Which was ably rebutted by this reply by “MrCynic”, which is what Google had actually linked to, noting there had been no significant increase in global average temperatures for 15 years, among other things.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears The Motley Fool will not be censoring any climate skeptics, nor will they be supporting the CAGW mantra… Except for fleecing the fools who have bought into it, who naturally deserve to be parted from their money, so it’s only fair.
Jeff Alberts says:
March 6, 2013 at 8:25 pm
I just wonder how sore his buttocks must be after sitting on the fence for so long.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
LOL! I actually have no idea where he stands in This debate as I have seen him argue with many different people.
But, it is an important distinction between those with whom we disagree and those that are parroting.
Wamron: The point of the criticism by Bethe, Garwin and others was that the offense could easily overwhelm the defense using cheap countermeasures like chaff, decoy warheads. That’s as true today as it was then.
O Olsen wrote, “How the heck did religion get into this?? Good science does NOT rely on or require religion. Period. Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a belief.”
“Religion” is not generally mentioned here to avoid proselytism and the flame wars that that will engender. This is a science site.
However, two points:
1) “a belief” is ipso facto a religion, especially when it deals with subjects outside the realm of science, such as the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities. There’s no more to be said on this on a science blog, as it’s not dealing with science. The only reason to mention it is to say “Don’t go there.”
2) The article at http://www.wikinfo.org/Multilingual/index.php/Biblical_roots_of_science refers to the factors in Reformation theology that historically led to the development of modern science. Among those factors are found honesty, open communication, question experts—they could be mistaken, make experiments to test theories, that there are absolute laws of science (e.g. “laws of physics”, “laws of chemistry” etc.) and so forth, some of these factors have repeatedly been mentioned on this site as fails among the CAGW crowd. It was upon these beliefs that the scientific method (described at http://www.wikinfo.org/Multilingual/index.php/Scientific_Method_from_science_textbooks ) was developed to describe a subset of present day reality. While nowhere do I see the claim that one must follow Biblical theology in order to practice science, I certainly don’t make that claim, one must follow the methodology derived from that theology in order to practice science. That includes recognizing that there are limits to what science can study.
My disappointments with ScAm is that it descended from being a science magazine to a political-correctness/religion proselytism rag with a little science mixed in. When I want science information, it’s quicker and easier to find it from other sources.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Forrest M. Mims III says:
March 5, 2013 at 9:57 pm
Damn, you’re that Forrest Mims?
You would not happen to also be the Forrest M. Mims III that wrote the Archer Engineer’s Mini-Notebook would you?
(Not that any electrical engineers working on Naval weapons systems would have a copy of “Op Amp IC circuits” or “555 Timer IC Circuits” in their desks.)
Re: Wavefunction, Zimcorp, and fellow-travelers
First, I would like to point out, to the unacquainted, that engineering is based on physics, as well as on chemistry and other sciences. It is also the profession of solving problems, which is different from science, which is the profession of discovering knowledge. They interact, but they are not identical. As far as I know now, and knew then, Bethe, Garwin, et al., had no reputation as weapons engineers. To think they could claim such credibility is logically equivalent to insisting that all Nobel Prize chemists are qualified to be the world’s best cooks (cooking is only chemistry, right?).
Yes, they showed that THEIR solutions would not work. They did not show that credible engineering solutions would not work. I had a rather lengthy rebuttal paper prepared against one piece of nonsense analysis involving space-based lasers, but my boss told me to put it in my desk drawer. Not politic to show our hand.
As to the notion of decoys, I have to point out that boost-phase intercept precludes any problem with RV decoys. (The concept of booster decoys is laughable, but you would have to go through the physics to understand why.) Intercepting the post-boost-vehicle (PBV) was also an option, before any decoys or re-entry vehicles (RVs) could be dispensed. As for RV decoys, there is a method (recently patent applied-for) to generate gas clouds in the path of space objects in order to “filter” them kinematically. It is a 30-year-old concept…. (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20120241562)
So, as is true with all questions on this site, it is best if the participants know what they are talking about, or pay attention to those who do.
R Ortiz says:
March 7, 2013 at 10:22 am
I should correct myself. What I should have said is atheism is technically a Lack of belief. That said, I will say again that science today does Not require religion regardless of how the past may have played itself out.
“factors in Reformation theology that historically led to the development of modern science. Among those factors are found honesty, open communication,”
This I strongly take exception to as it implies that these qualities can not spring from within us but must come from somewhere else. Many of my best friends prove this to be patently false. As you said, this is a science site. And I love it.