Pharyngula

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 6, 2009 11:26 PM

"will you shut up just a second?"

ha!

Posted by: andyinsdca | December 6, 2009 11:28 PM

I'd be more persuaded if Prof. Watson didn't have guilt by association (being a prof at EAU)

Posted by: Cujo359 | December 6, 2009 11:29 PM

Morano was Sen. Inhofe's go to guy on climate denialism back in 2007. He helped put together those reports that supposedly were signed by thousands of "scientists" claiming that climate change was a hoax. Before that, he was part of the Swift Boaters.

The guy's a real piece of work, that's for sure. If he claimed the sky was blue outside, I'd ask for a live image.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | December 6, 2009 11:33 PM

BTW, You-Tubers might want to go and comment on this vid there. It was put up by a denier and most of the comments seem to be supportive of denying AGW.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 6, 2009 11:42 PM

you don't know the difference between "insult" and "character assassination", do you jojame

Posted by: SC, OM | December 6, 2009 11:44 PM

He was lamenting "character assassination" and 30 seconds later said "what an asshole". The overall science may be correct but this guy isn't helping. Keep digging that hole deeper.

You're an idiot. He was saying the character assassination is deflecting attention from the science. The science is on his side. Dispute that, asshole.

Posted by: jojame | December 6, 2009 11:48 PM

Calling him an asshole was a deflection of his arguments. It was the very same thing he said was happening to the climate scientists.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | December 6, 2009 11:50 PM

PZ isn't going to suck me into this one! I already got a couple of good links out of the last thread.

Posted by: SC, OM | December 6, 2009 11:52 PM

Calling him an asshole was a deflection of his arguments. It was the very same thing he said was happening to the climate scientists.

Nope. They have the science. He has no scientific arguments. If you think he does, describe them. In detail. Now. Or piss off, asshole.

Posted by: Chris Whitman | December 6, 2009 11:54 PM

You know what no one seems to be asking in relation to the 'trick' quote? The name of the study. If the quote means what it is alleged to mean, that a trick was used to falsify data, there should be at least one study where you can establish the data has been falsified.

That's the sort of evidence you'd expect to see to back up an allegation of wrongdoing. You know... actual physical evidence.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2009 11:58 PM

concern noted

Posted by: Jim Lippard | December 7, 2009 12:02 AM

I don't think Watson came across well at all. Nor did Morano.

Posted by: David Smart | December 7, 2009 12:07 AM

I have designed an algorithm that will hide the decline of this comment thread.

Posted by: jojame | December 7, 2009 12:08 AM

When two guys are butting heads in an argument and one calls the other an asshole, what are you seeing? The Morano guy was being a jerk but airing has no place with the topic at hand. You just respond to the arguments during a debate.

It is exactly what Watson was complaining was happening to the climate scientists. They were basically being called assholes but the heart of the debate over climate change wasn't being addressed. Do you all really not see the irony?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 7, 2009 12:09 AM

This kind of interview invariably fails to inform.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 7, 2009 12:15 AM

They were basically being called assholes but the heart of the debate over climate change wasn't being addressed.

? You're a fool. They were not basically being called assholes, they were accused of a number of specifically alleged crimes and ethical lapses solely as a rhetorical strategy to shift focus away from the "heart of the 'debate'."
Watson's little quip was a post-hoc comment on the personality of his foil. You can argue that it was unprofessional or rude or whatever, but it was nothing like the ridiculous smokescreen-smear campaign in which Morano is participating. Seriously.

Posted by: SC, OM | December 7, 2009 12:17 AM

It is exactly what Watson was complaining was happening to the climate scientists. They were basically being called assholes but the heart of the debate over climate change wasn't being addressed.

Again, WHAT IS THE HEART OF THE SUPPOSED DEBATE, ASSHOLE? Describe in detail the science behind the anti-AGW "argument," with proper scientific citations. Or go away.

Posted by: Uncephalized | December 7, 2009 12:20 AM

@jojame:

No, it is not the same thing, at all. Morano completely refused to respect his opposite's time to speak, attempted to interject and shout him down several times, and used the common and effective (but not polite or rational) technique of simply throwing so many allegations and names at Watson that he wouldn't possibly have time to answer them all, and Morano would be certain to catch him up on something. He was not being civil, and he completely deserved to be called an asshole.

Climate denialists instead attack people's credibility regularly and without cause, often using entirely false or at the least misleadingly out-of-context information in an attempt to undermine the truth, because it is not on their side.

But your concern is duly noted.

Posted by: M | December 7, 2009 12:38 AM

I don't condone Captain America's rant, and though he is an arsehole in the truest sense of the word that kind of inflammatory language only serves to further obscure the whole point of a debate.

It gets people's knickers in a twist and their hormones of righteous indignation raging instead of allowing people to focus on the issues.

Mind you, that point is probably moot as I would hesitate to call that an actual debate...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 12:50 AM

Don't take it so literally when I said skeptics were basically calling their opposition assholes. They were not furthering their side of the debate. The same as calling others assholes.

Posted by: BobbyEarle | December 7, 2009 12:53 AM

Uncephalized @36

Morano... used the common and effective (but not polite or rational) technique of simply throwing so many allegations and names at Watson that he wouldn't possibly have time to answer them all...

Posted by: Tacroy | December 7, 2009 12:59 AM

I think it's weird that Watson didn't have a picture of the actual graph the "trick" e-mail refers to. Honestly, that's the only rebuttal this talking point needs - the "trick" to "hide" the decline is to put the decline in plain sight, and graph instrumental data along with it.

Posted by: Kome | December 7, 2009 1:07 AM

I'd like to wager a guess that Watson perhaps thought he was no longer on air when he said that, since the moderator had sort of concluded the discussion. He also said it under his breath, which makes me think he was just saying it in exasperation to himself or to the people within earshot of him in the room he was in.

Either way, he was right to call Morano an asshole and to tell him to shut up. Science deniers of all sorts - anti-vaccers, creationists, global warming deniers - only have volume on their side and they use it. The sad part is that it works on far too many people =(

Posted by: Steven Sullivan | December 7, 2009 1:32 AM

Morano conveniently left out that Hulme and Zorita do not deny the anthropogenic climate change is real and a problem.

THAT is the point Watson should have made right away, because it would only bolster his main point: that the rest is a sideshow.

Sorry, this was a PR Fail for Watson. He basically let Morano frame the debate when he could have nipped that right in the bud.

Posted by: Red John | December 7, 2009 1:43 AM

Ken Cope in post #41 puts it much better than me.

I don't think you understood his post then.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 1:48 AM

Ken Cope in post #41 puts it much better than me.

anyway, you still can't tell the difference between an ad hominem and an insult; until you do, your "contributions" to this thread cannot be taken seriously

Posted by: skeptical | December 7, 2009 1:54 AM

Insulting someone is not an argument ad hominem. People need to learn this, because I hear it misused all the time. An ad hominem would have been if he said that Morano is wrong BECAUSE he's an asshole. He didn't. He just made an observation that he's an asshole after making his case, which was that he's wrong because the facts say otherwise.

An example of argument ad hominem is to say Watson is wrong because he's a teacher at EAU and can't be trusted.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 2:04 AM

see? you still can't tell the difference

"you're wrong and you're an asshole" = insult
"you're wrong because you're an asshole" = ad hominem

Posted by: Chris Whitman | December 7, 2009 2:18 AM

"No she did not, numbnuts. She fucking cursed me out. Deal with it.

What is it about tone trolls? Why do they think that mothers never used bad language around their children?"

So that whole joke thing just went way over your head, then?

My problem here is not when someone comes in trolling and gets reamed out, which I think is pretty reasonable -- after all, many people use the insistence of politeness as a kind of shield to prevent from being called out on their bullshit -- but when anyone who comes in with a contrary point gets screamed at by a bunch of insufferable assholes, it starts to look like you're obfuscating any discussion with your compulsive need to validate yourself.

I don't make the rules here, clearly, so I'm not *telling* you to do anything. I'm just asking you to think a bit about the way you're conducting yourself. Not for me, personally, because I already think everyone chomping at the bit here to take out their personal frustrations on internet strangers could probably use some counselling, but maybe for everyone who's on the fence, who might be interested in sceptical issues but tries to make an honest comment only to be faced by a bunch of posturing baboons.

I mean, feel free to ignore this or post a curse-filled, barely coherent response or whatever floats your boat, but I've seen my fair share of people who were enthusiastic about the rational scepticism movement be driven away by others who would shout them down over even the most trivial of issues. A large local sceptics' organisation here fell apart completely because people couldn't express themselves at all without being made the targets of insults.

For everyone who posts a response asking you to try to be a little more personable, there are still more who just close their browser tab and don't come back, and when issues affecting the sceptical community come up to which they could contribute, they don't say anything because they feel slighted. You might think it's petty or shortsighted or whatever, but it hurts scepticism as a movement, because it's one less person to speak out actively against anti-education legislation or global warming denialism or the imposition of religious laws or any other topic that you or I might be concerned about.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 7, 2009 2:22 AM

concern noted

again

Posted by: MadScientist | December 7, 2009 2:31 AM

Oh, Morano will be so happy to have such 'debates'. After all, he's a paid shill - so he does his best to get a debate with known scientists just as the creationists wish that R. Dawkins would be silly enough to waste time 'debating' them.

It's all part of the scheme of "manufacturing doubt", as the tobacco industry called it. It worked out very well for the sales of lung cancer; to this day you will hardly meet anyone who realizes that the vast majority of lung cancer is due to smoking. If we were to destroy all seeds and lines of tobacco tommorrow, and wait a few decades for the last smokers to die out, the rate of affliction with lung cancer would drop to perhaps less than 1% of the current rate. Yet if you interview smokers (who are for the most part innumerate), they believe that the government is lying in telling them that smoking causes cancer - after all, so many of their friends and relatives smoke and none have died of cancer. I always thought that a most peculiar thing with human psychology: disasters always happen to someone else - until it happens to you.

Posted by: Frank | December 7, 2009 2:37 AM

Fine, technically it isn't an ad hominem argument but why bring up the fact for no other reason than for character assassination?

Your question is a dishonest one. By stating that bringing it up was for no reason other than character assassination, you are tacitly shutting out all legitimate answers to your own question of "why." I see what you did there.

Stop asking dishonest questions while concern trolling. If you want to be taken seriously as a concern troll, you have to conduct yourself in a congenial manner. If you pull shell game hatchet jobs like this one, your concern is so obviously disingenuous that it will be noted as blatantly fraudulent.

Posted by: uncle frogy | December 7, 2009 2:51 AM

the "video debate" posted here really does illustrate that the problem with all the "science deniers" is they think the argument is about power and "we" think it is about what reality is.
If we continue to react in the same way to the ridiculous pointless attacks, the side issues and conspiracy theories that the anti-rationalist manufactures out of small details as the self centered self important reactionaries will continue control the conversation and delay important decisions.
stick with the facts as we have find them. they are not made up they lead to the conclusions that are made stop addressing all of the BS as if it was legitimate. It just goes around and around and ends no where.

Posted by: Chris Whitman | December 7, 2009 2:57 AM

"Chris Whitman, you should really get to read a few threads before starting with the tone stuff. That's the mistake all tone newbies make."

Like most people, I maybe have the time to follow one or two blogs down to the point of really knowing who the commenters are. It's a sad fact that we all have limited time to devote to stuff like this.

So I think my point still stands. If someone's a troll, well obviously you aren't going to win them over with politeness, and if anything you're right that it's just something that can be taken advantage of. But when someone who's new to a blog or who simply doesn't follow the comments regularly sees an outrageously aggressive response for a minor disagreement, and then gets an outrageously aggressive response for making a joke about the hostility, it does not look good. I'm not 'tone trolling' here -- I'm just telling you how it looks from an outside perspective.

You've heard it before, but you're probably going to keep hearing it as long as it keeps happening, I'm afraid. It's unfortunate that, in a movement that has as many detractors as does scepticism, everyone kind of has to be an ambassador of sorts. If someone's acting like a raving homophobe, I don't think anyone is going to blame you for coming down hard on them, but if someone's seemingly-innocuous comment is part of a pattern of behavior that isn't immediately apparent, other people may not have access to the same knowledge you do about said troll, and I don't think it's negligent on their part not to do a full background check on everyone before they respond in a thread.

Posted by: Kel, OM | December 7, 2009 3:01 AM

To call him an arsehole is not instead of addressing the points he made. Watson summed that up well enough in the video, he was engaging in character assassination and in general trying to play the FUD card on the whole thing. That's the tactic you use when you can't actually attack the science of it. Which you'd think if the emails actually showed in all honesty that there was fraud that would be picked up on.

This sadly is the banner by which they profess scepticism. If they really were following the evidence where it leads, they wouldn't need to quote mine, they'd be able to produce data that undermines the position of the IPCC. Yet they don't show this, all they can do is point to anything that will generate "controversy" and let the FUD take its course. That's not scepticism, that's denialism!

Posted by: latsot | December 7, 2009 3:05 AM

Sorry, this was a PR Fail for Watson. He basically let Morano frame the debate when he could have nipped that right in the bud.

I don't know why this is being considered a 'debate'. It's an interview. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Watson was called late in the evening on the previous day and asked to answer some questions on the science of climate change. It's likely he didn't know that Morano would be involved. He was probably expecting reasonable questions from reasonable people and adequate time to answer them.

This might make him naive, but I'm not sure he was going for a 'PR win'. He was more likely just trying to help clear up some misconceptions by commenting on the science.

It's easy to say in retrospect that he could have done better, but how many of us would actually have done so?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 7, 2009 3:11 AM

Isn't it so unfair that the moderator gave the person with qualifications and expertise in the field more time?

Posted by: when seconds are counted | December 7, 2009 3:19 AM

She didn't interrupt. He rapped up by saying, about the "trick," " . . . which there are lots of papers on and which we don't need to go into." And then she asked him another question. He specifically indicated he WASN'T gong to explain it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 3:25 AM

I am not saying the charges themselves are true or false. It just seems that a lot of commenters here are saying "character assassination" as though attacking someone's credibility is not a legitimate form of argument. It certainly is in cases where the attacks are accurate.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 7, 2009 3:28 AM

If Morano had no qualifications and expertise, what kind of stupid moderator even allows him into the debate?

Posted by: DLC | December 7, 2009 3:33 AM

Mr Morano's page at sourcewatch.org.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Interesting reading.

Posted by: Feynmaniac, OM | December 7, 2009 3:39 AM

Well the person doing the the debate is actually a journalist. Journalists should weigh credentials/credibility when reporting and challenge a guest when what they are saying is demonstrably false.

This idea that journalist should should give equal time to all sides and passively report is, quite frankly, why much of the news media is shit.

Also, there's not too many people with relevant expertise on the denialist side so it's not surprising they got that arse hole.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 7, 2009 3:54 AM

@Kel OM: You think he was nuts - you should see our guys negotiating trade agreements - if we can't unilaterally screw you over, there's no deal.

Posted by: Vene | December 7, 2009 4:18 AM

Hello crazy person.
*waves to pzdum*

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | December 7, 2009 5:14 AM

Watson didn't "lose" any discussion or debate, because there never could be one. Watson lost, and the UK lost, when they let Marone on in the first place.

Back when broadcasting was invented the UK and the US both decided that broadcasting was a part of the commons and that as such it should be used in the public interest.

In the UK, that meant education, entertainment, arts, funded by taxes. Not always perfect, but generally in the public interest.

In the US we decided that the public would b best served by auctioning off the broadcast spectrum. Like selling the Grand Canyon to the highest bidder.
We sold the hitman the bullets he used to shoot us with. We sold for $5 the baseball bat the thug was paid $200,000 to bash our brains in with.

In the same way we embraced sociopathy as "the American dream" and glorified those who used, exploited and killed others to make their one self richer than many nations, we also let loose the sociopaths on the airwaves.

We don't have broadcast journalism in the US. We have corporate bludgeoning. US TV exists for one reason and one reason only. To take money from those who have less of it and transfer it to those who already have too much of it.

US TV has only one product. Your eyeballs. It exists to sell your eyeballs to advertisers. The programming is simply the bait.

Early on the sociopaths thought reasonable quality would be a better bait, but lately they have discovered that they can actually use the bait to make your eyeballs a better product. They can use the bait to make you stupid, to make you confused, to bludgeon you into senselessness and make you better prey.

They can even use the bait to get the cattle fighting amongst themselves, to get some of the cattle to proudly herd the others into the slaughterhouse before they themselves march in.

It's an immoral, sick, evil enterprise, and immoral sociopaths like Morone, who in a sane society would be ostracised or institutionalized, line up to profit from it.

Hardball, shows like it, ALL of Fox - their sole purpose is to victimize their viewers. Morone and others like him don't care about truth, they only care about themselves. They will lie, scream over others, deliberately confuse and mislead, all to put money in their pockets AND satiate their need to feel like they've fucked someone over in the process.

This was just an example of the toxin that US broadcasting is finding a new unsuspecting victim.

Most in the US don't even realize how horrible their so-called "news media" is.

What we saw here was Watson experiencing toxic shock.

Posted by: Spang | December 7, 2009 6:01 AM

It's the US TV debating style to shout, be emotional, and basically keep talking over everyone else otherwise you won't get a word in.

The UK style is pretty much directly the opposite. So putting these two guys against each other just makes most people in the UK (including me) think the American guy is a twat.

I imagine Americans watching the interview on YouTube are thinking something along the lines 'wow, that nerdy guy got totally owned'.

Yeah, the academic guy with the qualifications got shouted at by a PR guy in a suit on TV. Big shocker.

Posted by: Whatevermachine | December 7, 2009 6:44 AM

Oh my god, I was watching this. Talk about hilarious, when he rolls his eyes... and yes, like another poster said, he does remind me of Richard Dawkins gone wrong. But I sure prefer him to the big fat science denier he's talking to...

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 7, 2009 6:56 AM

BBC.
Britain, one assumes.

Posted by: Iain George | December 7, 2009 7:02 AM

I find it a little odd that many people who complain about the politicization of science (as a way to attack AGW) are also the people who want to hear more from Marc Morano.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | December 7, 2009 7:49 AM

Morano, Marone... whatever I'm tired.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | December 7, 2009 7:55 AM

The emails were only an embarrassment in the same way that a false rumor spread about you in your high school is an embarrassment.

Posted by: SmilingSkeptic | December 7, 2009 8:11 AM

I don't understand all the hubbub about the "asshole" comment at the end. He was just doing the scientific thing and drawing an obvious conclusion from the presented data...

And it was darn funny.

Posted by: Anri | December 7, 2009 8:19 AM

Chris Whitman sez (in part):

Also, I'm really surprised at how incredibly rude so many of the commenters here seem to be.

I mean, personally, I liked the 'arsehole' comment, but, seriously, did your mothers not hug you enough when you were children?

Remember, folks, inferring that I'm undersocialized because my mother didn't show me enough affection when I was growing up (presumably due to some serious lack on her part) is both a polite and adult method of making your point. Otherwise Mr. Whitman wouldn't approve, right?

Speaking for myself, Chris, I prefer it when people are polite - but this is the real world, and this is the internet. Frankly, if you can't stand the way the adults swim, you'd best stay in the kiddie pool.

In regards to the video, I think it speaks volumes about the relative accountability of the parties involved when you consider:
One person used the terms 'liars' and 'fraud' in regards to people who were not lying, and not being fraudulent.
The other used the term 'arsehole' in regards to someone who... was being an arsehole.

He wasn't being insulting so much as he was underlining the level of accuracy we should expect from scientists - quite high, in this case.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | December 7, 2009 8:39 AM

The "trick" in question was them deciding that thermometer data from 1960 onwards was more authoritative than from tree ring data.

Well ... no. The post 1960 actual temperature measurements are ... like ... the actual temperature measurements. Tree growth data are proxies for actual temperature measurements for the period well before temperature measurements were taken. There was no "decision" to be made here. Everyone knew that after 1960, for some reason, the tree growth ring data suddenly diverged considerably from the actual temp. readings.

The best analogy is a car at a standstill, on blocks in the backyard, but the speedometer is pinned at 120 mph. After (but not before) 1960, the tree growth data set in question is like the speedometer showing 120 mph in a car up on blocks. It's that basic.

Posted by: Sigmund | December 7, 2009 8:55 AM

I didn't find it all that effective for the simple reason that it wasn't made clear why Morano was being called an asshole. If you were not up to date with the details at hand it would be easy to assume that Morano had some reasonable points (his claims that scientists were essentially lying amd making up the whole issue of global warming was not adequately challenged). In that situation accusations of assholery might be taken as sour grapes.
From what I've seen of the publics reaction to the hacking incident it seems like its a complete disaster for the scientists involved but it also exposes the paper thin depth of the whole 'framing' approach towards science issues. The essential problem is that this approach relies almost entirely on arguments from authority. Now we see what happens when the deniers also realize this fact and go after the authority itself. I've seen loads of people, previously sitting on the fence on this one, now assuming that the case against climate change has been exposed as a sham!

Posted by: Carlie | December 7, 2009 9:02 AM

That was a pretty epic eyeroll at about 5:55, too. I don't see the problem with venting frustration like that - scientists are people, too. They can call other people assholes when it describes their behavior.

Posted by: Jessie | December 7, 2009 9:08 AM

The problem here in the UK is that the teaching of science at school has been 'dumbed-down' over many years. Children and teenagers are not taught the proper scientific method of evaluating information. As they grow up, most people just accept anything they read in the tabloid newspapers or see on TV. Apparent scandal sells, truth doesn't.

Posted by: Garry Scholey | December 7, 2009 9:11 AM

Jojame posted:
"It is exactly what Watson was complaining was happening to the climate scientists. They were basically being called assholes but the heart of the debate over climate change wasn't being addressed. Do you all really not see the irony?"

Morano is an asshole because HE WAS SHOUTING OUT HIS ANSWERS LIKE A CRANK!!!

The irony is that these scientists are being found guilty without so much as a trial, by those who see conspiracies everywhere.

Posted by: Doug | December 7, 2009 10:12 AM

Even if they didn't say a word, this little debate just seems to summarize the players in the climate change debate. On the side of science, a bespectacled, somewhat awkward looking, slightly geeky guy who looks like he has the same barber that I do -- obviously more at home in the lab than on TV, but still poised, calm, and professional. On the denier side an oily, slick, fleshy, tie-wearing tool who's very appearance just screams superficial, lying asshole. Once they open their respective mouths, the differences become even more apparent. Competent rationality on one side, loud blathering on the other. It's style versus substance, and unfortunately, in America, style usually wins those contests. We live in the golden age of salesmen -- Bog help us!

Posted by: Laurie | December 7, 2009 10:24 AM

Usually I am not one of those people who is embarrassed to be an American. I am proud of our mores, our culture, and our political system, and happily defend them when Europeans speak condescendingly.

But this display made me cringe with shame. Unfortunately, this Morano character represents a fairly typical American bully, with his sneering and his pointed laughing and his shouting. The fact that this kind of thing actually gains any traction with my fellow citizens is humiliating and mind-boggling. Professor Watson's "colleague from America" looked like a bumbling fool, an overgrown child. I mean, really. Who thinks it proves a damn thing to sneer at your opponent in a debate? Americans, apparently. Jesus.

This Morano guy was such an asshole.

Posted by: Amber of TheAmberShow.net | December 7, 2009 10:56 AM

It's like watching a drunk sophomore frat guy arguing science with his science professor.

Posted by: Drosera | December 7, 2009 11:09 AM

Morales comes across as the worst kind of used car salesman.

From which of these two guys would you buy a second hand car?

Posted by: Drosera | December 7, 2009 11:13 AM

Morales => Morano

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 11:17 AM

Ah, Eli's upset. So what? If you don't like how we operate, your choices are simple. Live with it, or go away. Both are adult choices. Not going away, but whining is childish, and the second definition of concern troll (as defined at this blog). Concern trolls are tiresome, inane, and foolish if they think they will change the culture here.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 7, 2009 11:50 AM

@ Eli & Whitman:

Oh, and most name-calling is a disgrace to the concept of an insult anyway. It's a waste of breath, signifying nothing but the idiocy of the speaker. The only reason I have done so at all in this post is so that I might sink to your level of emotional retardation.

Yeah? Well, in real life I'm the very model of patience, tolerance and etiquette, so please believe me when I say I'm only sinking to the level you've sunk to when I say, "Sit and spin, morons!"

(Are you happy now? You've upset me so, my extended pinking finger was nearly trembling as I put down my demitasse of lapsang souchong in order to ask my personal assistant Kenneth to type this, and I think Utne, my Bichon Frise, may have picked up on the tension. I do hope you won't make a fuss when I send you the bill for her veterinary psychiatrist--I find lawyers such a distasteful but unfortunately necessary accessory to the modern lifestyle and avoid their use whenever I can. And Utne was doing so very well up until now. She'd almost recovered completely from overhearing that dreadful man on the street refer to me as a, a--well, I won't repeat it in such refined company, but suffice to say he was wrong in describing both my sex and species--when I asked him if he'd only be so kind as to move his delivery truck three feet so my rhythm wouldn't be interrupted by a detour on my morning constitutional. I shall be quite put out if her depression returns as a result of this altercation.)

"I'm only sinking to your level." Seriously? You believe your own bullshit like that? Besides being so smart and above everybody else, you probably think you're good looking, a snazzy dresser, and dance like a dream too, dontcha? Go lecture somebody else, you fucking fainting goat.

Posted by: Eli | December 7, 2009 12:05 PM

You forgot option #3: "Oh shut the fuck up you bunch of pissant fucking "OM" losers." :)

Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 7, 2009 12:34 PM

You forgot option #3: "Oh shut the fuck up you bunch of pissant fucking "OM" losers." :)

Molly envy much?

Posted by: Mark | December 7, 2009 12:40 PM

No one is talking about the crime that was committed. Who hacked the emails? Why isn't that person in jail?

In addition, I've been doing some pretty heavy duty investigating about the background of the deniers. All points lead to heavy investment in carbon technologies. Those who are heavily invested in this OLD technology are not going to give up without a fight to the finish. Ironically, they will lead to their own demise - along with the rest of us. They have the money. They can sustain a long slog. Plus, they know that the vast majority of the world's population is grossly undereducated with respect to all things science. They can easily sway people with their lowest common denominator arguments. It's very easy to persuade un- and undereducated people to chuck all of science and substitute it with superstition, belief and loud 'authority' figures.

Posted by: scientific conspiracy ? | December 7, 2009 1:02 PM

Scientific conspiracy ?

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961 :

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Posted by: Somerville | December 7, 2009 1:09 PM

I'm surprised we have reached this point in the thread and no one has brought up the news that the Russian secret services may have been involved in the hack attack against the CRU computer system

Is Russia behind the Climategate hacker attack?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 7, 2009 1:30 PM

It's very easy to persuade un- and undereducated people to chuck all of science and substitute it with superstition, belief and loud 'authority' figures.

Even more so when you've clothed yourself in underdog tights and claim to be taking down a conspiracy. After all, the lack of evidence of a conspiracy is even better than evidence for a conspiracy--the most sinister conspiracies leave no trace of their existence at all. Sinister!

I recently tried calling bullshit on facebook to a "Climategate" page. I was instantly labeled a liberal tool of a socialst state.

I stuck to my guns and insisted they show me the data and research that falsifies AGW. They can't and they know it. SO the scream about scientists making money and Al Gore is a liar... blah blah.

I work in chronic disease surveillance, so in addition to being a liberal tool of the socialist state, I'm part of the "Conspiracy to Hide the Cure for Cancer So Those of Us in the Industry Can Keep Our Jobs." That's right; I happily watched several relatives of mine die an excruciating death because I can't be bothered to update my résumé.

Clearly, I and everyone I work with are cold-ass motherfuckers. It's really a testament to the courage of the 9/11 truthers, the climate change deniers, the alternative medicine proponents, the race realists, and the creationists that they're willing to go up against our soulless Goliath collective.

Bravo, young Davids, bravo!

Posted by: mena | December 7, 2009 1:41 PM

That guy (and most, if not all, anchors at Fox) seem to always have the "dumb jock" vibe. Shut up for a moment indeed.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 7, 2009 1:57 PM

Re #140 and the Russian angle, I'd say I'd be almost amazed if it weren't a paid job. There's a lot of money at stake here, and it isn't like the motives aren't obvious.

But that said, it does seem a bit premature to jump from the fact it was apparently a Russian job to the assumption it was Russian intelligence that paid.

I mean, the fact that that there's talent there that's good at what they do and generally for sale is known well enough elsewhere too.

Posted by: dublinbay | December 7, 2009 2:07 PM

Only the love of a concern troll can save the moral soul of pharyngula

Posted by: llewelly | December 7, 2009 2:14 PM

Chris P | December 7, 2009 1:34 PM:

Why are people complaining about "How Watson came across"?

Some of those complaining about Dr. Watson's "tone", like jojame are global warming deniers. They complain about his "tone" in order to defame him. They do it in the guise of offering PR advice because they are dishonest.

There are a few sincere (but misplaced) complaints about tone, but they are the minority.

Posted by: A R Hyle | December 7, 2009 2:20 PM

Someone further up the thread said:

""""I imagine Americans watching the interview on YouTube are thinking something along the lines 'wow, that nerdy guy got totally owned'.""""

Indeed. Type "Marc Morano asshole" into a search engine.

Marc Morano's rhetorical style of smiling while chucking out his talking points seems to be the best way of debating. Over here you don't need to be qualified as a scientists to have an "equally valid viewpoint".

Posted by: DrFrank | December 7, 2009 2:28 PM

Oh sweet tap-dancing Jeebus, the term "concern troll" really does get abused around here, just like ad hominem gets frequently abused elsewhere.

As we all know, a concern troll is someone who holds contrary opinions and pretends to be one of the group posting "Oh, but you're being so mean! Shouldn't we be nicer?" messages. This is distinct from someone who *is* one of the group expressing the same concern, which you may think is bollocks but isn't actually concern trolling.

So feel free to label such people assholes, if you feel like it, but it's dishonest to automatically label them concern trolls just so that you can mentally assign them to whichever out-group you fancy.

On topic, though, I definitely felt proud to be British after watching Watson's final comment, although when he started rolling his eyes I did worry for a second that he was being possessed.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2009 2:43 PM

Yes the debate was biased, Watson was given the opening remark, the closing remark and 2 minutes 49 seconds. Morana did come off badly, but he was having to fight for a chance to speak at all. He received 1 minute and 31 seconds of time and was required to respond to and present his case while the newscaster was trying to shorten even this time further by cutting him off.

Watson got 1 minute and 33 seconds to make his opening case (longer than Morana's entire time) while Morana was cut off after 35 seconds.

I find Watson's answer on the divergence of the tree ring data very dishonest as well. First off he misrepresents the case against it by saying that "they want you to believe they are hiding a decline in warming" when this is not the case.

The graph in question uses the tree ring data as proof that the earth has not been as warm as it is now and that it has only in the past hundred years begun to warm at such a fast rate. We only began taking relatively accurate measurements during the mid 1900's of the planet and it showed that the earth was warming.

However for some strange reason the tree ring data instead of also showing that the earth was warming after the 1970's instead shows that the earth is cooling according to its data. So rather than go back and say that maybe the tree ring data might not be quite so accurate a measure of temperature variability when it shows something different from accurate modern temperature records they threw the data out and replaced it with modern temperature readings.

That is the problem with "hide the decline".

Posted by: bad crane | December 7, 2009 2:56 PM

Just saw a document in a Finnish tv channel about this. To be honest, many of the emails were not "taken out of context" but revealed many times deep skepticism even among the scientists. That combined with lousy adherence to ethical standards in science (e.g. not showing the data to other researchers) does not look too good.

I don't know if global warming is a fact or not, but in this case trusting the scientists (at least some of them) is difficult. Some of them apparently had a political agenda and that's not cool, right?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 7, 2009 3:10 PM

Thanks but no thanks to capital dumbass Morano for being the obnoxious American dunce everyone thinks we are. He thinks that because our news media conducts such discussions as pro-wrestlers conduct inter-personal relationships that he can go on anotyher country's airwaves and bulldoze everybody. Watson was entirely right to call him that, and to tell him to shut up. I'm glad at least the British eggheads have that reflex rather than many defenders here in the US who practice avoidance at all costs.

The thing I would've pointed out right off the bat if I were Watson is that like pretty much all the GW skeptics, Morano is using the logical fallacy that just because there is debate that that means GW is automagically false. I think Watson would've been more effective if he argued this way, and especially if he knew Morano's credentials. I have no idea what Morano's education level is, but knowing the propensity of the anti-GW crowd to hire uneducated blowhards to defend them (and, like creationists, to absurdly pump up like a balloon any degreed dissenter), I'm not confident Morano has any credentials to speak against GW at all save being a single citizen with a point of view.

Watson wins, but I'm surprised Britain's treatment of these things is becoming so like ours in that they expect to answer a huge question in the span of a few minutes (once you cut out the fat).

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 7, 2009 3:13 PM

Why are people complaining about "How Watson came across"?

Generally, I'm surprised most scientists (including Watson above) are so subdued, considering how often they're accused of the most egregious violations of integrity.

I think it was after the 11,000th time I was accused of knowingly hiding the cure for cancer to keep my middling job that I just started to roll with it:

"Oh, it's worse than that--we're not just hiding the cure; we created the disease in the first place. And, since I can't have you running around foiling our plans with your big mouth, I'm afraid I'll have to put an end to your meddling the only way I know how: with cancer. So, if I were you, I'd start putting my affairs in order. Oh, and don't bother reading up on small cell lung cancer--the cancer I'm going to have you get--we've made up all of the information available on the web. The 'C' in the ICD codes for cancer stands for 'Can you believe they fell for this shit? Well, everybody but that wiley Suzanne Sommers, of course. But as for the rest of them, I mean, really. 'Cancer'? The word even sounds made up, the fools. Hey, is the bank open today? I need to deposit these pharmaceutical company kickbacks.' I wanted to use the whole acronym, CybtfftsWebtwSSocBaftrotImrCTwesmutfHitbotIntdtpck, but the communications people at Shadowy Cabal Inc. said that would be too obvious. I'd really love to stay and watch you die, but I'm afraid I've got to step outside for a cigarette. They really are harmless, you know. It's too bad you won't live long enough to pick up the habit, mwu-ha-ha-ha!"

Annoying to be sure, but I love having the excuse to grow this twirlable Snidely Whiplash moustache.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 7, 2009 3:16 PM

Watson was given the opening remark, the closing remark and 2 minutes 49 seconds. Morana did come off badly, but he was having to fight for a chance to speak at all.

@84 I already outlined the silliness of giving equal time to a conspiracy theorist as a an actual scientist. Also, as pointed out by Nonentity @117, Morono choose to ask questions to and make charges against Watson. The moderator had to let Watson answer the questions/accusations and that takes longer than asking/making them.

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 7, 2009 3:19 PM

Strike out that last "That is the problem" line. Cut n paste error.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | December 7, 2009 3:31 PM

Anonymous, The tree rings are only ONE of many proxies. There are many reasons why the post 1960 period is different--large warming or increased CO2 being among the possibilities. And you are wrong--we have temperature records going back up to 300 years for some areas, and back to about 1880 for most of the globe. Over the vast majority of that time, tree rings correlate.

There are now more than 20 reconstructions using a vast range of proxies--and they all pretty much agree: It's hot out there. Reality: deal with it!

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2009 3:48 PM

@164, You fail to mention that the journalist could have gotten a scientist to do the skeptic side, or a politician to do the climate side just as easily, so yes she should be fair in giving both sides an equal chance.

As for answering accusations and questions, then Morano should have been given the opening and allowed to ask a question. Also, Morano only asks a single question "What do you think of Edward Zorato?". The reporter provides more questions of her own and even helps Watson.

Watson makes some accusations of his own attacking skeptics by claiming they have nothing on the data itself so they are doing character assassinations which is false.

Also, Morano is a politician, he brings up FOIA denial and deleting data. This is more of a legal and political scope so he is perfectly qualified to comment on it. Once again, they were both asked to be there by the news agency so therefore they have equal right to comment on the issue with an equal amount of time, any problem with this is the news agency's and not Morano's.

@165 The problem is this, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been scaled down drastically in the MBH graph that is called into question using the tree ring data. So the graph shows changed accepted temperature records to show something different using tree ring data. It was embraced and the "Hockey Stick" graph was touted as very strong evidence for global warming.

The entire graph uses tree ring data, claiming that it is more accurate. However if we are to accept that tree ring data is accurate for temperature measurements, then why does is the data not accurate for the last forty years?

If tree ring data does not match temperature, as it has not for since we began accurately measuring temperature then it should not be used. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Vene | December 7, 2009 4:01 PM

Anonymous, all methods have their limits and can only work within them. I can't say I know the reason off hand why tree rings don't work past 1960, but I do know that multiple methods are used to determine a measure of the past. As I said above, there is also ice core data, data that matches tree rings in the past. Data that shows the information before we started directly measuring temperature is accurate. If not, the two wouldn't match, even if they were both wrong. We can completely throw out tree ring data, because there are other methods that show the exact same thing.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 4:12 PM

Monaro had nothing to say on the science.

Exactly... his argument amounted to "all these people have bad things to say about the AGW scientists, what do you have to say about THAT, huh? Well? What? What? WHAT????"

Although it's been said, many times, many waaayyyys...

What an asshole... what an asshole... are youuuuu...

Posted by: Kel, OM | December 7, 2009 4:17 PM

It's a straight out FUD tactic, one to try to make the opposition seem like it's ripping itself apart which is to say nothing about the science it's talking about. It's the same fallacy as calling supporters of climate change religious in the faith sense. If people believe it on faith, it makes no difference to the truth of the proposition.

Posted by: llewelly | December 7, 2009 4:20 PM

Vene | December 7, 2009 4:01 PM:

I can't say I know the reason off hand why tree rings don't work past 1960, but I do know that multiple methods are used to determine a measure of the past.

* The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes.

* The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating it's cause is anthropogenic.

* The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming.

* Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 7, 2009 4:25 PM

Anonymous,

You fail to mention that the journalist could have gotten a scientist to do the skeptic side

@84 I mentioned it would be hard to do since the vast majority of climate scientists aren't denialists.

I'm sorry if you think reality has a pro-AGW bias.

As for answering accusations and questions, then Morano should have been given the opening and allowed to ask a question.

Yes, because the journalist was a psychic/time traveler and knew how Morono was going to use his time.

Also, Morano only asks a single question "What do you think of Edward Zorato?"

He also accused professor Watson of being in denial. The segment was only six minutes and answering the charge and the question took up a lot of time.

Watson makes some accusations of his own attacking skeptics by claiming they have nothing on the data itself so they are doing character assassinations which is false.

Morono proved this was true in the clip.

Also, Morano is a politician, he brings up FOIA denial and deleting data. This is more of a legal and political scope so he is perfectly qualified to comment on it.

According to here Morono is a former journalist and a former producer for The Rush Limbaugh Television Show. He's currently the "communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works". I don't see anything that qualifies him to speak on legal matters, let alone this particular one.

Once again, they were both asked to be there by the news agency so therefore they have equal right to comment on the issue with an equal amount of time,

Their opinions are not equal. Professor Watson is informed on the science and Morono is a paid PR flunkie for Republican denialists. Watson used his time trying to educate. Morono used it to put as many false accusations, non-sequiturs and half-truths one can fit in a sentence (aka, being a Republican PR flunkie).

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 7, 2009 4:39 PM

Re #177, quite.

I'd also add that the denialist rhetorical tactic of wondering aloud in web fora why sensible, skeptical people are so hostile with their being 'skeptical' the way they are (not, in fact, a generally skeptical attitude, really, of course, as you'll note also they're incredibly gullible in the sense that many of them are quick to accept hilariously thin if not outrightly silly arguments that happen to support what they want to believe--witness especially their quick conclusions that somehow these emails mean a great deal they clearly don't) itself rests on a faulty assumption: the assumption that if measured caution about accepting claims without evidence is a good thing, unmeasured paranoia and rejecting a claim (and, of course, in their case, it's only certain claims they don't want to hear) regardless of the quality of evidence for it is somehow also a good thing. And this does not, of course, follow.

Ultimately, the sensible attitude is simply: let your confidence in a proposition be proportional to the quality of the evidence you have. It is true that in our emotive PR-saturated and god-besotted society, people more often seem to make the mistake of believing shaky or even absurd propositions on too little (or exactly no) evidence... but it does not follow from this it isn't equally foolish to insist upon continued unwarranted doubt on a given issue after you've been provided with a sensible proposition supported by enough evidence to pile up past your ears.

Posted by: ursa major | December 7, 2009 5:02 PM

Re: 90

Most in the US don't even realize how horrible their so-called "news media" is.

What we saw here was Watson experiencing toxic shock.

Back in the 1990's when I occasionally listened to shortwave news and music shows (mostly BBC and Deutsche Welle) I once picked up a Radio Albania broadcast. The readers seemed a little unsure of themselves, the English was stilted and the show was devoid of bells and whistles. What struck me most was how much better Albanian news coverage was than American.

And our news shows are much, much worse now than then. Gawd,how I miss Radio Albania.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 5:14 PM

In other words, yes, divergence is a recent problem. No, it doesn't undermine all tree-ring reconstructions. Simple, for anyone who actually wants to understand it.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2009 5:45 PM

@174 Actually his argument did touch briefly on such things as FOIA denial, deleting data, and other interesting things. I had hoped he'd have brought up the Harry Read Me File, one of the more damning bits released that is in no way unclear.

Another issue was that in the e-mails they talk in no unclear or twistable terms about denying FOIA requests just because they didn't like people, or because these people were skeptics. They cut up data codes, programs, and raw data to the point that it would take dozens of specifically targeted FOIA requests to get all the data that a person would need to reconstruct the data.

The result of this would be that after a person had obtained the information they asked for and attempted to reconstruct or redo the original graph or model they would not be able to. That isn't science, that's hiding data and preventing people from checking your experiment because they are trying to disprove it.

As for the argument about there not being any Scientists who are against AGW this is not true, there are plenty.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/bellamy-twenty-eight-years-on-tv-then-blackballed-for-challenging-agw-pjm-exclusive/
However there are very real threats to people who speak out against it publicly and this makes a lot of people unwilling to step up and challenge it. However there are more and more every year who do.

#178 There is a problem with the "Divergence" as well, John Cook gives this reasoning that is supported by dendrochronology, however botanists say that tree growth has actually increased and not suffered, including most northern high altitude trees. Furthermore the majority of the samples for the graph are from forests and areas that are not High altitude and have been growing well. Cook's answer seems reasonable until some basic fact checking shows that this is not true.

@179 I am reading your link, there is a lot of supplemental reading involved so I can't give you a response yet. However I am looking at your evidence.

@180 Once again, the fact that scientists who do not support AGW exist means that it is not right to have one but not the other, any more than it would be to have the Scientist Steve McIntyre, a scientist and against AGW debating Arlie Sharpe, the guy who's company runs RealClimate.org and who was Al Gore's communications director. The news agency is still at fault for stacking the deck to get its bias across.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 7, 2009 6:08 PM

Another issue was that in the e-mails they talk in no unclear or twistable terms about denying FOIA requests just because they didn't like people, or because these people were skeptics.

I've done this. You can't deny the request per se, but after you've had your work stopped multiple times by the same fuckwad who's convinced you're covering up a conspiracy you tend to make sure said fuckwad requesting your information has to work to decipher it at least as hard as you had to collect and provide it.

Some of us have better things to do with our work hours than bend over backwards to hand over the fruits of our labour to some moron who can't understand it and yet openly accuses us of fudging data.

I think FOI legislation is great, but do not delude yourself into thinking there aren't many out there with agendas who take advantage of it to perform non-virtual DoS attacks, much in the same way that tort law is useful but unscrupulous individuals won't hesitate to use it to bury people or organisations they don't like in frivolous lawsuits.

Was the Lenski affair evidence that the science behind evolution is fraudulent, or just that Andrew Schlafly is a dumb piece of shit who Lenski didn't have time for anymore?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 6:20 PM

Anonymous, can you show that the FOIA requests were submitted by scientists who were doing climate research and actively publishing their results in the peer reviewed climate journals? Or were they filed by people outside of the climate field who had an ax to grind, and wanted to harass the real researchers because they didn't like what the data said? Context is very important. I suspect the they knew they were just being harassed, and in that case, they should fight back.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 7, 2009 6:27 PM

It would be just as silly as having two scientists debate whether smoking causes cancer

But here are some people that don't believe smoking causes cancer.

Obviously, any news agency that doesn't get each and every one of them on the phone as soon as they run a story on smoking or cancer* is guilty of BIAS. (Word capitalised so laypersons know it's BAD + EVIL. Also, I'm crying as I type this, just like Glenn Beck. Clearly, me right.)

*Okay, they don't seem to have a clue how cancer works, but they've got moxie enough to take on Big Pharma and that's good enough for me.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 7, 2009 6:31 PM

Re the Harry_read_me.txt file being somehow damning, I've commented on this before, and so far as I can see, it's nothing of the sort.

... briefly, it's a work record of problems encountered by an occasionally very frustrated programmer merging disparate data sets and code sources. The fact that it reveals some frustration and the difficulties that engendered them is in no way surprising. Furthermore, without the context telling us whether those were resolved, it's in no way an indictment of the finished product...

... what is an indictment--but of the critics--is the way they have naively and/or dishonestly seized upon isolated comments within this file as tho' they are somehow so damning, without that context. As commented at that link: it just reveals their gotcha mentality. Like a creationist on a quote-mining expedition, they just pick out language they react to, or hope their gullible audience will react to. The actual impact and meaning of said passages, clearly, is of no significance to them.

Posted by: Trent1492 | December 7, 2009 6:55 PM

Shorter Marc Morano:

All your Hockey Sticks belong to US.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 7:14 PM

[C]an you show that the FOIA requests were submitted by scientists who were doing climate research and actively publishing their results in the peer reviewed climate journals? Or were they filed by people outside of the climate field who had an ax to grind, and wanted to harass the real researchers because they didn't like what the data said? Context is very important. I suspect the they knew they were just being harassed, and in that case, they should fight back.

The point that you miss, or choose not to engage, is that they were working with public money on a publicly funded project with data produced by governments (ie, publicly funded).

Can anyone here honestly argue that that government data should be kept secret except for certain well-defined exceptions, ie the launch codes for the nukes?

They could have chosen to release the data, all the data, one time, on their website. Instead, they dug-in and started acting all suspicious-like.

And the folks at Pharyngula had no problem with the Wedge document, which was also leaked, stolen, whatever.

Posted by: Susan | December 7, 2009 7:32 PM

That was great. Welcome to our Village of Idiot Pundits, Mr. Watson! We've got a million of them.

If there were more intelligent, blunt (funny) commentators like Watson on my teevee, I'd watch more news shows. Meanwhile, I must make do with The Bobblespeak Translations.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 7:40 PM

Scientists should only release their work to those who can understand it.

The petulance and elitism in that statement is beyond self-parody. Thanks for the lulz.

Again, you failed to address the question: Whose data is it? (Hint: the teh peeepulz)

BTW, realize that this was a UK operation, but under US law they'd have to make the data publicly available. Even in my home state (not a progressive one) they'd have to provide a data dump.

Again, it's the digging-in, elitism, and failure to provide the public with public property (data) that has tainted this.

Realize the huge degree of contempt here for the undereducated masses, but we are many, you are few, and our votes outweigh your votes many times over.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 7:48 PM

Those parts which are not do not belong to CRU, and as such are not theirs to give.>/i>

Congrats, that's officiousness on a level which I can professionally appreciate.

Why should climatate data be secret?

Suggest you apply the "Bush (II) administration test to your own statement." If the Bush (II) administration had tried to bury raw data on climate data, how would you react?

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 7:51 PM

And yes, Morano is an asshole.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 7:55 PM

Everybody has an agenda. It's human nature.

You didn't answer the question. Of course scientists have an agenda, but it's not one that would lead them to massively conspire to defraud humanity.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 7:59 PM

The data yes, the program no.

OK, if they produced the program with private funding, fine it belongs to the institution or donor depending on the terms under which the money for its production was donated.

However, you can't reasonably expect the results to be taken seriously as a basis for the formation of public policy unless everything is available for public scrutiny.

Who funded the production of the software?

Posted by: MartinM | December 7, 2009 8:00 PM

Whose data is it? (Hint: the teh peeepulz)

Bollocks. The processed versions CRU produced could arguably be said to belong to the public. And they're publically available. The raw data which went into making them belongs to a variety of sources, none of them CRU. It's not CRU's responsibility to make the people who own the data they're using publish it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:03 PM

Again, it's the digging-in, elitism, and failure to provide the public with public property (data) that has tainted this.

No, what has tainted this is AGW-denialist thuggery. Steal any other set of emails among scientists and one will find similar discussions, that have similarly little significance in re the scientific findings; the reason that these emails are being discussed is because they are being used to cast doubt on AGW and to poison the well.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:04 PM

truth machine said:

You didn't answer the question. Of course scientists have an agenda, but it's not one that would lead them to massively conspire to defraud humanity.

This probably answers part of the question:

Government bureaucracies have no scruples when it comes to finding ways to expand themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. They certainly won't knowingly and willingly fund research that leads to the reduction of that bureaucracy.

http://www.isegoria.net/2009/08/soviet-science.htm

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 8:08 PM

They certainly won't knowingly and willingly fund research that leads to the reduction of that bureaucracy.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:13 PM

However, you can't reasonably expect the results to be taken seriously as a basis for the formation of public policy unless everything is available for public scrutiny.

You can if your IQ is above room temperature.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 7, 2009 8:17 PM

... reminding persons new to this issue that most of the raw data are available, were always available, and even the recent media spin that this is a new thing following the email theft is simply BS. There are NDA constraints on a small percentage of the data. That's it.

(/And see also RealClimate's data source page.)

Posted by: MartinM | December 7, 2009 8:21 PM

Then name an example where a government bureaucracy knowingly and willingly funds research that leads to the reduction of that bureaucracy.

What does that even mean? To do so knowingly, they'd have to know the outcome of the research before it was done.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:23 PM

And the folks at Pharyngula had no problem with the Wedge document, which was also leaked, stolen, whatever.

Oh dear, we're so bad because we have no problem with "whatever".

What the fuck do you know about what we have a problem with, you troll asswipe?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 8:25 PM

"Information wants to be free..."

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:27 PM

truthmachine said:

Ah yes, the contempt of the anti-intellectuals for the educated and knowledgeable does often lead them to vote against their own interests.

And the contempt grows when the priesthood is caught in the act of promoting scams.

Here is a quote from "Moldbug":

Indeed every sovereign (he is referring to this modern day "priesthood" as a type of "sovereign") in history has sought to stress this impersonal or superhuman character, though most have phrased it in more spiritual terms. If the peasants knew that mere men wore the sacred masks of the gods, they might have the impertinence to think we had mere necks...

And the priesthood is looking pretty fallible. Remember, you're outnumbered by the peasants.

Posted by: MartinM | December 7, 2009 8:30 PM

And the priesthood is looking pretty fallible. Remember, you're outnumbered by the peasants

Well, that's certainly not the kind of empty rhetoric that could be used by a crank to attack any scientific field he didn't like.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:33 PM

truth machine says:

Here's a hint: the failure to offer a counterexample to a claim does not establish the claim as fact.

Then you should say that to the people who think excess CO2 from fossil fuels will turn the Earth into a bad Roland Emmerich movie.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:35 PM

Er, yes, but not in the way you (mis)interpreted it.

It's revealing on it's face, moron.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:38 PM

Then you should say that to the people who think excess CO2 from fossil fuels will turn the Earth into a bad Roland Emmerich movie.

Funny how you can see the denialists coming from a mile away.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:40 PM

Bureaucratus Minimis says:

I realize the huge degree of contempt here for PR and realpolitik, but also realize that these fields are totally outside the skillset of most of you.

I agree. I would say most of the people here are stupid when it comes to that skillset.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 8:48 PM

Except that copyrighted, patented, or company secret...

Well, yes, of course I have respect for rule of law. However, once the information is leaked by whatever means it's fair game. And again I'm referring to the intransigence and contempt for releasing the data as evidenced by the emails.

Look, if I came before the (US) House (of Representatives) Select Committee on Climate Change and testified that "the earth is getting hotter, really, seriously, civilization-altering hotter due to human activity, but I can't show you all the data because some of it(*) is private, and the analysis is also private, but you have to believe me," then I'd be justly gavelled and dismissed. Yet, that's what you're asking us as a society to accept.

That may be the way things happen in ivy-tower land, but that's not how things happen in the real world.

(*) Yes, I know that "data" is a plural word, but I'm a Beta, so I'm not obligated to be hyper-pedantic. Pbbbt!

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:51 PM

truth machine says:

I realize the huge degree of contempt here for PR and realpolitik, but also realize that these fields are totally outside the skillset of most of you.

I wonder if the myrmidons on this website are just sockpuppets. That might explain the Leftist mob debating tactics being used.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:52 PM

I wonder

No one here cares other than your sockpuppet BM.

Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 7, 2009 8:54 PM

It would be odd for someone not to agree with his sockpuppet.

I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been commenting here (albeit infrequently) ever since Andrew Sullivan first linked to Myers, and consistently arguing from an politically moderate, atheist viewpoint.

Thank you for playing.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 8:56 PM

Nerd of Bullshit says:

Robert, I hear your mommy calling you....

Ahhh, the liar speaks, or is he just a sockpuppet? The Leftist mob debating tactics makes me a bit suspicious.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 8:58 PM

The Leftist mob debating tactics makes me a bit suspicious.

Your comments make you stupid and mark you as someone with no credibility.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 9:05 PM

That's because everyone here is a sockpuppet of a single individual

Again a demonstration that you are too stupid to be concerned with.

or am I confusing Leftist Groupthink as a single individual?

Take it to Free Republic; you and your "politically moderate" sockpuppet will be welcome there.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 9:12 PM

truth machine says:

Again a demonstration that you are too stupid to be concerned with.

Coming from the idiot who thinks government bureaucracies are benevolent.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 7, 2009 9:18 PM

... ah yes, those dang 'mob debating tactics'...

(/Poor dears. I do expect it must be disappointing--if you're used to getting around mere obstacles like reality by spamming the hell out of the forum with endless BS amounting to a Gish gallop--when it turns out there are more machines in the rack available to slough off the spam than you'd figured.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 9:21 PM

Ahhh, the liar speaks, or is he just a sockpuppet? The Leftist mob debating tactics makes me a bit suspicious.

Posted by: pcarini | December 7, 2009 9:40 PM

Look, Brainiac, ...

huge degree of contempt here for the undereducated masses, but we are many

Remember, you're outnumbered by the peasants.

That may be the way things happen in ivy-tower land, but that's not how things happen in the real world.

(*) Yes, I know that "data" is a plural word, but I'm a Beta, so I'm not obligated to be hyper-pedantic.

Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m awfully glad I’m a Beta and wear a red hat, because I don’t work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas.

In his novel Huxley used embryonic alcohol poisoning followed by years of subliminal programming as the method by which curiosity and the desire to excel were extinguished in people. Even at his most cynical he likely never considered that people would do it to themselves, or that all it would take is perpetual mental masturbation about how much cooler they are than the "Brainiacs".

Posted by: scudbucket | December 7, 2009 9:46 PM

I just read quite a bit from different denier cites (and from comments on a McMegan post) and they fall into two camps: GW deniers and AGW deniers/skeptics. The first are bat-shit loony. But the second group accepts that the planet is warming, but refrains from concluding that it is anthropogenic. There is some interesting data which suggests that our recent history involves mini-cooling?warming periods, and what we are in may just be an instance of these natural processes.

On the flip side, they admit that CO2 leads to warming, but aren't convinced that sufficient amounts exist in the atmosphere to actually induce the present warming trend.

I found the discussion (the best one was on Megan's site) pretty informative, and certainly if you are skeptical, this is the best argument I've seen. In fact, there were many scientists commenting that, for example, satellite imagery generates more accurate temp. measurements than ground based sensors do, and that according to sat. imagery the planet is warming. But they refrained from concluding that this is do to CO2 in the atmosphere. I took their conservativeness as reflective of normal scientific caution regarding conclusion from evidence as opposed to anything politically/ideologically motivated

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 9:50 PM

The lying priest has nothing new to say.

Posted by: Robert | December 7, 2009 9:55 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space says:

What? No takers among the denialists for my invitation to look at the evidence? Hmm. Why am I not surprised?

There's a difference between stating the case that fossil CO2 can affect global temperature, and stating the case that "if fossil fuel CO2 isn't cut in 10 years, the world will turn into a bad Roland Emmerich movie."

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | December 7, 2009 10:00 PM

Robert, We are talking about a system (climate) that has positive feedbacks and tipping points (e.g. methane emissions from tundra and clathrates, and, which, the last time it was this warm, got MUCH warmer and led to a mass extinction. I would not say that uncertainty is your friend in this case, would you?

Posted by: scudbucket | December 7, 2009 10:15 PM

Where in the scientific literature is anyone saying that?

That's a little disingenuous. There have been predictions of increased hurricane activity. ANd of course predictions of ocean levels substantially rising. The whole point of the urgency to get co2 levels under control is to prevent predictions which range across a spectrum including the catastrophic.

Posted by: pcarini | December 7, 2009 10:28 PM

... and as to the fact that you may have to say this right after stepping out of the helicopter energy company campaign contributions paid for, well, it's surprising how many folk can pull that off, too...

Less surprising asking these kinds of questions gets you branded a "leftist", "socialist", "liberal", or, bizarrely, a member of "the priesthood".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 10:34 PM

And if the real evidence was politically incorrect, you won't accept it either.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 7, 2009 10:47 PM

Bureaucratus Minimis,

Realize the huge degree of contempt here for the undereducated masses

And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas

*snort*

Because referring to the masses by the names of an intellectually inferior lower caste of a novel shows your love of the people.

I'm with AJ Milne. I have no problem with the masses. Not everyone has the time or resources to dedicate themselves to every subject. I do however have a problem with people who attempt to lie and deceive others.

I realize the huge degree of contempt here for PR and realpolitik, but also realize that these fields are totally outside the skillset of most of you. Because you actually have to treat people dumber than you as equals.

By treat as equals do you mean misleading and deceiving them in order to make your organization look as good as posssible?

In any case, the public is generally more trustful of scientists/professors than professionals who rely heavily on PR:

In the US:

Scientists:
Would Trust - 77%
Would Not - 19%
(Scientists were the third most trusted group after doctors and teacher)

Members of Congress:
Would Trust - 35%
Would Not - 63%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=688
_ _ _

UK:

Professors: Trust - 80%
Do not trust - 8%
(Third most trusted after doctors and teachers)

Least trusted:

Business leaders: Trust - 31%
Do not trust - 56%

Politicians: Trust - 20%
Do not trust - 72%

Journalists: Trust - 19%
Do not trust - 72%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6105616.stm

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 11:04 PM

There have been predictions of increased hurricane activity.

Posted by: Vene | December 7, 2009 11:53 PM

Feynmaniac, those stats are all well and good, but then why do so many people fall for pseudoscience like creationism, GW denial, homeopathy, and anti-vaccination?

Posted by: Vene | December 8, 2009 12:40 AM

I don't disagree, but words of trust are hollow when scientists aren't actually trusted.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 8, 2009 1:31 AM

Feynmaniac, those stats are all well and good, but then why do so many people fall for pseudoscience like creationism, GW denial, homeopathy, and anti-vaccination?

I think there are many reasons. For the examples you offered: I would say prominent role of religion in the US is why creationism is popular. For GW denial, there has been a huge campaign of distortion by big businesses that rely on fossil fuels, similiar to the one run by the tabacco companies with regard to smoking causing cancer. People also don't want to hear that they might have to cut back on their life styles. Alternative medicine is huge because real medicine is expensive in the US and often can only offer bad news. As for anti-vaccination, many parents would prefer to blame their child's autism on vaccinies rather than their genes.

More generally, people believe weird things for a variety of reasons. Often times people care more about belonging in a community or group harmony than having beliefs that are solidly grounded. Groupthink is very powerful. Harsh punishment for those who fail to comply also helps. I can think of a few cases of someone telling their family they were atheists and being disowned as a result.

People by nature, I think, are also prone to superstitious/magical thinking. It was easier tribes to think of volcanos or the sun as beings than geophysical or nuclear processes. Education can help if the focus is on teaching students critical thinking skills. However, rote memorization and blind obedience to authority figures are often emphasized instead.

If you want to fool yourselves it's very easy and there are many ways you can go about it. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking, etc.

However, those in power also want to fool you. Corporations and governments spend billions using sophisticated PR techniques to shape the public's mind. Whether it be to buy a particular product or vote a particular way (especially if it's against their self-interest). The fact that a good portion of America thought the tiny, impoverished nation of Iraq posed a threat to a world's sole superpower just shows how powerful these techniques are.

The media often helps these two groups. In the interests of their corporate bosses they often don't report news that will make their businesses look bad. They also want to be profitable, so sensationalism and talking about celebrity public vagina shots is more important than accurate reporting. If the public is the lesser for it, than so be it. They also don't want to upset the government for fear of losing interviews or exclusives.

Maybe part of the blame can also be put on the scientists themselves for not communicating clearly or often enough. However, my point was that I don't think they should start emulating those in the PR field. Many of their techniques are not honest and, whether effective or not, it seems to undermine their credibility. Scientists should focus on substance rather than style.

(Apologies for long ass rant)

Posted by: Diane G. | December 8, 2009 3:52 AM

Watson came across as a smug, pompous jerk; and not only was the asshole comment juvenile, so was the facial mocking of Morano's speech.

Just what the GW cause needs on the heels of email-gate.

Posted by: Diane G. | December 8, 2009 4:39 AM

truth machine, you come across as a smug, pompous jerk...

;)

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 8, 2009 5:27 AM

Just what the GW cause needs on the heels of email-gate.

What's not helping is this "XXX-gate" appelation. This is certainly not a "XXX-gate", as a matter of fact, quite the opposite.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 8, 2009 5:55 AM

What I meant was that Watergate led to the resignation of those who organised the break-in. The scandal was about the break-in, not the content of the stolen conversations.

Here it seems the deniers want a certain category of right-wing liberturds to believe that the scandal is about the content of the emails (when there is nothing there), when the real scandal is about the hack.

And yes, I believe when the dust settles it will eventually play out positively for the validation of the AGW science amongst the general public.

Posted by: Rutee | December 8, 2009 1:26 PM

Alright, I'm having serious trouble with this blog.

AGW is often us-
...Oh. Anthropogenic, not Anti-. That explains my deep confusion. Not to be offensive, but the sheer density of some terms can be extremely off-putting to newbies.

Posted by: Vene | December 8, 2009 5:47 PM

Rutee, I'll agree, when you first enter a debate about a scientific subject, the terms are daunting. But the terms need to be there, because the language of science is very precise and it needs to be in order to accurately describe complex subjects. The only thing to do is slowly take on the science, learn it, and then make conclusions from it. But conclusions can only be made when the data is understood and when it is fully understood. Until that point in time, we have to listen to the experts.

Of course, learning the language of science makes it that much easier to discern the scientists from the pseudoscientists.

Posted by: Vene | December 8, 2009 7:11 PM

I will admit I don't use the grammar of science, even if I do know that data are plural.

Posted by: Bored Wombat | December 8, 2009 11:45 PM

Greenman3610's take on the CRU hack:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

(Such a great channel. It makes me want to spread the word on Peasy's blog by linking to it in a comment.)

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a_ray_in_dilbert_space#6e51c | December 12, 2009 11:03 AM

Shadowjack, Well, how far back do you want to go?
There's Arrhenius's research around 1900 where he predicted warming due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels (but failed to comprehend how quickly it would occur because he didn't realize energy use increases exponentially) or even Tyndall's paper in the 1850s where he demonstrated that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Or even Charles Fourier's 1824 work where he discovered greenhouse gasses.

I would start here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Posted by: aharleygyrl | December 15, 2009 1:36 AM

Morano is probabaly an idiot Christian, too.