And I really do mean the last word. You don't need to listen to the first 6:20 or so - it's just the usual predictable blah.
So much for all these naughty scientists saying nasty things about other people behind their backs. BTW, to avoid misunderstandings, "I approve this message"
(Spotted on Pharyngula.)
So much for all these naughty scientists saying nasty things about other people behind their backs. BTW, to avoid misunderstandings, "I approve this message"
(Spotted on Pharyngula.)
28 comments:
This is beautiful...
Here's the SPM.
I think Morano is fairly effective, unfortunately. He can throw out lie after lie at a very quick pace. I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with him.
Good thing he can't hide his own slimy demeanor.
Ho, ho, ho! I saw it live.
Prof. Watson's parting comment, off camera but audible, was a peach.
This is like a real life Monty Python skit with John Cleese as the guy increasingly getting angry.
Unfortunately we've got a long history in the US of "skepticism" - and I think a lot of this stuff is actually an outreach or update of the old Creationism vs. evolution stuff of the last 100 years. We really don't like science unless it's building better bombs.
I keep trying to think "what would Carl Sagan do" -- although he never had to go up against such nuts. I sympathize with Prof. Watson but he probably was getting flustered which is a typical Faux News/Bill O'Reilly sort of tactic.
You can hear Morano chuckle at the end right after the "what an ass...." comment -- because he knows in his "Faux News" style that he's "won the debate."
It was interesting to see how Morano used comments by HvS and Zorito to bolster his position. It is pretty unedifying to see the way those two have obviously used the CRU hack to stick the knife into academic rivals without any regard for bigger picture.
Well, I'm sure that gave you guys a frisson of excitement and boosts your already ample feelings of superiority. Do you think it helps or hurts your cause with the average viewer?
Approving your approvement.
Watson is Fellow of the Royal Society. That sounds horribly "Nevereverusearseholelikewords". What will happen? He becomes a knight now?
Tom C,
Marc Morano is a liar. At least on that we can all agree.
Consider this flagrant example:
# Sept. 1: It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two, when the temperature cools, relative to the present level. - Mojib Latif at World Climate Conference in Geneva
...
# Sept. 25: Mojib Latif of Kiel University in Germany told a UN conference earlier this month that he is now predicting global cooling for several decades. - Marc Morano, Climate Depot (CFACT).
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/
And you're complaining about someone calling Morano names?
here's another Moron-o-esque factoid from Faux News today -- 120% of Americans have an opinion on "climategate"!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/fox-news-fuzzy-math-claim_n_384308.html
Coincidentally, I just saw a similar example of Faux statistics 2/3 of the way down this page.
I've just taken to actually watching this embedded clip, and the off-camera quip is at odds with what I recall Prof. Watson saying.
My ears may have deceived me on the night, but I can't recall hearing "a***hole" uttered.
I thought he'd said something like "What a [horrible] man!", though the adjective may have been different.
Has an urban myth been born?
"Do you think it helps or hurts your cause with the average viewer?"
Couldn't give a toss, but if I had to give an opinion, as the piece was on UK television, I'd guess that most people thought it was amusing and would have agreed - even the septics watching.
I thought it amusing that he used the word asshole, rather than arsehole - it was quite clearly deliberate and aimed.
Morano's laughs sounded very fake to me - the laugh of someone clearly offended but knowing that to appear so would show "weakness". The sort of slimey laugh you get when your whole argument is bluster.
Aaaanyway, what I want to know is, did that last comment pass peer review?
I've since checked the version on the BBC Newsnight site and they cut the recording very tight just as Martha Carney says thank you to the interviewees.
Shame either way really.
haha, Jon Stewart caught the Faux News "120%" (or "90% think scientists faked data") -- also punks (or outs?) a Faux News host/beauty queen who turns out is a Stanford grad who studied at Oxford, but has appropriately dumbed herself down for the masses!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/jon-stewart-calls-out-gre_n_385158.html
Meanwhile, in related news, Roger Jr seems almost surprised that the vast majority of his commenters are frothing lunatics:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/sarah-palins-nonsense.html
The honest broker is a dishonest joker. It's funny that his biggest fans are saying he "jumped the shark" for daring to criticize Palin's inanities! The same bunch is on McI's site and he similarly has to deal with them in funny ways (since even a right-wing leaning Canadian such as McI is a ultra-left commie pinko liberal to US Republican types).
That's really funny! I mean, he has occasionally disappointed his fan club but this one is pretty exceptional. Even looks like he has taken to deleting some of the comments (makes you wonder how crazy they must have been, given what is left).
Can any gentle reader rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase?
petard, by, own, hoist, his
Mind you, they will be quick to forgive and forget, cos Roger's the best they have.
FWIW Roger functions in three, maybe four worlds, the first is the fan club, the second Revkinville and the third is the policy/science area.
He was really starting to loose the third branch there which he needs to undergird everything else witness recent comments here, there and pretty much everywhere, thus the need to restore the balance.
This is a recurring pattern with him.
Eli is a very cynical bunny.
This episode illustrates how you folks can't see yourselves. Morano is on my side, but I think he comes across somewhat slimy and I don't approve of his yellow journalism methods.
But you guys thought Watson was a good spokesman for your side? I guarantee you that large majorities of normal, intelligent people would be revolted by Watson. Sneering, condescending, evasive, vulgar, he won more converts for my side than you can imagine.
Likewise, your continued inability to admit what the E-mails mean, to admit that Mann used data incorrectly, to admit that it is preposterous to claim that the 4th PC of a a group of diverse proxies is a linear function of teleconnected GMT, to admit that bloated, robotic Gore who thinks it is millions of degrees at the center of the earth...well, look, just keep up the good work.
Tom,
I don't particularly think that Andy Watson "won" that debate, actually I don't really care - I was just applauding a bon mot. As Stoat said some time ago, not one person has actually changed their minds as a result of the email hack. Apart from the utterly predictable howler monkeys, the only people trying to make anything out of it are the Saudis, and that reflects more on them than on the substance of the matter.
Now run along and tell Roger that he's wrong about Sarah Palin.
No one won it, it wasn't a debate, and (relatively) few people even saw it.
This was the sugar-grain tumble in the sugar pot next to the tea-cup where the storm occurred.
James -
Calling someone a vulgar name is not a "bon mot". But, I guess for climate scientists the standards are lower.
I'll run off and defend Palin. Now you run over to Romm's site and defend Oscar and Nobel winner Gore as a visionary scientist.
"Bon mot"? Perhaps not. "Le mot juste"? Definitely.
Here's a post on Tom Harris, (Canada's Marc Morano) and the Bali open letter of two years ago.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/10/bali-2007-revisited/
The National Post's coverage of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chamge) Bali conference two years ago ... did feature one particularly disturbing instance of contrarian boosterism, the infamous Bali open letter.
The full story, told here for the first time, shows how editor and skeptic cheerleader Terence Corcoran crossed the line from opinionated commentary to active participation in a shadowy public relations stunt aimed at scuttling the Bali negotiations. And complaisant editor-in-chief Douglas Kelly went along with the charade, not even bothering to force Corcoran to reveal the key involvement of longtime disinformation specialist Tom Harris and his "astroturf" Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
DC, Pardon my French - and his!
Tom, I don't think Gore has ever pretended to be a scientist, but us Nobel laureates must stick together. Right now I've got Barack round for dinner, but I'll get to it when I've got the time.
Did someone mention Roger?
He covers McI's latest on the "trick" but misses the point.
Don't think I did, though.
McIntyre's way of adding context? Take key stuff out.
"Did someone mention Roger?"
I hope not. I simply don't find he adds much light in the blogosphere these days.
Post a Comment