Video: Scientist calls climate change skeptic an A-hole on the BBC

posted at 4:20 pm on December 5, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via Newsbusters, a video companion to Steven Hayward’s long but compelling dissection of just how badly the East Anglia crew behaved.

As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA’s James Hansen, for instance, compared MIT’s Richard Lindzen to a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless others liken skeptics to “Holocaust deniers”), the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand… Perhaps more significant, the email archive also reveals that even inside this small circle of climate scientists–otherwise allied in an effort to whip up a frenzy of international political action to combat global warming–there was considerable disagreement, confusion, doubt, and at times acrimony over the results of their work. In other words, there is far less unanimity or consensus among climate insiders than we have been led to believe.

How to solve this crisis of credibility and ease fears of a “tribalistic” culture having taken over climate change science? Why, with theatrical eye-rolling and a perfunctory dropping of the A-bomb on the skeptic you’re debating on British national television, of course. I’m giving you the full clip so that no context is lost — Morano, the skeptic, does bait him a bit with mocking laughter and by talking over him — but the fireworks come in clip two if you’re pressed for time. Watch, if only to enjoy the nuance of a scientist complaining about “character assassination” mere seconds before indulging in a profane ad hominem.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How to solve this crisis of credibility and ease fears of a “tribalistic” culture having taken over climate change science?

It’s no ‘crisis’ of credibility. We know who massages the numbers and who doesn’t.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Just by coincidence, I was opening some accumulated mail, and one of the solicitations came from Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia.

Dr. Singer, along with other scientists, believes that climate change is a natural phenomena and that warming cycles occur on average about every 1500 years.

Dr. Singer is a bete noir to the Al Gore acolytes, whom he sees as not only “wrong but dangerous” because “they create needless hysteria, alarm, and fear.” The alarmists will “negatively impact lives of millions of Americans.”

His group, CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), “advances practical solutions and sensible approaches based on facts. Its focus is “intelligent conservation of our resources, not reckless government intrusions in our businesses and private lives.”

CFACT is reaching out through a collegians campus program to educate young people and to dispel myths/counteract global warming propaganda.

See what you think about this endeavor:
http://www.cfact.org and http://www.cfactcampus.org

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Hey Treacher addresses this very issue in the Green Room.

Geochelone on December 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM

GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST J*CKASS!!!!!!!!!!

Ugh!!!

canopfor on December 5, 2009 at 6:44 PM

… The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. …

Yes they do. Either this fellow did not read these emails, or he is simply trying to convince others that have not read them of their contents.

Within these emails, the ‘experts’ admit that they needed to hide, delete, and change data to derive their conclusions.

ALL other climate work has been BASED on these same LIES. This entire ‘scientific’ community needs to be de-funded.

Freddy on December 5, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Professor Watson’s esteemed colleague explains it more clearly here!

sonnyspats1 on December 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM

These estrogen-enhanced crybaby alarmists use terms that sound great to the unwashed fornicating masses, like “average global temperature”. Well, to get that, you need a thermometer placed on every square inch of Earth’s surface, including bodies of water.

In short, it’s like taking your phone book and doing the necessary math to get the ‘average’ phone number for your locality.

Personally, I rather be putting thermometers on every square inch of Jennifer Love Hewitt’s body. Now THAT is science. And what a thing to be blinded by!

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 7:14 PM

It is hard to watch the BBC, so I skipped to clip 2

The pro global warming guy, Mr Shut Up, looks like the treacherous scientist on Stargate SGU, which is also a nasty dreary tale filled with PC baloney

… The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation.

Yes they do. Either this fellow did not read these emails, or he is simply trying to convince others that have not read them of their contents.

Within these emails, the ‘experts’ admit that they needed to hide, delete, and change data to derive their conclusions.
Freddy on December 5, 2009 at 6:51 PM

I agree with Freddy. A blogger has done a detailed presentation of the leaked emails, allowing you to dig in, and not just accept the opinions of others. ‘CRU Leak Thoughts’ is a place to start. These fellows put comments in their code too and the comments are incriminating. You don’t have to be a programmer to understand the gist of the crookedness, but if you program, you will see the rat everywhere

entagor on December 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM

These stories on these emails show a need for relabeling.

Climate change is accepted. Anthropological global warming is not. I bet even Inhofe is not a “skeptic of Climate change”.

We need another word then skeptic, and need to focus on agw, not climate change b/c climate change is a sidestep the left used to relabel global warming once that fell through the floor.

Spirit of 1776 on December 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM

You are absolutely correct that the labeling should be more precise. The problem comes from attibuting global warming or even climate change to human activity. Dumping original date and manipulating/tweaking data to promote one theory are other issues that need to be hammered. The refusal to peer review contrary positions should shame those who claim to be ethical scientists.

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Mr Shut Up complains his opponent won’t allow him to talk when he was given 4 minutes to the other guys 90 seconds.

agmartin on December 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2009 at 7:25 PM

Who needs ethics when the ‘science is settled’? Why bother with peer review?

It’s all a money grab/giveaway. Little more than that, which you and many others here already seem to know. The only ones who haven’t figured this out are the trolls while those they admire, like Algore, are making big bucks off it.

What should we call that–Big Green? Or maybe not. Libs hate Big Oil but not Big music, as if putting out music CDs is a cottage industry.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM

Mr Shut Up complains his opponent won’t allow him to talk when he was given 4 minutes to the other guys 90 seconds.

agmartin on December 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM

A lib’s favorite whine: You’re unfair!

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Why do a bunch of e-mails that suggest these few scientists colluded to hide the inaccuracy of their conclusion carry more weight than the Oregon Petition,which was signed by over 30,000 scientists and states that while GW may exist,it certainly is not anything to be concerned about,nor is there anything we can do about it?
While I am certainly happy that the truth may be coming out,I have to question where the conservatives in our government,and conservative talking heads on radio and t.v have been.Even Fox News has(generally) been on the AGW bandwagon for quite some time.AGW was proven to be a series of lies a long time ago.So why did we have to wait till these e-mails came out for the media to start asking questions?The the settled science and the real concensis of scientists agreed that “catastrophic global warming” is BS quite a while ago.
The e-mails don’t prove AGW is a falsity,real science does.

DDT on December 5, 2009 at 7:42 PM

I have to admit, the conservative sounds totally defensive and the “scientist” takes full advantage… the commentator is EXTREMELY biased, so the viewing audience is left to believe global warming is real.

Tragic.

Danzo on December 5, 2009 at 7:42 PM

DDT on December 5, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Ah, but now at long last we have evidence of collusion. We know the science but few believed it. Now, though, with evidence of willful trickery, the matter is fully in question.

Not everyone knows science and the methods of investigation into the physical universe. That’s what those lying jokers played into. Now, they are in doubt. And so are their claims. That is something everyone can grasp, however he or she wishes to believe and no matter his/her understanding of science.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 7:48 PM

PHD = Probably head damaged

diogenes on December 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM

PHD = Probably head damaged

diogenes on December 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM

LOL!!

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM

BBC need Mr. T to respond to this Anglo-Charlatan “scientist.” As in, “Quit yo jibber-jabber! If I ever catch you acting like a crazy fool again, you’re gonna meet my friend – Pain. Professor Snickers, get some nuts.”

MayorDaley on December 5, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Professor Watson’s esteemed colleague explains it more clearly here!

sonnyspats1 on December 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM

-
:)

diogenes on December 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM

All he had to do is keep saying “You’ve been caught with your pants down,” and smile and wink.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Well for f–ks sake, the earth has heated and cooled for millenia so what if it is .7 degrees warmer than in 1900. 10,000 years ago New York was under a glacier.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:19 PM

I can’t believe there isn’t global RAGE over this decievement…I mean outright civil disobedience.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM

I can’t believe there isn’t global RAGE over this decievement…I mean outright civil disobedience.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Hell! According to Rush, Barbara Boxer and others are more after the hacker who got the emails, them all demanding prosecution. I expected that.

The emails don’t count; they’re subject to the Exclusionary Rule. How they were obtained is all what matters to the Left.

Just ask any lib.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Hi, Little Green Turds! All that lying and smearing of HotAir because you only get a third of their traffic on one of you good days. Tsk1 Tsk!

Blake on December 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Dr. Singer, along with other scientists, believes that climate change is a natural phenomena and that warming cycles occur on average about every 1500 years.

It would seem intuitive wouldn’t? Hummm

whbates on December 5, 2009 at 8:36 PM

10,000 years ago New York was under a glacier.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:19 PM

If the Greenies had their way they would try to re-freeze it.

thomasaur on December 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM

If the Greenies had their way they would try to re-freeze it.

thomasaur on December 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Long as doing that wouldn’t make poison ivy extinct.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Funny how the poncey Brit keeps pointing out the national origin of the American.

RobCon on December 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I can’t believe there isn’t global RAGE over this decievement…I mean outright civil disobedience.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM

I don’t know about you but I’m pretty PO’d. It’s starting to turn. I think that if the FOIA request ever gets fulfilled for NASA raw data internal documents that support their recent claims people will get more pissed. If the same crap is going on at NASA, people will be facing jail time for fraud.

whbates on December 5, 2009 at 8:53 PM

The current shenanigans in East Anglia tarnish the life-work of the founder of CRU: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/12/025092.php?format=print

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Just by coincidence, I was opening some accumulated mail, and one of the solicitations came from Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. onlineanalyst on December 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Good grief, man. What kind of mailing lists are you on? I get stuff from Bed, Bath and Beyond and the likes.

Big John on December 5, 2009 at 8:57 PM

I can’t believe there isn’t global RAGE over this decievement…I mean outright civil disobedience.

royzer on December 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Was anyone actually deceived? No rational person can possibly believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

Climategate merely bolsters those who have known all along that catastrophic AGW is ludicrous.

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I don’t know about you but I’m pretty PO’d. It’s starting to turn.

whbates on December 5, 2009 at 8:53 PM

These sorts of things always seem to break in slo-mo. It took months for the Lewinsky scandal to turn the tide. We’re still in the first few moments of it, when Clinton pointed at the camera and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2009 at 9:00 PM

When you don’t have anything to bring to the table, start with the profanity. What a sissy. Like to see this dude debate Lord Moncton.

Kissmygrits on December 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Hey, the LGF head global warming nazi called us “wingnut site Hot Air…”.

Bottomline Chuckles: Climategate is real, the bloom is off the rose, you’re wrong. Again. Get used to it.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM

Hi, Little Green Turds! All that lying and smearing of HotAir because you only get a third of their traffic on one of you good days. Tsk1 Tsk!

Blake on December 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM

True dat. LOL!!!!!

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 5, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Keep plucking that chicken!

Coronagold on December 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Funny how the poncey Brit keeps pointing out the national origin of the American.

RobCon on December 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Poncey? I had to find the meaning:

The way in which a ‘ponce’ may act. The actions of a

pompous tosser

who thinks their value is higher than it is actually worth. The actions of one who thinks they are either overly stylish, cool or smart etc, when usually their IQ is akin to a fruit and they seem like a stunt double for one of the ‘idiots’ on the programme ‘Nathan Barley’. Usually anyone with half a brain tends to laugh at these types, but unfortunately for society, this type of action is actually accepted amongst the ‘Celeb’ and ‘Music’ industry with open arms and is also worshipped. Oh well.

See also Charles Johnson.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 5, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Hey, wouldn’t you be upset if you saw your gravy train running off the rails? Billions in juicy grant money flying right out the window. It’s just not fair. waaaaa waaa waaa

davo on December 5, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Why are so many of the leaders of all the different wings of the international leftist movement poofters?

peacenprosperity on December 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM

THE BBEB AND WATSON WERE VIRTUALLY FILERBUSTERING MORANO; I THINK THE AIR TIME RATIO WAS SOMETHING LIKE 10:1.

THE BEEB INTERRUPTED MORANO AND NEVER LET HIM MAKE A FULL POINT BUT LET WATSON RUN ON AND ON.

TYPICAL.

reliapundit on December 5, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 5, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Okay, okay, can someone explain what happened with LGF? Was there a big falling-out recently? And why? Suddenly Hot Air had a bunch of folks kevetching about Charles Johnson. I never really followed the site much after all the hub-bub about neo-nazis being behind every tree. What gives?

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Lets get this straight, there’s a group of people who’s opinion is that the human inhabitants of this planet are over heating it, and the ones spewing gloom and doom are the sane ones?

Bassackwards libs? What a shock, how did the nut baskets get to be so influential?

Speakup on December 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Having a proper english accent and long hair does not a scientist make.

E-mails do not a good scientist make.

Doing good science makes a good scientist.

These guys can’t even explain why the Medeival Global Warming period occurred, nor why could this period of warming, or not, be part of normal temperature cycles…

The difference between global warming and man-made global warming… lots and lots of grant money… It would just stink for these jokers to invest all of this time in sham science to prove a relationship that they cannot – only then to lose their livelihood.

Guess studying simple global warming isn’t sexy enough…

Danny on December 6, 2009 at 2:07 AM

What’s the difference between an AGW proponent and an athiest?

One of them has no faith.

trapeze on December 6, 2009 at 3:14 AM

Does anyone remember this golden oldie?

It took only a handful of people to convince the general public worldwide into believing that a limitless, clean energy source was just around the corner. A combination of foolishness, greed, and carelessness played a role in creating one of the biggest scientific blunders of the century. At the top of the list of these people are B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, whose claim of accomplishing a successful cold nuclear fusion experiment set the scientific community and pretty much the rest of the world wondering about what the future would bring.

davo on December 6, 2009 at 3:27 AM

Bottomline Chuckles: Climategate is real, the bloom is off the rose, you’re wrong. Again. Get used to it.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM

CFnJ is the new Baghdad Bob.

Blake on December 6, 2009 at 4:42 AM

We know who massages the numbers and who doesn’t.

Liam on December 5, 2009 at 6:34 PM

“Massages the numbers”. Kind of sounds like what hookers do to keep the paying customers coming back.

But that’s probably just a coincidence.

O/T – Roll Tide!

Squiggy on December 6, 2009 at 6:45 AM

Good Lord!

I just payed a vist to LGF. What a nut house.

It’s funny to see them deny what the hacked emails and data say, then turn around and call us deniers.

darwin on December 6, 2009 at 8:20 AM

How to solve this crisis of credibility and ease fears of a “tribalistic” culture having taken over climate change science?

We can yell at each other about the effect of the ‘E-Mails’ but the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the leading scientists in the AGW destroyed their original data! That is never done unless you are trying to cover up something.

P.S.: I’m still waiting for the MSM to pick up this story.

Uniblogger on December 6, 2009 at 10:04 AM

A FOIL investigation should be opened up against Al Gore for his SEC filings of public carbon credit filings. He very well gave false data to open them and file them with the SEC.

xler8bmw on December 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Danny on December 6, 2009 at 2:07 AM

These scientists are just glorified curve fitters, it seems to me.

bbhack on December 6, 2009 at 10:27 AM

blink on December 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM

I am starting w/a group to file a FOIL it can get expensive to file. We are trying to get the information together. The demand and information must be very specific to what information you need and the specific businesses he filed

xler8bmw on December 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM

What a smug little prick.

Did we go through this in Texas with doctored National Guard documents and a certain biased ex-TV newscaster? Yes, although the documents are fake the story is true? Deja vu all over again.

We are to believe the liars and their doctored science as fact and simply ignore the falsified data?

Websters science definition: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

Hmmm, it appears the science of global warming is fake, like their data.

dthorny on December 6, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Waht a smug little jerk.
We are to believe the liars and their doctored science as fact and simply ignore the falsified data?

This is oddly similar to the Texas National Guard documents that a certain ex-CBS TV newscaster claimed the documents were phony, the story was still true?

Websters science definition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

The method has proven global warming is false.

dthorny on December 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM

What’s the difference between an AGW proponent and an athiest?

One of them has no faith.

trapeze on December 6, 2009 at 3:14 AM

The athiest has faith that there is no God.

dthorny on December 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Was he calling the woman an asshole. She did a great job of trying to shutup one side… she is indeed an asshole same as the uppity goofball scientist.

Wade on December 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM

I know you are, but what am I?

InTheBellyoftheBeast on December 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

And just look at the mug on Mr. Moron in this video? As one would’ve guessed, he looks like an icon of the Angry Left.

Ya’ usually look like what you are.

AcronisF on December 6, 2009 at 2:07 PM

That’s weird.

When I picture a warmist in my head, I imagine this smug, overly-quaffed douchebag with an English accent. And viola, here he is.

Potfry on December 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM

These so-called “scientists” can’t debate a 5th grader on their global warming hoax.
Remember when Y2K was going to cause the world to end? Same sham with Global Warming, it doesn’t exist.

nelsonknows on December 6, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Leftists lie…it’s what they do

nelsonknows on December 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Well, I was on the fence until I heard an elite scientist call the skeptic an a-hole. With evidence like that, I think I will recycle my SUV, and align with the smart folk.

eif727 on December 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM

If you’re a fraud, like Andrew Watson, all you have left is to call someone an @$$hole. Pretty simple. It’s the way criminals have always responded, when cornered.

Hmmm. I wonder if we’d have cold fusion today, it Pons & Fleishman just called the other scientists’ “@$$holes.”

MNHawk on December 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 2