Climategate junk scientist Professor Watson called global warming skeptic Marc Morano an a**hole live during a BBC segment today.
Climate Depot reported:
A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in “tabloid-style character assassination” of scientists, called an American climate skeptic “an assh*le” on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight program.
“What an assh*le!” declared Professor Andrew Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot’s executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.”
Another tolerant leftist:
At the end of the heated segment Professor Andrew Watson calls Marc Morano an ‘asshole’.
Keep it classy, junk scientist.
December 5th, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #1
Hey, at least the professor didn’t ask “spit or swallow ?”
;-)
December 5th, 2009 | 9:51 pm | #2
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DNC Fail!, Paul Alyunov. Paul Alyunov said: Climategate Junk Scientist Calls Skeptic A**Hole Live on TV (Video): Climategate junk scientist Professor Watso.. http://bit.ly/7PpkDE [...]
December 5th, 2009 | 9:53 pm | #3
@Kenny
Check his e-mails
December 5th, 2009 | 10:01 pm | #4
what a A$$***, between the scientist calling us vulgarities and the president flipping us the bird we are getting it coming and going from from the highly educated elite.
I think the “vulgarians” are at the city gates, never underestimate the vulgarians and there foul mouths and customs, they where the ones that destroyed Rome.
December 5th, 2009 | 10:18 pm | #5
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by dncfail: #tcot #ucot #sgp Climategate Junk Scientist Calls Skeptic A**Hole Live on TV (Video): http://url4.eu/slqy...
December 5th, 2009 | 10:31 pm | #6
Non-weapons science almost to 100% died with Climategate. RIP.
Weapons science (nuclear, and non-nuclear) is alive, and it is normally in conjunction with the scientific method, testing, hydrodynamics, computer simulation, quantum mechanics, special – and general relativity, the uncertainty principle, and in the future, if needed, with quantum fluctuations, as well.
Say No To Climategate And Junk Scientists!!!
December 5th, 2009 | 10:46 pm | #7
since I no longer follow alinsky’s rule # 5 -I declare that all who lie are lying a$$hole$–so to lying ’scientists-bho-ayers-et.al-’ the shoe does fit-wear it!!!
December 5th, 2009 | 10:54 pm | #8
Prof Watson characterizes the whole situation as character assassination, then calls the other guy an a-hole. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
The whole issue is the lack of transparency and professionalism in the so-called science. The emails appear to reveal a pattern of manipulating the data/models, destroying original data to hide the manipulation, and gaming the peer review process to get the man-made warming message out and to suppress dissent. Can’t think anyone would object to that, can you?
December 5th, 2009 | 11:01 pm | #9
Watson, et al: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
December 5th, 2009 | 11:13 pm | #10
The debate is over… a**hole!
The Cult Of ManBearPig would like us to believe that, but thanks to ClimateGate, more and more skeptics are growing.
December 5th, 2009 | 11:23 pm | #11
++
sarc on/
oh, he couldn’t help it.. i mean, he couldn’t very well let all of that time he
spent practicing it’s proper pronunciation in front of a mirror go to waste
now could he..
/sarc off
==
December 5th, 2009 | 11:37 pm | #12
I don’t like the way this is going. When the media turns the issue into an argument for and against people will lose the real issue which is that Scientists lied about the data and that Global Warming is a scam worth trillions.
December 6th, 2009 | 3:40 am | #13
If you had spent the time it takes to become properly educated on Climate Science, you would be able to understand what he meant when he said, “Will you please shut up?” and “What an A$$hole!” Instead, here you are jumping to conclusions without even taking a moment to think things through.
We’ll simply have to trust his interpretation of his own actions because we are too stupid to understand it for ourselves.
(the above is all sarcasm, of course.)
December 6th, 2009 | 5:10 am | #14
Awwww, poor Professor Andrew Watson has no facts to present, no arguments, no anything.
Typical leftist. Once they run out of arguments they start cussing.
“tabloid-style character assassination”? Oh boo f**king hoo. That’s what people like Watson have done for ages.
December 6th, 2009 | 6:51 am | #15
So the junk “scientist” ran out of rational thought and name called his adversary. Better to be called one than to be one.
December 6th, 2009 | 7:18 am | #16
Junk scientists is right. Although, the scope of their deception rests on fiction. Therefore, I see them as JUNKET scientists as they have done nothing different than any aspiring celebrity on a press junket promoting their product except for it being on the taxpayer dime. Shameful.
December 6th, 2009 | 7:55 am | #17
…and, once again, the leftards are nowhere to be seen. I haven’t read one comment from the religion of the left, “The Holy Order of Climate Change”. Not one priest, (too busy name calling), not one layman, (too busy scrambling for alternative thesis material).This is what happens when you live your life as an academic. These cooks are so far removed from reality, they don’t know how to react when the cruel light of day illuminates their petty existence: SUPRISE! They’re petty. They’re petty and scared. The whole blanket of funding, grants, corporate blackmail, greenwashing, and, most importantly, POWER unravels. It’s really interesting that all of this junk science falls apart not because of technology, faulty analysis, poor computer models or lack of funding. Moral weaknes is responsible. As hard as these jokers run away from religion, it keeps on catching up.
December 6th, 2009 | 8:47 am | #18
For a cogent explanation of climate change go to UTube and search Henrik Svensmark. There are six videos which explain his research. He had great difficulty getting published because his conclusions, based on empirical data and supported by experiment, do not hold to the party line.
It is also interesting to note that the leaked e-mails from the CRU speculate that recent cooling might be the result of increased levels of Sulfur Dioxide in the atmosphere, and last week the EPA moved to further restrict emission of Sulfur Dioxide in the US. Amazing!
December 6th, 2009 | 8:50 am | #19
My bet is, as soon as they get what they want out of Copenhagen, a lot of them will drop the pretense that there was ANY crisis, and move on to whatever they plan to ram down our throats next.
And does anyone know if there is a specific site dedicated to following Copenhagen?
December 6th, 2009 | 9:16 am | #20
You know you’re losing when…
December 6th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #21
Watson is a scientist. Is a##hole a scientific term?
December 6th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #22
The good professor’s comment was “elementary (school), my dear Watson.”
December 6th, 2009 | 10:30 am | #23
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Global Warming Fraud an Attack on Humanity’.
December 6th, 2009 | 10:38 am | #24
#18: My guess is that SO2 isn’t the culprit for ‘cooling’, either, as CO2 was made out to be for ‘warming’. The sun drives the climate, hot, or cold, on this planet.
December 6th, 2009 | 10:39 am | #25
[...] via Gateway Pundit. [...]
December 6th, 2009 | 10:51 am | #26
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/05/climate-friendly-cremation-you-first “”But for those who remain concerned about climate change and greenhouse gases, there is something new you can try to reduce your carbon footprint — and the rest of you, in fact: It’s called “green cremation.”
Get the new
PD toolbar!That’s the nifty term for a process of disposing of corpses that is formally known as alkaline hydrolysis. A body is placed inside a vault-like tube (after being wrapped in a silk bag, which is nice) and the chamber is then sealed, filled with water and lye, and steam-heated to 300 degrees. After three hours, all that’s left are crumbly bone fragments (to bury in an urn or scatter) and 200 gallons of fluid with a ph level that has been described as “somewhere between hand-soap and ammonia.”
The beauty of this process — if “beauty” is how you’d want to describe such a thing — is that the resulting fluids can be sent into the sewer system like Saturday night’s bath water, or even spread on fields or gardens. (Yes, that’s a frequent recommendation.) No sooty emissions, either, and the process uses 80 percent less energy than standard cremation.
Now this may not be one of the proposals Obama is bringing to Copenhagen. But the pollution reductions aren’t negligible, either, given that a standard crematory furnace must fire at nearly 2,000 degrees for up to four hours. According to the data, that uses more than 3,000 cubic feet of natural gas and releases 900 pounds of carbon dioxide into the air. Standard burial is arguably not much better. It can take a century for an embalmed body and casket to decompose, and as it does all that formaldehyde, a carcinogen, is released into the soil and groundwater……” MORE at AOL Politics Daily….From the link above This is CRAZY A GREEN BURIAL…Err “Cremation” SICKOS!!
December 6th, 2009 | 10:56 am | #27
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/05/climate-friendly-cremation-you-first/ “For one thing, “green burials”– in which a body is buried in a simple wood or even wicker casket without embalming — is the hot trend with the enviro-friendly public today, and perhaps less polluting than alkaline hydrolysis. And the funeral industry (and state regulators) have not rushed to embrace Resomation, though the company is hopeful of cracking the North American market and has a distributor ready in the U.S. and Canada.” Choose a ”wicker casket’” or the ”GREEN CREMATION” This is sick…
December 6th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #28
But he said it well, and with a British accent, therefore it must be taken as gospel.
Good Grief,
…Lee
December 6th, 2009 | 11:29 am | #29
++
Sandy @ 11:37 pm #12
excellent observation..
like the point of an argument being
lost in ad hominem tit for tat posts..
==
December 6th, 2009 | 11:45 am | #30
Thanks for the suggested viewing hedgehog. I had seen the correlation before but none of the background.
Politicians might find it hard to exploit cosmic rays. Perhaps an aluminum company might try to get legislation requiring some form of mandatory head wear.
December 6th, 2009 | 11:49 am | #31
++
Agent 99 @ 10:51 am #26
if the ants succumb to the Grasshoppers.. Soylent Green
will not be a fictitious movie at some point in the future..
==
December 6th, 2009 | 12:36 pm | #32
An idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter:
1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC (United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic (caused by humans) Global Warming – blaming largely the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economy). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018696/climategate-which-part-of-over-dont-these-people-understand/
December 6th, 2009 | 1:46 pm | #33
++
via TRBO
Fiddling with Facts
Velkommen Kobenhavn
==
December 8th, 2009 | 2:41 pm | #34
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win – Gandhi
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact