Dr. Michael Schlesinger discusses climate science with the NY Times’ Andy Revkin (artist’s conception)
Character 1 (r): Dr. Michael Schlesinger, a meteorologist at the University of Illinois, and one of the nation’s leading global warming alarmists. (Sidebar: when a skeptic is identified as a mere meteorologist – like Anthony Watts, for example – the alarmists can’t wait to dismiss his credentials. Watts isn’t an official climatologist, so what can he know? Somehow, though, Schlesinger is OK. Can’t imagine why…)
Character 2 (l): Andy Revkin, environmental reporter at the New York Times and, much more often than not, unabashed, unapologetic cheerleader for the “climate change – the science is settled – everybody else can shut the hell up now” school of science. As you may recall, the CRU e-mails show that Revkin freely took marching orders from the alarmists. One can not imagine that they have too many better friends in the media.
Last week, Revkin published some humorous, disparaging remarks about the climate summit in Copenhagen, referring, in part, to “Copenhagen prostitutes” and “climate prostitutes”. Unusual language, considering the source, but accurate is spirit. The “scientists” in Copenhagen have clearly demonstrated that their research is designed to secure funding, not to determine actual – you know – science.
Dr. Schlesinger, it appears, was not pleased by this inexplicable deviation from the party line. He sent an e-mail to Revkin, which – sadly for the good doctor – made it’s way into the blogoshpere:
Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes? Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes? Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael
Bullying? Intimidation? A concerted effort to “manage the message”?
Why would anyone think that?
The only question I have is does the “Big Cutoff” refer to: a) no longer being included in the privileged club of insiders who control climate science, or b) removal of the set of stones that – just perhaps – Revkin is starting to grow back?
I vote “b”.
I hope, for our sakes, that these scientists/Mafia Dons never figure out what the internet is or how it works so we can keep receiving these gifts.
We must investigate the leak of this email no matter the cost!
Christian – funny you should mention that! According to a commenter at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit site:
“Apparently, Steven Hayward (the author of that excellent overview in the Weekly Standard) was inadvertently copied this email when Schlesinger was emailing Revkin.”
Hayward is leading skeptic. Why Schlesinger would cc him is beyond me, but – as JS says – I hope these boobs never figure out the interwebs.
(Not that their modeling isn’t PERFECT of course).
I once took the Schlossen cutoff while in L.A. on business.
Presumably on your way to an appointment with Dr. Ben Dover?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1935
interesting is this language log blog post about the rise of the use of the words “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” and the concurrent decline in the use of the words “coarse, tactless, vulgar, lewd, improper, and indecent.”
The article linked to states that these newly popular words “seem bland, gentle even, yet they carry the full force of official power. When you hear them, you feel that you are being tied up with little pieces of soft string. Inappropriate and unacceptable began their modern careers in the 1980s as part of the jargon of political correctness. They have more or less replaced a number of older, more exact terms…”
Porkchop,
I really appreciate when people use very precise words. I used to pay more attention to that in my own speech and writing, but I’ve gotten lazy over the years. William F. Buckley was one of the best, in my opinion. We use adjectives like “nice,” “cool,” “good,” “bad…” way too often. “Vulgar” means something different than “bad,” but 99% of us would use “bad” to define something we find “vulgar.”
I fear the advent and propogation of texting and twitter will only heighten this problem.
I thnk ur rt 2, Ruf.
ROFLMAO!
porkchop!
I used to drop by Language Log every day, but then something happened and the feed stopped updating and I forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me about it.
Me thinks Revkin wouldn’t have received this response, if the Climate Gate emails weren’t doing an incredible amount of damage to Schlesinger’s movement.
Wow,Fritz,did Rufus just say “cutoff”?
Yes he did, and in the same sentence as Schlossen! I’m appalled!
Two things:
1. I’m starting to feel sorry for Revkin. I’m reminded of Grima Wormtongue at the end of “The Lord of the Rings.”. Vilified by his enemies, and held in contempt by his allies.
2. If this Schlesinger character is at the University of Illinois, why isn’t Rich kicking his ass right now?
2. I’d pay to see that!
In any other situation, doing work in any other field of science, this would be completely unacceptable. To imply that you would hold back open review of data, or punish a scientist for not agreeing (“Big Cutoff”?) is a direct attack on the very foundation of science.
Anyone see this? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CEJT501&show_article=1
Are we screwed, or what? (Hopefully only ’til Jan. 2011, when the new Congress defunds the EPA.)
Kenn – This has been in the works for a while. (We’ve been alerting our clients to gear up for it and what this will mean to them). I’m planning on a post for later this week to describe how the world is going to change next March, when EPA will start regulating “major sources” of GHG. Don’t lose hope though – we still have cards to play.
Rich, sure hope so.
Anything I can do to help in the fight, (in the video realm) please let me know.
Kenn – Since you made the mistake of asking…
Among the things that annoys me about climategate is the way that the term “hide the decline” is being misrepresented in the MSM. I can explain exactly what those charlatans did, and why it’s a fraud, in about five minutes. If I sent you an mp3 of me doing just that – in plain English terms that everyone could understand – could you add some video that would make for an entertaining piece? I would also send you a few (not a lot) of the salient graphs that illustrate the method to the fraudness. Let me know what you think!
Can do!
Maybe, along with the MP3 and graphs, some rough idea of what you’d like to see (so I don’t go completely off the tracks with the visuals.)
And if you haven’t already done so, feel free to click on my “name” to check out my site and the comedy reel – just to give you an idea of my visual sense of humor.
Kewl!
This could be fun. I’ll send you some stuff tonight. And I’ll check out the comedy reel then too.
Thanks man,
Rich
Happy to do what I can! – KC