Professional suicide by a climatologist - "Wot an assh#le"

Professor Andrew Watson
from East Anglia University.
Uses argumentum ad hominem

Witness this vid clip example here of professional suicide on BBC TV's Newsnight on the 4th December 2009. With the simple phrase "Wot an assh#le", a professor Andrew Watson (pictured right, as he uttered the words), in one fell swoop:

• brought his own professional reputation into disrepute;
• brought the reputation of his academic institution into disrepute;
• destroyed his credibility and any presumption of his objectivity - by uttering an ad hominem which ironically in retrospect may have been more aptly describing himself rather than the person he was name-calling;
• risked bringing the already seriously tattered UN IPCC policy on "global warming" (of which he is a proponent) into further disrepute.
  

This was a fascinating piece of TV, and it looked like professional suicide.

What a Way to Go!

Take a look at the blog and the comments on it (details below). I read one particular post and found/noticed some interesting points. I posted a comment on the blog, which included the points below.

The site is: What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire documentary
The blog post is: The Experiment Continues–Two dreams

I would recommend considering buying the documentary, from the site. ("Hurry up! The world's about to end!" - HHGTTG.)

My comments were:

1. That strange (or any) dreams may somehow "mean" something.

• I would recommend that we could all benefit more if we put less time and effort into attempting to discuss and find meaning in our dreams, and more into confronting and coping with life's problems and our own fatal personality or character disorders. Sure, dreams could well mean something, but, in my limited experience the only useful meaning has tended to come from those which have been predictive - trouble is, they only made sense after one had experienced the thing being predicted in the dream. (The "So that's what that crazy dream was all about!", vivid deja vu sensation.)

2. The language used to articulate ideas in the post.

• Language, along with knowledge is a tool for thinking. We think with what we know, and we use language to articulate ideas and thoughts. The use of language can demonstrate thinking patterns. Careless use of language can demonstrate careless (sloppy) thinking.
  
  
• I could not help but notice the new age touchy-feely, caring, sharing language employed - e.g., "...I resonate with that". There should have been a "...man", after the end of that phrase. It took me back to when I used to listen to the long, rambling and supposedly deeply meaningful discussions between apparently adult young men and women during the 60s and 70s (Flower Power and Hippies) era - men and women who were - more often than not - functionally impaired, being seriously under the influence of marijuana, hashish and often stronger head-changing drugs at the time. No wonder they never made any sense then nor since, having blown away (temporarily or permanently) any natural ability for critical thinking. Our society gave those people the right to vote and drive cars too.
  
  
• Curious comment from Magdy Halim: "...but those who prepare their minds properly" - whatever "properly" means. I would suggest that, if we left it to our minds, then we would all be in a state of Ahaṃkāra. For an interesting take on "properly preparing" our minds - in this case childrens' (and their mothers') minds - take a look at this link. Some of those kids may have been overheard to say, "My Mum's a real blast!"

3. Assumptions: Lack of clear definition as to which ideology and/or dogma is being assumed within this discussion.

• The strongest dogmas and ideology tend to be based on:
  (a) religious theory, and
  (b) its antithesis - the theory of aetheism.
  Political and economic ideology/theory are not far behind. Mother-earth type or Nature dogma - a variety of (b) is pretty strong too.
  
  
• We as a species seem to need a paradigm to operate from. I would recommend that one be defined for this discussion. That could provide some lively and thoughtful debate, if we are lucky.
  
  
• Should God be mentioned in this discussion?
  He doesn't seem to have been mentioned - except now, by me. How easy it is to forget/overlook the Almighty.