I don't know anything about this, but just looking around the Web at some of his (alleged) stuff, I can see why they might not have wanted him around. Science is an enterprise, a global community, a way of being, and even though you may think someone's ideas completely wrong, and battle them intellectually with all that you have, you show basic respect for your peers and they show basic respect for you. This guy obviously lacked that, from what I see.
This 2009 commentary by Drapela is so cloying -- so, well, immature -- that it's difficult to believe that attitude didn't bleed into his department presence and work there. But even if it didn't, the commentary itself is enough.
It starts out:
My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end.And this person wanted to be taken seriously at a university?? Come on. You can disagree with a colleague without being cloyingly disagreeable, but just this beginning shows someone who would rather wallow in the muck of the denialsphere than participate in the enterprise of science. (And remember, this is a director at NASA he's writing about.)
He goes on, with bits like these:
The “consensus” card. I feel sorry for this human being....He's worried about Professor Hansen. Sure.
Errant, capricious statements. 99% certainty on global warming? This sounds truly more like a senile senior citizen that a lucid scientist....
Ultimatums. Act now or you die. Right now. This very instant. Don’t think. You have 5 seconds to decide. I ask you, is this science or high-pressure salesmanship? But I cannot go on....
The fact that the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute apparently has the inability to use reason unsettles me. I’m worried about Professor Hansen....
What an ass.
And while it seems he'd rather be a denialist blogger than a member of a university, I can't see him making it even as one of those, given his writing skills.
Nor is his denialism very original -- see this PowerPoint presentation -- but just the standard cherry-picked, rehashed and stale, long-debunked crusty blobs of thought that ooze around and around that world. I'd fire him -- excuse me, decline to renew his contract -- just for that. But first I'd decline on the basis of his being a cloying smart ass, and not only that, but one who doesn't understand the science well enough to even be able to disagree with it intelligently.
He's a scientist. If the science is wrong, then he should write a paper. Or write a dozen of them. Based on what he thinks he knows, it should be like shooting fish in a oil barrel. He'd be famous, known forever more as the scientist who disproved manmade warming. That's how it's done up there.... In science, the only people who get to be unrepentant assholes are the geniuses. (And even then, most of them aren't.)
But I do have to say this: this is Nicholas Drapela's moment. If he plays his cards right he has a bright future, with the potential of gleaming riches ahead.
But it won't be in academia. Nor should it be.
57 comments:
"What an ass."
After reading this blog, it is clear that you're the ass.
I hope someday you get fired from a job you excel at with no explanation.
Wasn't he hired to teach? Was he an effective teacher? I would say that you don't know...so the firing was justified how?
And how can he disprove manmade warming when it has yet to be proven?
Do you have a point to make or are you just another blogger with an axe to grind?
Hi David, I wonder if that is the same Eric that made such a fool of himself a few days ago over at Tamino's place. If he is you got lucky as he only wrote a few lines of nonsense here.
so...you 'battle them intellectually' by firing them and shutting them up?
The Oregon University System will see an 11 percent cut in state support over the next two years after final passage of its budget bill in the Legislature today.
The Oregon House voted 43-15 to approve a $709 million in state general fund and lottery money for the state's seven public universities for 2011-13. That marks the third biennial decrease in a row for the university system, bringing its state funding to a level lower in actual dollars than it received a decade ago.
Six straight years of heavy budget cuts and a guy with a PhD in Chemistry who hsan't made it beyond Senior Instructor after 10 years at the University doesn't have his contract renewed.
OSU (and other oregon university faculty) took unpaid furloughs starting a couple of years ago, in order to avoid layoffs, but another 11% cut on top?
I think the picture's pretty clear here.
I am flabbergasted that you can simultaneously chide scientists for showing a lack of respect while comparing those who disagree with your pet theories to those who deny, and implicitly condone, genocide.
Regarding Hanson; You are helping neither Hanson nor science by ignoring his obvious mental problems and confusion over what is science and what is advocacy. Telling him that he is a good scientist is only going to confound his issues.
Steve: It's not nonsense to consider whether Drapela was fired because he did not teach well (his job) or whether he was fired for holding the wrong opinions on AGW. It's actually a very serious matter.
A little search revealed a comment indicating he had been put on probation last year because too many of his students failed.
Not sure if that is true, but if it is, some people may need to consider other options for him being laid off (see also dhogaza's comment).
so...you 'battle them intellectually' by firing them and shutting them up?
This guy stepped out of the intellectual ring several years ago.
Has he published any scientific papers on climate change? I haven't found any....
I hope someday you get fired from a job you excel at with no explanation.
I've been fired from a job, and it had little-to-nothing to do with my performance per se, but for surrounding reasons.
Wasn't he hired to teach? Was he an effective teacher? I would say that you don't know...so the firing was justified how?
No one -- teacher, scientist, or welder -- gets to be an asshole without consequences.
And how can he disprove manmade warming when it has yet to be proven?
I think you have drifted into the wrong part of the blogosphere.
Regarding Hanson; You are helping neither Hanson nor science by ignoring his obvious mental problems and confusion over what is science and what is advocacy.
If a scientist's work concludes that drug X is injurious to the health of many, is it justifiable for her to call for an end to its use in favor of a less dangerous substitute?
It's not nonsense to consider whether Drapela was fired because he did not teach well (his job) or whether he was fired for holding the wrong opinions on AGW.
Did he hold the "wrong" opinions, or express them in an unjustifiable manner? There is a big difference.
>If a scientist's work concludes that drug X is injurious to the health of many, is it justifiable for her to call for an end to its use in favor of a less dangerous substitute?
Say the scientist created predictions of how the adverse side effect will manifest over the coming decades. Against the scientist's recommendations the drug's use goes up yet the side effect that worried the scientist fail to materialise at even the levels he predicted for drastically curtailed use. Should he pause to reconsider or redouble his efforts and get arrested for his protests?
>Did he hold the "wrong" opinions, or express them in an unjustifiable manner? There is a big difference.
True, and I hope this will come out in the next few weeks.
On the theme of manners, is it justifiable to imply that scientists you disagree with are the sort of people who would cover up or endorse genocide?
Personally, I enjoy a bit of ribbing and debate but accept that it goes both ways. Too much policing can stifle the exchange of ideas.
Intolerance of opposing viewpoints is common, to the point of being expected, in many people, especially bloggers such as yourself. It's common in churches, selective clubs, and even some geographical areas. It becoming common in our universities & workplaces, though, is a truly dire matter.
Your early use of the classic: 'global warming denier' expresses that intolerance with more than enough volume. The term has been an incorrect tool for ridicule since the beginning. Most skeptics don't deny there has been some warming, they just see evidence for it's causes counter to that which you choose to see.
What, David, is justifiable about firing a popular chemistry professor without informing him of the reason? Leave aside that he supports a family with 4 kids, the youngest of which has a blood disorder the requires regular, no doubt expensive treatments -- now without insurance. Whether he opines, disagreeably in your disagreeable estimation, on a politically controversial subject should have no bearing on the matter. If that is the yardstick, then anyone who speaks in favor of a minority view can expect to suffer a similar fate. And you smugly dismiss it as justifiable. Welcome to the late, great Soviet Union.... which you and your ilk need to follow to the ash heap of history asap.
Au contraire, David. You've gotten to be an asshole apparently without adverse consequences.
Anon 12:42pm: He was an Instructor, not a "Professor."
At-will employment means someone can be let go for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. It happens all the time.
So David, justify it, here, now, point by point. Educate us.
So David, justify it, here, now, point by point. Educate us.
Sure. Have a look at this:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/06/osu-instructor-dismissed-justifiably.html
Anon 12:42pm - If I were in that family situation, I would have thought more about my children and less about myself.
Let's be clear: David thinks Drapela's firing was "justified" because he had the temerity to question the 'consensus' and the rationality of high priest Hansen's arguments. As a 'responsible' parent, he should have thought more about of his children's welfare before doing so.
I'm curious David, Appell wouldn't be an abbreviation of Appellonov, would it? You know, that sidekick of Stalin infamous for packing hordes of non-Bolsheviks off to Siberia for the 'sin' of not being "ideologically pure" enough?
Just asking.
It is sad if he was dismissed for not believing in catastrophic man made global warming. I know that believers want to squelch any debate on the subject, but isn't science supposed to be about questioning?
I know that believers want to squelch any debate on the subject, but isn't science supposed to be about questioning?
*I* don't want to squelch anything, nor do I think most people want to --- I'm simply saying I can easily understand, based on nothing but his public writings, why this guy would have been let go.
There are intelligent ways to question things, and there are dumb ways to question things. Especially in science.
Drapela got "squelched" -- "justifiably".
Anonymous 3:10 pm :
Your comment was deleted, for lying about what I said.
Ah. Drapela was insufficiently obsequious. Poor sod. In a word, uppity. Don't know da rules the plantation runs by. Less nossah, more yassuh. Down the river ya go....
"Has he published any scientific papers on climate change? I haven't found any..."
Has he published any chemistry papers? His page at OSU only lists one, and that was in 2000, 2 years before he started working there. Perhaps he's been spending too much time on outside interests/obsessions than on his actual academic field. That could certainly factor into any decision to give him a new contract.
After looking at his 2008 PP presentation, with it's disconnected ramblings and regurgitation of some of the most inane "skeptic" talking-points, it's hard to believe he's capable of putting together a coherent about any subject. From the "it's warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune" nonsense, to claims about we aren't responsible for the CO2 rise because CO2 goes up when the oceans warm (this guy is a chemistry professor, and should know better than this), to all kinds of wild conspiracy theories.
That's some really nutty stuff.
Drapela was insufficiently obsequious.
Either you can't understand what I wrote in my post, or your choose not to. (I suspect the latter.)
Thanks Robert. Not only is this guy disrespectful, he's also not very *good* at science....
There was only one 'justification' in your post that I could make out: basically, that he promoted the 'wrong' opinion in a way that somehow offended the sensibilities of those that held the 'right' opinion'. Guess "speak truth to power" to progs is only operable when they're not in power. When progs achieve power, suddenly it's ""all power to the victors".
'Disrespectful', the Queen sniffed. 'Off with his head.'
'Not very good at science, though pupils flocked to his classes,' Her Highness continued. 'Then send the children to a, hmmmm, middling orphanage -- they must do house work to pay for their healthcare. Should the young one not do enough to keep him alive, let him die -- with not too much discomfort.'
Re: Lysenkoism, Appellonov, Queens, etc.
I think that using such words means you have no substantial argument, and moreover, that you know it.
Absolutely, record-breakingly pathetic. Over and out.
This reminds me of the Caroline Crocker incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker
As been said, an adjunct instructor with zero scholarly productivity & known to promote crackpot views let go in a bad budget environment doesn't sound like a big conspiracy to me.
Steven
Seems Appell up to his usual crap. Attacking and denigrating without bothering to do the slightest research. Making grand assumptions and procalmations about the ability and professionalism without even trying to verify.
A simple visit to:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=130822&all=true
Would answer you question - he was overwhelmingly well liked and rated as a top quality educator
David needs better trolls. How do we get higher-quality trolls to bother David? What is the keyword to attract higher-IQ spam bots?
Best,
D
Anonymous at 8:11 pm:
First, the ratemyprofessors-site is open to gaming. See for example this old story from 2006:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Art-of-the-Bogus-Rating/46887/
Or a newer one here:
http://oit.ua.edu/2011/07/06/ratemyprofessor-accuracy-questioned/
Also, the last 8 or so positive comments all came in after the story broke on 'skeptic' websites, rather than right after he was fired (which is at least two weeks ago already).
Second, there is another rating site that is definitly more mixed:
http://oregonstate.uloop.com/professors/view.php/183085/Nicholas-Drapela
If he had been on probation in 2011 because 60% of his students failed, as one comment noted, I am pretty sure he wasn't nearly as popular as some people (including himself) claim he was. Another intriguing comment notes "he interjects way to much of his own personal opinions on things that have nothing to do with Chemistry. His little "opinion" surveys are very biased and take up too much time".
Third, popularity is not the same as quality. I went to a hugely popular class in my first year, with a well-liked teacher. Today, I still suck in that same subject. In essence we were taught what the questions to the exam would be, rather than being taught actual insight. The same happened in my third year, but here I voiced my negativity about the teacher. Several of my fellow students did not understand why I was so negative, until I asked them details what they had learned. Silence ensued.
Marco
Anonymous at 8:11 pm:
Why not just tell the poor shlub why he was fired??
Personally, I'd refuse to leave without knowing.
"David needs better trolls."
If this is a passing night for David, I'd not want to see a failing one.
Second, there is another rating site that is definitly more mixed:
http://oregonstate.uloop.com/professors/view.php/183085/Nicholas-Drapela
18 ratings total - really 16 as the last 2 are clearly the same pissed off student - from 2010 and with the most recent (excluding the last 2) May 2011. Most all positive.
Compared to 123 reviews dating from 2003 to to the last few weeks (but with a number more thru early 2012) - the vast majority positive.
With an grading across all 123 reviews of 4.3 out of 5 for both "Overall Quality" and "Clarity" and 4.2 out of 5 for "Helpfulness"
Yet only a 3.4 rating for"Easiness" ... which pretty much tells the story - students who made the effort did well and clearly liked and appreciated the teaching, while it is pretty clear by their complaints the ones who wanted to slide by easily and as a result likely did poorly weren't happy.
Seems to me the grading and reviews for this teacher were EXACTLY what you want in a teacher ... clear, funny, good communicator, makes the subject understandably and interesting. Not an easy grader but tests are not a problem for the majority who make the effort.
So tell the class David - exactly what makes him such a piece of garbage to you - exactly what makes him an "asshole" to use your term?
If only Drapela had the professionalism and maturity to simply call Hanson an asshole and insinuate that he also condones and covers up genocide rather than critiquing the actual content of Hanson's testimony.
The man is clearly out of control. Next week he might start requesting data to try to replicate purported findings. That's not how science is done, that's denier-speak.
David that's masterly! I get it. ND was fired for being just like so *lame .* or probably anyway, because you don't - as you say - know a damn thing about it.
I'm quoting you on my blog. I just have to. As many people as possible need to read every word you just wrote.
There is one very important point that needs to be established. Was he fired or was his contract not renewed.
They are very different. If he was fired then he can go to labour relations and get them to look into it and he may have a case for wrongful dismissal.
If his contract was not renewed then it was simple cost cutting measures by a University faced with budget cuts. When cutting costs at a university, what do you do - fire a tenured professor and face an angry union and a wrongful dismissal suit, or not renew a contract which requires no explanation. This may be sad, but it is how things work.
Anon 12:18 - There is more to quality teaching than being popular, and more than presenting electron orbitals and ionic bonds.
Teaching science is also about teaching its methodology, its philosophy of knowledge, and its culture. Based on his public writings, Drapela understood little of this, and I wonder what lessons his students took away in these areas.
Appell: Teaching science is also about teaching its methodology, its philosophy of knowledge, and its culture. Based on his public writings, Drapela understood little of this, and I wonder what lessons his students took away in these areas.
Bullpoop. Read the 123 ratings from his students. All but a handful said he was very good at teaching - at making the subject interesting and understandable - while at same time not making it particularly easy.
Those are the real, verifiable facts - not some juvenile attack - calling him an "asshole" because you disagree with his statements regarding his OUTSIDE INTERESTS.
Many others believe as he does, based on what we see from the science. Are we all assholes? How about Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick - or any of the thousands of others - are they all assholes too?
Once again, as all too often the case - you owe this man an apology. It is fine to disagree with his position on AGW - but calling him an asshole because you disagree is a juvenile and unprofessional act.
How about you actually write a blog post addressing the issues and inaccuracies you claim he has made. You know - a professional and civil response addressing the science?
Appell: "Science is an enterprise, a global community, a way of being, and even though you may think someone's ideas completely wrong, and battle them intellectually with all that you have, you show basic respect for your peers and they show basic respect for you."
I suggest a strong dose of your own advice.
You attack and denigrate him for this simple comment - which a very large number of people agree with:
"My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end"
Yet see nothing wrong with your own comment:
"What an ass."
And then proceed to denigrate and ridicule him further - simply and completely because you disagree with his position. What professionalism - what civility.
And you couldn't even be bothered to note exactly what in his presentation you had a problem with - too busy apparently coming up with such trite statements as "just the standard cherry-picked, rehashed and stale, long-debunked crusty blobs of thought that ooze around and around that world"
You would have made a great member of the "Flat Earth Society"
You cannot see your reply and attack is vastly worse - rude, denigrating, unprofessional and displaying no care about accuracy or civility.
In point of fact, we don't know why Nicholas Drapela was dropped. We probably will never know. That's the way it is with personnel terminations.
I did a little research. In the school newspaper, the Daily Barometer, a student, Jessi Bruns, asserts that Drapela's office keys were taken a week before finals. If true, that surely suggests something other than a contract being dropped for budgetary reasons. But again, I have no way of knowing for sure whether that's true.
(See http://www.dailybarometer.com/forum/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor-1.2876065#.T9jsp5jkW9s )
Then why would they have allowed him to continue teaching?
Chris,
That is what he told us. His keys were taken away from him. He was later given a key to his office but was denied access to other areas of the chemistry department.
I had him for three terms and found him to be a good instructor. I sat in on the other instructor during the week before a midterm and was completely lost. If this is based completely on his teaching then the university of making a mistake. He's a good teacher.
David,
While I agree with you about his climate change wiritngs, I am not convinced that he was not terminated because of his personal beliefs rather than his traching ability. I certainly do not think it is unreasonable to consider that he was released because of political considerations for the University as a whole and the desires of othr faculty. just because his arguments about ACC are rather tired and ridiculous does not mean that he is not entitled to those beliefs, as long as he is teaching valid science to his students and is not passing himself off as anyone to be listened to regarding climate science.
Certainly chem professors should not be teaching conspiracy ridden sociological garbage to their students, but as long as what he is teaching is professional and on topic, he deserves to be treated fairly.
It does concern me how ridiculous that slide presentation is, but I know people who are excellent in one area and delusional in others.
If his views on CC were the reason for the termination, why now? He's been pushing this for years, even tried to get The Great Global Warming Swindle to be shown on campus.
Marco
Apparently, someone from Oregon State has reacted and stated that Drapela's views on CC were NOT the reason to not renew his contract (without giving the reason to not renew his contract).
Link here:
http://www.kval.com/news/local/Oregon-State-Instructor-let-go-because-of-views-on-global-warming-159132175.html?m=y&smobile=y
Marco
Professor Hansen's predictions so far have not panned out. His 1988 predictions are 1.9C off from reality now.
To me, that looks like Hansen went off the deep end. But I'm not a deep thinker like you, Mr. Appell. Perhaps you can explain the discrepancy between prediction and reality?
There was once a time when 97% of scientists (well, they called themselves natural philosophers) believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Consensus proves nothing.
Finally, those who state that the science is wrong are hounded, denied work, while the believers 'lose' the original data proving otherwise. I can read, and there's lots of interesting emails and spreadsheets from the England warming professors still available online. I'll believe my lying eyes instead of you this time, sir.
1.9 C? Really?
Which scenario? How well did it match what transpired?
Post a Comment