John Cook–Identity Thief

I might actually have several posts today–lots to talk about. But, as always in the climate debate, scandal before science!

John Cook is an Australian and the founder of the Konsensus website ‘Skeptical Science’. It is not Skeptical. It is not Science. It is hysterical condemnation of anyone who opposes the Konsensus view on policy options with regard to climate change.

Cook is not a scientist. Before becoming one of the Leading Lights of the Konsensus, he was a cartoonist. Perhaps that explains some of the flaws in his famous paper “Quantifying the Consensus”, discussed and dissected here and elsewhere.

Update: Andy Skuce volunteers this: “John Cook is not “dressed as a Nazi” in that picture, it’s a Photoshop image. It was done as a joke, by one of the Skeptical Science regulars, in response to people calling us “SS” and Nazis. Of course, it is in very poor taste and should have been deleted, rather than left lying around on the server.”

This is John Cook dressed as a Nazi. He has strange ideas of fun.

Herr Cook

He has other,  stranger ideas of fun. One is stealing the identity of Lubos Motl, a physicist who is skeptical of what the Konsensus says about climate change, and making comments on weblogs.

Identity theft is a crime in some countries–I don’t know if they’ve gotten around to it yet in Australia.

John Cook was co-author (along with Stefan Lewandowsky) of another paper, ‘Recursive Fury‘, that was based on an even earlier paper reporting on the results of an internet survey of climate change skeptics. Recursive Fury had to be retracted because it violated ethical considerations, publishing the names of people the paper incorrectly labeled ‘conspiracy ideationists.’ It has now been republished as Recurrent Fury, the name Sergeant Fury being taken and Samuel L. Jackson considered as unapproachable.

Sergeant Fury

The original paper is very bad. So is the new one.

The survey that led to Recursive Fury (those who criticized the original survey were considered disturbed and available for psychological profiling) was available only on climate alarmist websites. Nonetheless, many who claimed to be skeptics filled out the survey. When the paper was published, many real skeptics noticed when looking at the data that some of those who claimed to be skeptics in actuality looked like they were climate Konsensus believers who were imitating skeptics and falsely answering questions to try and make skeptics look bad–like conspiracy theorists. Falsely impersonating skeptics…

John Cook cheerfully admitted to his friends that he was using the fake identity, falsely impersonating skeptic Lubos Motl. But one of his comments about it was, “John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.” The UWA experiment being the research that led to Recursive Fury.

For those who want to trumpet the story that 97% of climate scientists believe that climate change is real, mostly human caused and catastrophic, please remember that it comes from a non-scientist who steals the identities of his opponents and violates research ethics.

John Cook is now offering an online course meant to educate young people about how awful skeptics are. It is called ‘Making Sense of Climate Denial.’

105 responses to “John Cook–Identity Thief

  1. “john Cook is now offering an online course meant to educate young people about how awful skeptics are. It is called ‘Making Sense of Climate Denial.’ ”

    It’s objective is to indoctrinate, rather than educate.

  2. The most humorous aspect of John Cook’s “course” is that he misses the irony of him attempting to teach anything about “making sense”.
    That he is flat out weird and not so bright, yet keeps on trucking like some old Chevy is impressive, in a pathetic sort of way.
    But he does know how to snag some of the money flowing so freely in the climate hype universe, and that makes him a pro, warts and all.

  3. Maybe Cook is being paid off by Big Oil to embarrass the activists.

  4. The lukewarmer’s way of looking at this story, which coincidentally is identical to the climate risk denier way of looking at this story.

    Okay, I take back what I said about coincidental.

    • NevenA,
      What is being denied exactly, you intellectual punk bigot?

      • That climate change can have serious consequences. There is no climate risk.

      • Saying that the risk hasn’t been properly assessed or quantified is semantically equal to saying there is no risk? On what world?

      • All semantics aside (you don’t base risk management on the chance that there’s no risk, but on the worst possible risks, especially if they’re uncertain), you act as if there’s no risk by continuously smearing people who say there are serious risks. Like I said before, your book proves it, and this blog post here is just one of many, many examples.

        This is the problem: not that you’re denying climate risk, but that you acknowledge there might be a risk, and then act as if there’s no risk at all (smearing alarmists and pushing climate risk denier memes, aka disinformation, like your link to paid shill Morano the other day).

      • You know nothing of risk management, obviously.

      • Hey, Neven–provide a quote from the book that shows us smearing people. Just one will do.

      • Who needs the book when it’s right here in front of our noses:

        This is John Cook dressed as a Nazi. He has strange ideas of fun.

      • Are you saying he isn’t dressed like a Nazi or are you saying it isn’t strange? Or both…?

      • But there are plenty of quotes from the book in the comment section of this blog post (scroll towards the bottom).

        There are two reasons you wrote the book:
        1) You and Mosher wanted to cash in on the contrived scandal.
        2) You and Mosher wanted to smear climate science in order to spread doubt wrt AGW, because scientifically you can do as much as a paraplegic donkey in a ditch. Nothing must be done to minimize the risks of AGW because it will cripple the economy (like the commies want).

        No self-professed lukewarmer would ever do that, because he would never take part in an action that could maximize the risks of AGW.

        Unless he’s no lukewarmer, but a climate risk denier who and doesn’t really believe that AGW can ever have serious consequences. Which is what you are, Tom. And by extension a hypocrite.

      • Are you saying he isn’t dressed like a Nazi or are you saying it isn’t strange? Or both…?

        I’m saying you’re smearing him by putting it like this, without providing any context. And that this doesn’t make sense, as you profess to be a lukewarmer. Only climate risk deniers use this kind of tactic (and then play word games to defend their action).

      • As is always the case with you Konsensus kooks, you list two wrong reasons and ignore the correct one. You do it with everything.

        We wrote the book for two reasons.

        1. To show that it wasn’t all of climate science called into question by Climategate, just the grubby actions of a handful of scientists.

        2. To pre-empt those same morons from saying ‘oh, boys will be boys, let’s move on.’ What they did was really, really wrong, which is why we’re still talking about it years later.

        And thanks for telling us what lukewarmers can and can’t do. We’d be lost without your direction.

      • If a baker is selling meat, I’ll tell him he’s a butcher, not a baker. I’m not telling him what to do.

        What they did was really, really wrong, which is why we’re still talking about it years later.

        Which doesn’t make sense if one is admitting that AGW might have serious consequences. This behaviour only makes sense for someone who doesn’t actually believe AGW could have serious consequences.

        It’s like saying: Germany did so many bad things during WW2. We have to bomb them, and keep bombing them, always! For peace! 😀

    • How’s that Arctic ice doing?

    • Hey Neven–I think I figured out your obsession with Arctic ice. It’s white, it’s old and it doesn’t care what you think. Just like all of those you love to hate so much.

      How do you feel about Captain Ahab?

      • +10. Of course with a name like “Neven”, there is a strong likelihood that time is the only variable he does not yet meet.
        For the ice, it is turning out there was never an absence of multi-year ice. Only a diminution. And now that, as skeptics predicted, is changing to the increase as well.

      • It’s white, it’s old, and it’s slowly disappearing.

        If it had your personality, it’d be crying out for attention, like a small child, afraid to die, never attaining the wisdom and peace that goes with the white and the old.

      • Slowly disappearing? Well, you got the slowly right, even if you’re too cowardly to admit to it on your blog. As for disappearing, I’m still here and still loving what I’m doing.

      • Yes, you’re still here, acting like a little boy crying for attention. Of course you love it, because you don’t have to think about death or the meaning of life (which is bashing commie environmentalists anyway).

      • I don’t bash environmentalists. I bash you fools who are trying to destroy their legacy, pretending that climate change has had a greater effect than over hunting/fishing, pollution, habitat loss and introduction of alien species. You are the ones that are now in the position of insulting Stewart Brand, James Lovelock and Patrick Moore.

        Environmentalism gave you the perfect platform to start a sane campaign to combat climate change. You screwed it up and you’re screwing environmentalism at the same time.

      • Thanks for your concern, but there’s no need to project all kinds of qualities on me of a group I don’t belong to.

      • My concern isn’t for you–my concern is for the environment.

      • If this were so, you wouldn’t be acting like this. Hypocrite.

  5. For the ice, it is turning out there was never an absence of multi-year ice. Only a diminution. And now that, as skeptics predicted, is changing to the increase as well.

    If you knew something about Arctic sea ice, you’d be careful in making such definitive statements. Practically all the old ice has disappeared from the Arctic, and the 2-5 year old ice isn’t nearly as thick as it used to be.

    If fake skeptics predicted (who, Steven Goddard? haha) MYI is changing ‘to the increase’ they might turn out to be wrong. But it’s too early to tell, isn’t it? It’s not anywhere near pre-2007. Did fake skeptics predict 2012 too? Or 2007 and 2011, for that matter.

    • Neven, you’re the one who obsesses over Arctic ice at your blog. Except when it’s growing… You don’t wait to cry doom when it’s shrinking.

      • I’m not crying doom or predicting how things will play out. But I’m making clear that Arctic sea ice loss probably has consequences, some potentially bad ones. We – that’s human civilisation – need Arctic sea ice loss. We can’t afford to lose it.

        And I also report when it’s growing (like it has in the past 2 years), better and more balanced than any climate risk denier.

      • Hah! I actually read your blog, Neven. The closest you come to saying it’s growing is when you whine about it not melting fast enough.

      • If I ‘whine’ it’s not melting fast enough, it’s because it’s an exciting spectacle, and more exciting when it melts faster. I then view it purely as a spectacle, not thinking about the science or the consequences (the other perspectives with which one can view a melting season). Watching ice melt, is also fun, you know, like watching sports. Otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it.

        When it grows I report it, and I explain what I think are the mechanisms behind it, the short-term ones at least, as it’s hard to tell what the long-term mechanisms are. Just look at my monthly PIOMAS reports, for instance this one:

        As always, (modeled) sea ice volume has also hit its minimum in September: 6810 km3. This number is comparable to that of 2009, and well above the lowest three minima on record (2010: 4582 km3, 2011: 4302 km3, 2012: 3673 km3). This year’s minimum is almost 1500 km3 higher than last year’s, which itself was more than 1700 km3 higher than the 2012 record.

        Like I wrote last month:

        It was always clear that the Arctic could be very volatile, but this swing is huge and shows what two consecutive melting seasons with conditions that are relatively good for ice retention (2013 was cold and cloudy, 2014 cold and cloudy at the start, followed by little movement) can mean for the ice pack


      • Watching ice melt is fun? How do you feel about watching paint dry?

      • On a wall not so much fun. If everything above 66° N were painted, it’d be more fun to watch it dry. To see it painted on that global scale, washed away and then re-painted again every year: fascinating and a lot of fun.

        Can you imagine that? We’re seeing a global event happen as we speak, thanks to satellites, planes, ships. It’s amazing! And we’re not only watching individual melting seasons, but will perhaps witness the total disappearance of this sea ice. In one lifetime, Tom! My daughter, who was born in 2004, might witness a geological event as it happened. Can you imagine that?

        That’s simply exhilarating, provided you forget about what this event might entail. And sometimes I forget about it. I just don’t deny it.

      • See, the thing is I don’t think you spend that much time watching ice melt. I think you spend a lot of time in front of your computer looking at charts, graphs and tables.

        What’s up with that Greenland melt season, anyhow?

    • Neven, dear little bigot, you are the one touting claptrap doom. And it has driven you the short distance from extremist to the land of crazy as you thrash about wishing for the apocalypse that the “climate” is simply not giving you.

      • You are projecting qualities of an (imaginary) enemy onto me. I’m not your enemy, and I’m not claptrapping doom. To say there are risks tied to AGW or Arctic sea ice loss, is not equal to claptrapping doom.

        To say there aren’t risks tied to AGW or Arctic sea ice loss, or to say that these risks are non-existent or minimal at most, now, that’s denial. Psychological denial.

  6. The point is this, Tom: So easily you join nutcase Lubos Motl (who is truly insane) and believe serial disinformer Anthony Watts, that you can’t possibly be what you claim to be: a lukewarmer, someone in the middle of the fake skeptics and the alarmists.

    But like I’ve said to you before, there is no such position. You talk like an alarmist, but act like a climate risk denier. This blog post is a case in point (and your commenters too, BTW, all of them hardcore climate risk deniers).

    A real lukewarmer – if such a thing can actually exist – would have either ignored this non-scandal entirely, or written something along the lines of: Jeez, this is from 2011, it isn’t identity theft, as Cook just used the name temporarily for an experiment and as an inside joke on a private forum, that was hacked and made public. Besides, AGW could have real consequences, and this attempt to smear someone who wants to make people aware of the issue (even though I don’t agree with him what the course of action needs to be when enough people are aware and willing to do something about it), is only increasing the chances that the worst risks associated with AGW might actually come about. Whatever the risks are, we want to minimize them.

    But you’re not saying anything like this, not even close. You immediately and reflexively side with climate science denying nutcases like Motl and ignorant, cult leading fools like Watts, further propagating the lie. You’re a hypocrite, Tom, just like the lukewarmers in the Bible. In that sense the label is aptly chosen.

    • No, Neven, what I’m saying is that LOG 12 had numerous respondents who appeared to be impersonating skeptics. Just as the Himmler lookalike pictured above impersonated a skeptic. He was co-author on that paper.

      I’m saying that the most dowloaded climate change paper in the history of the genre was slapped together by someone whose behavior makes it clear is unreliable at best.

      • See, your first two sentences are utterly wrong, which again shows you’re uncritically following the climate risk denier (conspiracy) narrative. That’s proof enough in itself that your presenting yourself as a ‘lukewarmer’ is pure hypocrisy.

        But even if you were a lukewarmer according to your definition (someone in the middle, a honest broker), you’d recognize those arguments for the ad hom that they are, with the goal of undermining the notion that 97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activities.

        Because that paper is making more people aware of the issue and more willing to do something about it. And you don’t want that to happen, because you don’t want anything serious to be done about the risks of AGW. Because there are no risks and it would be a horrible waste of money (and you rail against all forms of waste of government money, like the Iraq/Afghanistan war and the bailouts).

        You’re a hypocrite, Tom. There’s a big gap between what you say (alarmist) and how you act (climate risk denier).

      • It’s been a while since I’ve seen so many ignorant and outright incorrect statements here. My two first statements are completely accurate.

        You can’t even get Cook right. He doesn’t claim that 97% of scientists agree that humans cause global warming. Get your facts straight. He claims (incorrectly) that 97% of the abstracts his team evaluated (and re-evaluated until they got the answer right) that expressed a view on climate change agreed that humans cause some level (any level) of climate change. So does Monckton. So does Bishop Hill.

        But the paper is garbage. Putting garbage in front of people and telling them it is true is not a good way to fight climate change. When you support a statement because it is useful and not because it is true you are acting anti-scientifically. Even if propaganda helps you in the short term, lies will kill you in the long term.

      • But the paper is garbage. Putting garbage in front of people and telling them it is true is not a good way to fight climate change.

        You’re cutting right to the core here. I’m going to leave aside the wrong claim that the paper is garbage, which – again – is following the climate risk denier disinformation narrative. I’m also leaving aside the fact that most active climate scientists think that humans are causing global warming, whether it be 90%, 95%, 97%, 99%, and that if you believe this is true, it’s not logical to rail against this paper so much.

        Here it is: How is putting up a crusade against this paper and endlessly harping about how garbage it is ‘a good way to fight climate change’? Please, tell me, mister lukewarmer, who believes AGW could have serious consequences? How do you reconcile your climate risk denier actions with your alarmist statements? What you’re doing, makes no sense, except if you’re a hypocrite.

      • The bigger risk to science and action against climate change is to let lies stand as the argument. That goes for Cook, Lewandowsky, Prall and others.

        Those idiots are increasing the risk that we will not take action.

      • Of course, they made you do it. Doubling down on the hypocrisy.

      • You don’t know what you’re talking about. You really should read more and write less.

      • “How is putting up a crusade against this paper and endlessly harping about how garbage it is ‘a good way to fight climate change’? Please, tell me, mister lukewarmer, who believes AGW could have serious consequences? How do you reconcile your climate risk denier actions with your alarmist statements?”

        First, a post is not a crusade. I’ve gone after Oreskes, Prall and Lewandowsky at least as much as Cook. For the same reason, sadly.

        Funny how the word ‘denier’ doesn’t mean as much now that Obama and Revkin have been tarred with the same brush. It has become perfectly obvious that the only thing ‘denier’ means is that we don’t agree with your policy proposals.

        Mine are on this website. I don’t see yours anywhere. You’re just a whiner.

      • First, a post is not a crusade. I’ve gone after Oreskes, Prall and Lewandowsky at least as much as Cook. For the same reason, sadly.

        Cook’s ‘identity theft’ stems from 2011. Please, go back in time and talk about it then. Why rehash it again and again and again. Again, how is this – or going after Oreskes, Prall and Lewandowsky – ‘a good way to fight climate change’? You haven’t explained how this is ‘a good way to fight climate change’. You’re chanting in chorus with climate risk deniers here (a paranoid nutcase like Motl, no less). How is that ‘a good way to fight climate change’?

        It isn’t. You don’t want to fight climate change. You want to fight anyone who wants to do something about climate change. You can put up as many policy proposals as you like. If your actions don’t match your statements, you’re just a hypocrite.

        Funny how the word ‘denier’ doesn’t mean as much now that Obama and Revkin have been tarred with the same brush.

        Please include the ‘climate risk’ preceding the ‘denier’, to make it clear what is being denied here. There are many forms of psychological denial.

        The analogy here is that Obama and Revkin also do things that belie what they say. Obama goes about pontificating about AGW and how something needs to be done about it, and then he goes and hands out Arctic drill permits. Revkin is into false balance.

        They’re hypocrites in their own way (maybe somewhat forced). But of course they’re not actively undermining climate policy, by spreading climate risk denier disinformation, like you’re doing with this blog post. Or that book you wrote that shows ‘why [Climategate] will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change’.

        How exactly is that ‘a good way to fight climate change’? Oh yeah, they made you do it, they made you do it! 😀

  7. Okay, I’m going to work now to pay for your retirement.

    You’re a climate risk denier, Tom, and always will be! Stop being a hypocrite! 🙂

  8. You know, hunter, I don’t have that much beef with you, because you’re not hiding the fact that you’re a climate risk denier. I don’t agree with climate risk deniers. I think most of them are sad, old, ultra-conservative cynics who are bullying everyone into taking risks that will probably never affect them (because they’re dead by then or wealthy enough to adapt). But that’s it, I’ve stopped entering discussions with them a long time ago, because their minds are set in concrete.

    It’s when climate risk deniers start acting as if they aren’t climate risk deniers, like Tom or Lucia, that my blood really starts to boil. It’s the hypocrisy that gets to me. I can’t stand it. Sorry.

    • Will your blood boil before the seas do?

    • I deny nothing, unlike you apocalyptic kooks.
      You have no idea (as you admit below you don’t even have the IQ to process this) what you are blithering about.
      You are just an empty can echoing the latest authoritative sounding social mania.
      And as you admit you don’t have the credibility to make a rational case in defense of your preposterous idiocratic beliefs.

      • So, you believe that it’s possible that AGW has serious consequences?

      • I don’t know if that’s for hunter or me. If it’s me, yes. I have been writing that since 2008, including on comment threads at Bart’s blog and Collide a Scape that you have participated in.

        Aren’t you a little young for dementia? Or don’t you like to read before you write?

      • I know what you write, Tom, mentioned it in my 5.41 PM comment (talk about dementia 😉 ). My problem with you is that your actions are incongruous with your statements.

        I was asking hunter who says he don’t deny nothing.

      • What actions? Shaving? Walking down the street? Please be specific.

      • This blog post. Only a climate risk denier would fall for the disinformation and then spread it.

        Oh, and the book. 🙂

      • I asked for specifics, Neven.

      • NeveA,
        So far the consequences of the current climate that your community is obsessed with have been so trivial as to require an entire industry to hype it into something people could even notice.
        Despite the 50+ excuses to explain or deny it, the pause in the face of increased CO2 strongly indicates that future responses to increased CO2 will not be any different than they have been.
        Additionally, “climate” has changed from the quite benign regime we are experiencing to much worse in the historical past and humans have muddled through just fine.
        So I see no rational reason to justify the hundreds of billions squandered by your community in the name of your CO2 obsession. And I do know from professional experience that people are being hurt by the increased costs inspired by the climate of fear you and your ilk work so hard (and many so profitably) to foster.
        And a quick review of the so-called “cures” your community demands shows they are not cures for anything except the money shortages of those selling the “cures”.
        And finally when a rational person reviews the Arctic, your personal fixation, one sees that nothing of any unprecedented significance is happening in the Arctic.

      • Thanks for the short summary explaining why you deny the possibility that AGW could have serious risks. 0% chance of that. Clear.

      • NevenA,
        What an odd fallacy you promote.
        Something is happening with increased CO2: Not much, however.
        Small minds conflate *some* risks, however tiny, with the need for extreme and non-effective remedies.
        There was a non-zero chance, at the time he started his end of the world claptrap,that Paul Ehrlich was not full of crap.
        Time has shown he is in fact full of crap.
        Yet people still respectfully consult him as if his opinion matters.

      • Something is happening with increased CO2: Not much,

        Exactly, it’s non-existent, zero for all practical means.

        You’re a climate risk denier. Why are you so sensitive to being called this way, when it perfectly describes your position and subsequent actions?

        I mean, I’m an alarmist too, right? I don’t think the risk is zero, and I’m worried that it might be substantially more than zero. I find this alarming.

        I can’t help it that your position – that climate risk is essentially zero – is scientifically untenable. That’s your problem, as are your subsequent actions that follow from this problem. I know that you justify these actions because climate risk is zero, and so everything is allowed to delay all that unnecessary and costly. That’s what climate risk deniers do. Hence WUWT and all of that nonsense.

        The difference between you and Tom is that your actions and statements aren’t contradictory. Tom, however, acts like you, but his statements are different. He says AGW could be a serious problem, and there needs to be some kind of policy. But he basically sides with climate risk deniers on any issue – this blog post is a prime example – and uncritically copypastes disinformation that increases the chances of AGW having serious consequences (something he says he doesn’t want). This behaviour is completely illogical/irrational when compared to the statements. I find this very annoying, because I heartily dislike hypocrisy.

        Despite this difference in statements you get along fine, of course, because you both want to delay policy for as long as possible, until all of the world also sees that AGW entails no serious risks whatsoever. And during my short stay here I have received the impression that all commenters are essentially climate risk deniers. Tom, of course, is fine with that. Because at heart he is a climate risk denier too.

      • NevenA,
        My position (a skeptical based position) is actually scientifically tenable. My position, unlike the alarmist position, does not deny facts or history.
        The skeptic position does not deny reality, unlike your position.
        My position relies, unlike yours, on integrity and intelligence.

      • NevenA,
        You are gift that keeps on giving.
        I don’t want any good policy delayed.
        The first decent policy you loons come up, I will back it.
        But I won’t hold my breath.
        Not one climate obsession inspired policy has worked to date.
        There is no reason to believe you kooks will come up with any to change that record.
        In fact, not one climate obsession inspired policy meets the basic standards, scope, scale, impact, or cost.
        Your community’s demands are, at best a hodge podge of shake down attempts to separate the public from their money. Mostly they are just complete wastes of money that have no discernible impact on what they claim to try and solve. At huge cost.

  9. John Cook is not “dressed as a Nazi” in that picture, it’s a Photoshop image. It was done as a joke, by one of the Skeptical Science regulars, in response to people calling us “SS” and Nazis. Of course, it is in very poor taste and should have been deleted, rather than left lying around on the server.

    The “identity theft” charge is ridiculous. Cook only used the pseudonym of Motl in a private forum that was later hacked by somebody. Just show me one example where Cook made a public comment under the name Lubos Motl. The gullibility of Motl and Watts’ fans is staggering. Cook’s intent is clear even in the bits of the private conversation that are cherry-picked in the RF and WUWT posts.

    Motl’s threat to sue is a bluff. He’s smart enough to know that he has no case, but he likes the attention of people, including Richard Tol, egging him on. Perhaps you guys should raise a legal attack fund for Motl. That process would be fun to watch.

    • Hi Andy,

      Thanks for dropping by. I’ll paste your comments about his sartorial style in as an update above.

      I completely disagree with your second point, about it mattering whether Cook was commenting in a public or private forum, and you yourself provide the reason why. The forum proved not to be private. If I forged a series of harmful communications in your name and hid them in a bank vault which was later robbed, your lawyers would not be satisfied by my precautions.

      The concern that you don’t address is that impersonating a skeptic for an experiment at UWA could be part of a pattern of behavior that affected data collection for LOG 12.

      • “The concern that you don’t address is that impersonating a skeptic for an experiment at UWA could be part of a pattern of behavior that affected data collection for LOG 12.”

        Hook, line and sinker. Calls himself a lukewarmer… 😐

        Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, and you assume a lot. Tom, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and my guess is you like it that way, because the made-up story fits your preferred narrative so much better.

        They make you do it!

      • Assuming the worst with you idiots is undoubtedly the safest strategy. You collectively have not managed to do one thing right in 10 years.

      • There was never any intent to use the LM name outside our group. That was explicitly stated in the private discussion that was published.

        Your analogy is absurd, as is the whole “identity theft” accusation.

      • Andy,
        There is no reason to believe your claims about the intended use of the phonied up names at all.
        You losers write faux papers using clown car quality techniques to fool the willingly fooled.

    • Why is it in poor taste, Andy? People accuse your buddy of being a Nazi, so you tease him by Photoshopping his face on a Nazi suit, post it on the private forum, for laughs. I don’t see the problem here.

      • Yes, Neven. I am not surprised that you don’t see that it is in poor taste.

      • It would’ve been in poor taste to Photoshop the face of an opponent on a Nazi uniform, but one of your own, for laughs?

        If I tell a friend I’m going to Africa, he’ll send me a picture with my face Photoshopped on the body of a jumping Masai. Should I go and tell him that’s in poor taste and he’s a racist? Or be afraid it will be used against me if my private e-mails ever get stolen, a thing that climate risk deniers are very wont to do?

        I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I was brought up to hate the Nazis and we always made jokes about those effing Nazis in secondary school*, that I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It’s not like the Skeptical Science folks Photoshopped John Cook trampling over Auschwitz corpses or anything.


        I understand that Tom and other climate risk deniers will seize this to score another point, but I don’t see why Andy Skuce needs to apologize for that. It’s pretty innocent.

        * Hating the Germans was a way for the Dutch to deny that they of all European nations had collaborated most with the Nazis, handing them all the Jews on a platter. And then, of course, this hate was passed on to following generations. We just laughed about that, just like you have lots of German comedians making jokes about Nazi Germany (see here, for instance, perfect example) to free the German psyche of the guilt and political correctedness.

      • catweazle666

        What a funny little person you are, Neven.

        But not the sharpest knife in the block…

        Totally clueless, in fact.

      • CATWEAZLE666? That’s really in poor taste. Do you have any idea what that stands for?

      • Yes, Neven, you should tell your friend it’s in poor taste and racist. You really are an idiot, you know. You just found out that pictures transmitted electronically can be used out of context for reasons you may not approve of and you still have to ask that question?

        No wonder your tribe keeps getting its butt kicked.

        Andy Skuce did not apologize. He offered an explanation and provided his judgment on the lack of taste involved. He didn’t say anything about Cook being the same type of idiot that you are–but that’s okay, we already know.

        As Bob Dylan sang, ‘It’s a wonder you can even feed yourself.’ But then, he’s a Jew, so I guess it doesn’t count.

        Just to be clear, I don’t think you’re a racist and I don’t think you don’t like Jews. I think you’re an idiot.

      • Yes, Neven, you should tell your friend it’s in poor taste and racist.

        The Masai thought it was extremely funny, and demanded I print out a copy for them. But what do those poor buggers know, right? Our taste is truth.

        But then, he’s a Jew, so I guess it doesn’t count.

        Wow, that’s so tasteless. You’re an idiot. I’m telling everyone. 😀

        Political correct Americans who deny that AGW might have serious consequences. My hypocrisy metre broke. 😛

      • Meter, Neven. Meter. It’s a measuring device, not a unit of measurement.


    • Andy,
      Look up the definition of “sycophant” and notice your image, not photoshopped, as an example.
      Defending Cook the kook is a loser proposition.

  10. It’s still broke. :-B

    • You have a very good weblog, Neven. I respect what you’ve done with it.

      Can you explain why it is that away from your blog you seem to lose most of your IQ?

      • I don’t have a high IQ. You don’t need it to see what’s going on in the Arctic, and why that’s probably not so great. That’s the whole point of the blog.

      • I don’t care about my IQ or my credibility. I always try to say what I think (if it’s not too insulting) and be as transparent as I can. I then leave it up to people to judge my judgment.

        I also don’t see myself as being part of a tribe really. I’m probably more right wing than left wing, I think (don’t like lefties and hippies). If the faux debate on whether AGW is real and whether the risks are zero, etc, would be over, I would probably part ways with a lot of my fellow alarmists. You also won’t see me associate with fringe groups like AMEG or organisations like Greenpeace.

        And that’s what you need to do too, Tom. I saw some of your policy proposals, and they point in the right direction. But it’s totally useless if you keep acting like a climate risk denier. If you keep associating with people on the outer fringe like Anthony Watts and his band of merry conspiracy idiots, or reposting disinformation put out by paid shills like Morano. If you keep on banging about Mann and Cook and the Lew. This blog post above all this bickering is just too silly. You can’t keep falling for that stuff. It’s not the ‘good way to fight climate change’.

        Your talk and your walk are miles apart. It just doesn’t make sense. What you do, is aiming for the maximum risks associated with AGW. Stop doing that, and you’ll never hear a word from me. Or just be a climate risk denier. But don’t be a hypocrite.

      • NevenA points out, “I don’t care about my IQ or my credibility.”
        It is good that you don’t worry about what you do not have.

      • You keep calling me a climate risk denier, Neven. What risk do you claim I deny? Where have I denied it?

      • Tom, like I’ve explained about twenty times now, just in this comment section: You don’t talk like a climate risk denier per se, but you act like one.

        Someone who wouldn’t deny that AGW might have (serious) consequences, also wouldn’t act the way you do. Like posting this climate risk denier disinformation, started off by nutcase Motl, instigated by Iago OCD McIntyre, spread by conspiracy ring leader Anthony Watts.

        Either you’re not aware that you really are a climate risk denier, or you’re playing games. Either way, the result is: hypocrisy.

      • Again, Neven–specifics.

      • While NevenA admits to no worries about his lack of credibility or intelligence, he is deeply committed to conspiratorial magic thinking.
        As to the fallacy of confusing being skeptical of the apocalyptic trash that binds the climate consensus together with “denying” anything of importance, I leave that to the rational minds enjoying his antics.

      • So, you say that you like watching ice melt, Neven. But you also say you’re a reporter and not involved in…. watching ice melt.

        I think you’re a bit confused, actually.

      • I’m sorry, I didn’t want to imply I’m an objective reporter. I’m very clear about my intentions for setting up the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, namely to convince people that Arctic Sea Ice loss could have bad consequences.

        By stating my intentions I make it easier for people to judge my judgement. It’s like playing golf. If you know where the wind is blowing from, you’ll hit closer to the green.

        For instance if hunter is saying something is bogus, I can be pretty sure it’s probably the opposite. 😛

      • So, I’m a denier who believes there was no Holocaust.

        Just in the same way that Barack Obama and Andrew Revkin are deniers.

        Got it. I think you’re a little confused on the concept.

      • So, I’m a denier who believes there was no Holocaust.

        There are different types of deniers, as psychological denial isn’t beholden to just one group of people.

        There are people who deny the Holocaust, there are people who deny they have an addiction, there are people who deny evolution theory.

        And then there are people who deny that AGW-induced climate change could have serious problems, like you.

      • “Tom, like I’ve explained about twenty times now, just in this comment section: You don’t talk like a climate risk denier per se, but you act like one.”

        You say you’ve explained it 20 times in this comment section. Actually you haven’t explained it once or offered one example. You just keep repeating the accusation.

        My nephew used to do that to me when I was babysitting him. Of course, he was four…

      • But one cannot be a climate catastrophist and not exaggerate.

      • Yeah, me, Barack Obama, Andrew Revkin–anybody who doesn’t agree 100% with you on policy is a denier, even if they hold exactly the same views as you on the science.

        Losers fighting a losing battle.

    • NevenA,
      By the way, you claim to see what is going on in the Arctic.
      When were you last involved in a comprehensive survey of the Arctic?

      • I don’t claim to see what is going on in the Arctic (you’re projecting again). I describe what I think I see is going on in the Arctic. People can do with that what they will.

        I’m not involved in surveys, as I’m just a reporter, not a scientist.

      • You describe what you think is going on in the Arctic. And you like watching ice melt.

        That’s a gooooood boy, Neven. Gooooood boy. You just keep on watching the walls of your bedroom and dreaming about ice melting. And calling people deniers. Goooood boy.

    • So it is not true to say that historical records show Arctic ice has been highly dynamic, NevenA land.
      So it is not true to point out that the current low period in Arctic Ice has not been associated with any great declines in Arctic wildlife or environment. In NevenA’s universe.
      So it is not valid to point out that in the real world the recent declines in Arctic Ice have not been associated with significant changes in weather patterns elsewhere.
      And of course it is untrue, in the NevenA universe, to point out that recent predictions of things like ice free Arctic have been, shall we say, premature. Or that Arctic Ice has actually been increasing from the recent summer lows.
      In the NevenA alternate universe.
      So we see you are not concerned with your credibility, not concerned with your intelligence, and now we see also not seeking to be objective.
      Nor, apparently, even honest in your story telling about the arctic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s