Josh writes:
If you read the comment threads at Climate Audit then you will be familiar with a character called Nick Stokes who argues the impossible and indefensible with great tenacity. Steve’s patience with him is exemplary and this thread, in particular, prompted the cartoon.
Josh
Stokes, like Mann, is another warm-mongering object of ridicule.
… thereby giving him the attention he unduly deserves -strike that- craves …
Well such morning mirth makes my day a much better one. We could really use some warm-mongering around here. The wind chill this morning was well below -30 C. And remember, we are south of Portland OR.
The beleaguered weathermen, faced with having to break the news of yet another record cold night, are pleading, “Hang in there, it is only three weeks until spring!”
Right…
there is an inherent need to justify ones’ rational and in some people the truth is too hard to admit to. if you life proves to be a lie …what does one do.
Defending the indefensible is an art form, nice cartoon Josh.
:> That is Nick, isn’t it?
I like Nick BTW., he’s a sharp guy who occasionally gives you the simple truth. I just wish he’d cut back on the gymnastics routine, since the primary result of his indulging in contortions like this is that I don’t trust what he’s saying even when all he’s stating the is simple truth. And I end up feeling like an idiot for having wasted the time scrutinizing his words so closely in those rare cases.
No hard feelings I hope Nick.
@ur momisugly _Jim I don’t think Nick craves attention, but, as I have observed before, given his tenacity to post hours of such bluster, I think he’s paid to do it. I could be wrong, but it’s either that, or he is terminally afflicted with XKCD disease.
At least Nick Stokes is, unlike most CAGW mongers, usually polite.
For that he deserves some respect.
Delightful cartoon. Nick is the gadfly driving the regulars at Lucia, CA, etc. insane. But always polite, never a name-caller despite driving otherwise sensible people to call him an amazing suite of names–Racehorse Haynes for one. For me, a source of great amusement. His blog http://moyhu.blogspot.com/ is also worth checking periodically for those capable of enjoying his fantastic skills as a numbers analyst and graphical whiz. (Although I have chided him recently for neglecting those fields while defending the indefensible Michael Mann. But even so he provided a useful set of links to relevant court cases that caused Lucia to thank him.)
As far as I can see, Nick is not dishonest. Misguided, maybe. And not a public figure. It seems a little unpleasant to run a cartoon on him.
REPLY: Up until the current CA thread, I would agree about the “not dishonest” part. But even Steve McIntyre called him that now, and Steve does not use such labels lightly. – Anthony
First, that’s knot funny. (knotologists are probably laughing everywhere)
Knot humor:
So, did you hear the one about two pieces of rope who got drunk and tied one on?
“A Knotty Problem” meets the sharp wit of
Alexander the GreatSteve McIntyre.Also, I like what Mark Bofill wrote.
It doiesn’t seem fair to mock someone because we disagree with him.
Nick Stokes doesn’t lie. Nick Stokes isn’t personally abusive. Nick Stokes doen’t deserve derision.
I do think Nick Stokes is wrong but I want to hear Nick Stokes so as my thoughts are challenged.
Mocking Nick Stokes as though he is Micahel Mann demeans Josh and elevates Mann.
REPLY: I would disagree, look at my early days of getting involved in climate debates. I was pretty much a nobody until I had an idea that ruffled some feathers, then I was labeled and derided in all sorts of ways within a week of posting the surfacestations project. Nick has elevated himself in the climate debate, he is well known by all the players. Not one person in the CA thread or here has said ‘who is Nick Stokes?”. When so many people are familiar with you across continents and venues, I think you’ve reached public persona status. William Connolley would be another example.
Nick is the most polite troll one could hope to encounter, but it makes me wonder if he isn’t paid to do what he does. If he wasn’t polite, and got into flame wars, he would long ago have been banned. Instead, he plods along with tenacity combined with obfuscation to diminish skeptic arguments that can go on for days in threads. Many people would lose patience and tell others to “sod off”, but if your paid position requires your presence to be effective, you’d do everything you could to stay within the rules.
I could be wrong, but that is why I think he is employed to comment on climate threads. Besides, this isn’t derision, it’s satire. Tying oneself up in knots is funny to watch.
I should add in Nick’s defense, he was the only person on the other side (that I am aware of) of the debate to contribute to Robert E. Phelan’s (our wonderful deceased moderator) funeral. – Anthony
JohnWho says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:10 am
So, did you hear the one about two pieces of rope who got drunk and tied one on?
=====================================================================
I’m a frayed knot.
M Courtney,
I quite agree. I hope that this isn’t derision I’m participating in, maybe just an exasperated chuckle or two. 🙂
I like Nick Stokes. I think he will be flattered and amused that he is the subject of a cartoon.
tonyb
In this naughty thread, there are no strings attached to not being nautical.
“Nick Stokes” as a moniker (I am prone to think) is an assumed nom de plume, derived from his operative role or behavior, as in “Nick stokes a controversy” … were it not for his long-time exhibited behavior one would probably not be inclined to make this observation … it may be purely coincidental his surname is Stokes (I have no idea if this is, in fact, a nom de plume or his real surname).
.
Anthony writes: “I think he’s paid to do it.”
I think this is correct. I have no idea whether that’s his real name or not, but if it’s a pseudonym it’s perfectly chosen for someone who paid or not, sees it as his function to roil the waters and stoke the fires. Either way,it’s clear to me he knows he;s talking s**** at least half the time. His sole purpose seems to be to get the skeptic beehive humming with anger and frustration….
The best way to defuse him is to ignore him, but in practice that never works. Besides, he’s so ridiculous he’s ultimately an asset.
Anthony,
Certainly he does this. I’m a little uncomfortable in making this statement (I suspect I’m doing something wrong in saying this but can’t quite put my finger on why at this moment, but it’s the truth of my opinion and it’s pertinent) I’m pretty sure Nick argues at times in order to convey an impression that he knows perfectly well to be false. He seems to do this alot, he’s done it to me too in blog discussions. This is what I think of as ‘racehorsing’. It’s right on the hairy edge of dishonesty in my book. Put a blindfold on someone and walk them along a cliff. If they fall, did you murder them? … Pretty darn close to it, maybe. I wish he’d see this and quit it.
But the danger of false accepting this idea about people you disagree with is large in my view. After all, plenty of people are absolutely convinced you do exactly the same thing. So I try hard to be charitable in this regard, because I think the potential for being wrong here is huge.
Lastly, merely because Nick is devoted does not imply to me he is being paid. Again, you are devoted to these issues and it doesn’t seem strange to me that nobody is paying you.
Heh, just my two cents. Very best regards as always.
“Nick is the most polite troll one could hope to encounter, but it makes me wonder if he isn’t paid to do what he does. If he wasn’t polite, and got into flame wars, he would long ago have been banned. Instead, he plods along with tenacity combined with obfuscation to diminish skeptic arguments that can go on for days in threads. Many people would lose patience and tell others to “sod off”, but if your paid position requires your presence to be effective, you’d do everything you could to stay within the rules.”
I agree. It seems to me that Nick’s posts serve to obfuscate the issues at hand. On occasion, he has been successful at hijacking the thread.
Have I ever related to you the tale of Nick Stokes and the Just So Story?
No hard feelings I hope, Trenberth’s Bulldog.
Being in the middle of preparing my 1040 and supporting documents, it occurs to me that Josh could make a bundle by relabeling this and selling it to H&R Block
: > )
Nick can never admit that he’s wrong. Even when he’s been caught making an error. [In that Nick is no different than a certain ‘Phil.”] But Nick is polite, which is appreciated.
It could always be worse. Nick appears in sharp contrast to Walter K. in that thread [starting about half way down].
Sometimes I think RH Nick is disingenuous, sometimes I think he is just wrong, but I lean towards the first because his logic is too clever and crafty. I suspect he is bored and enjoys putting weak argumentation through nettled torment, but then can’t stop and goes further. I used to read and analyze what he has written, but his tortured logic, as properly diagramed in Josh’s caricature above, has slowly cost me the hope that there is a pony somewhere in his ratiocinations. So, I have left such dutiful analysis to others (and thank them for their tireless scrubbing).