An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
dana1981
Too bad you decided to take your ball and go home. I thought I saw the opportunity for you (yes YOU) to get some additional respect for yourself and for your pro CAGW position. All you had to do was engage honestly with the issues raised.
o what problem do you have with committing to stop using the “de-nier” label? You take umbrage at being tagged as “SS”, is it not reasonable to show the same respect to your critics and cease the use of that derogatory and inflammatory word?
o several questions regarding science, and the manner in which you presented the science in your article have been raised. You’ve answered none of them. Do you think your failure to do so improves your credibility on this site or on any other site?
o You’ve focused the bulk of your comments on bickering about who said what and when and if it was insulting or not. Frankly, the bulk of us who are interested in getting the facts on the table probably don’t care a whole lot, PROVIDED that your answer the SCIENCE questions that are posed to you, AND you extend the same respect to them that you demand for yourself.
I for one will not use the term “SS” to describe your site. But I will suggest that until you stand up and deal with the factual questions that have been put to you instead of running away like a child, you’ll be called all sorts of nasty things by all sorts of people…and the best way to shut them up is to counter the science….not quibble about who insulted who and when. Play ball or run away.
Running away just suggests you tried to play in the big leagues and found out that you can’t cut it.
I’ll be open about this–who is SkS (or SS, or whatever they might want to be called)? I’ll admit I know nothing about them.
This dana1981 guy wimped out and ran like only a bruised ego can. In the meantime, I won’t even bother to stop by SkS for a visit–just what would they have to offer regarding climate science?
But whether this dana1981 guy comes back or not, he’s certainly demonstrated one thing here–he’s not a scientist. And, regardless of his academic attainments and current blog or article writing, that’s about the biggest insult I can hurl.
Ouch!
dana1981 says:
“Wow, that’s just a tad bit rude. Somehow you don’t have a problem with Watts not having a PhD though. Rude and hypocritical – you’re quite the catch!”
Dana calling me (or anybody else for that matter) rude and hypocritical. ROTFL
Dana, I have been reading SkS for longer than I have been reading WUWT. Rude and hypocritical is exactly how people are treated when they dare to ask questions at your blog. How you treat people (rudeness and arrogance) is also one of the many clues that lead me to believe you were just spouting propaganda not real science. Real science never has all the answers to every question like you pretend to with your master’s degree while belittling real PHD climate scientists. Anthony never pretended to have all the answers and does not come across with your arrogance.
Ignore me or ridicule me if you want, I don’t care but I am one of those regular people you claim you are trying to convince at your site. Consider this constructive criticism so you know why your side is loosing and Anthony’s is winning!
That makes it two of us. My god the man is apparently so isolated he doesn’t know how sanctimonious he sounds–or maybe he does.
Gore has made loud and idiotic statements about climate over and over again for at least twenty years, and not once to my knowledge has he ever made a correction. His completely inept, and unhelpful, comparison of history to gravitation via the General Theory of Relativity in Earth in the Balance, among other pompous silliness, ought to prove the point; and, if that doesn’t, then surely Carl Sagan referring to it as a “holy book,” ought to do the job. After a twenty year long run of unrelenting nonsense, and I completely understand the cult following of a category like “Al Gore is an idiot.”
Christy’s worst blunder does not come close by comparison.
RockyRoad says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I’ll be open about this–who is SkS (or SS, or whatever they might want to be called)? I’ll admit I know nothing about them.>>>
I’ll tell you who they are from my perspective. When I first started doing my own research into climate, Skeptical Science was one of the first sites that I spent any significant time on. The first thing that got my attention was that the “science” they presented was a pale shadow of actual science. It was presented in a manner which might possibly fool someone who had little or no background in science at all, and it seemed it was clear that this was the intention of the site. I even noticed that sites like RealClimate, which made its CAGW agenda clear, would often quote SkS as a place to go when someone asked where they could find unbiased opinions. It was clear to me that Skeptical Science was nothing but a rabidly pro CAGW site masquerading as a skeptical site.
But for anyone with with the basics of physics and some critical thought processes, the “science” was smoke and mirrors. It was Skeptical Science and Real Climate, more than any other sites, that convinced me that climate science was a complete fraud. That was long before I discovered sites like WUWT, where my suspiscions were confirmed by actual facts, properly presented data, and criticism not only accepted, but even encouraged (subject to rules of civility of course…which I suspect I encroach upon from time to time, such has become my disgust and outright rage at the manner in which science has been hijacked in the climate debate and been replaced with something akin to magic.
To misquote Arthur C Clarke:
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
mods ~ another down the hidey hole. Rescue? The Hidel Hole has it in for me of late I think.
[REPLY: Your posts would not disappear so often if they didn’t contain magic words like “fraud” and “scam” – REP, mod]
Jeff Alberts says:
“…you don’t say that to people who agree with you, Anthony (e.g. Smokey)”
Jeff, I donated $100 trillion to Anthony. Naturally, that selfless generosity buys exclusive commenting privileges.☺
[And I almost always agree with Anthony, not to suck up, but because IMHO he is right about just about everything related to the climate debate. The link above has some of the pithiest and most entertaining comments of any WUWT thread. Rational folks will surely enjoy them.]
Dana writes : “Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
I find it a little ironic that in one of the threads over at SkS the moderators allowed people to refer to me as TTT until I asked them to stop. Furthermore I see that now there is only one reference to “TTT” and my post complaining about it has been removed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=54&&n=718
Unfortunately the wayback machine didn’t take any snapshots of this article otherwise I’d have had another documented barb to stick in the back of SkS.
@ur momisugly Dana,
If you actually come back and read this, please take this as a bit of advice from a non-science person (well, unless you call “computer science” a science).
I’ve read and commented at both SkS and WUWT, SkS for longer than here. When I post a question at WUWT I get an answer explaining in terms I can understand, or polite responses pointing out where my thoughts are incorrect. When I post a question at SkS I get insulted and laughed at. At SkS I’ve even been called “a stupid retard”.
If that is SkS’s policy to convince “on the fence” readers to their view of climate change, then I am not surprised the site’s readership is so low. And it’s not just me. Reading through lots of threads will show the tight-knit central “group” at SkS resorts to insults, cajoling and straight out attacks on anyone who has an individual thought process and poses alternatives, questions the SkS doctrines, or questions the central “group”.
If you REALLY want people to read and take note of your message, treat them with respect and engage them. They’ll listen to you then. But above all, let them make up their own mind. Don’t force your message on them, that’s what religions do.
[REPLY: Your posts would not disappear so often if they didn’t contain magic words like “fr***d” and “s**m” – REP, mod]
Wow. s**m isn’t really a term I use very often at all. As for the f-word…
Wow. That’s a tight abuse policy.
Now…if only there was a way to get the CAGW to crowd to reduce the number of opportunities for the apt application of that terminology…
I’d get fewer down the hidey hole…but then, I’d have a lot less to say too….
[REPLY: Just sayin’. It’s actually kinda embarassing to have to retrieve my own comments (when I post in my commenter persona) for the same reasons. -REP, mod]
News flash: the controversial moderator at WUWT, known to all as REP, has banned himself for abusive language. He plans to appeal the decision to the site owner, Anthony Watts, but doesn’t hold out much hope of a favorable result, as he is sure his was right, coming as it did after repeated warnings.
[UPDATE: Anthony rejected the appeal and put me on permanent moderation. -REP, mod]
typo: “his decision was right, …”
I know it’s difficult to get an accurate perception of reality from inside the echo chamber, but here’s what happened:
Guy brings ball to WUWT
WUWT commencers [including Watts] throw rocks at his head
Fortunately their aim is horrid, and miss him by about 10 feet
Guy thinks to himself, why am I wasting my time here?
Guy takes his ball and goes home
WUWT mob continues throwing rocks at where he previously stood
It’s funny, SkS was just criticized by the same echo chamber for our “poor treatment” of Pielke Sr., who simiarly took his ball and went home from SkS. But the comments here were an order of magnitude less civil than the comments between SkS and Pielke. Of course my comments will fall on deaf ears, since I’m not standing in the echo chamber, so indeed I will take my ball and go home. But you now have a perpecetive from outside the echo chamber, should you choose to listen to it [which who are we kidding, you won’t].
REPLY: And yet, he returns with his ball. Poor treatment? Did you see any of your comments deleted or
stricken through? As was done at SkS? Big difference. You really do need a mirror, sir. Words are not rocks, your comparison (and attempt to make it appear violent) fails.Actually, I predict you’ll be back soon. – Anthony
Yikes bad typing, “perpecetive” = “perspective”
dana1981;
So…you’re still around after all, and still complaining about the state of civil discourse…
…and still have not answered a single question or objection to the science your present in your article. What are you afraid of?
Dana left a piece of unfinished business before he took his ball and went home for the second time:
dana1981 says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere (i’m referring to SkS) using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony
Anthony,
Out of respect for you as a gracious host here, I will not in the future here on WUWT use the acronym SS for Skeptical Science. I will use no acronym at all for Skeptical Science here at WUWT. Instead I will refer to it as Skeptical Science with the bold first letters. OK with you?
dana, . . . cheers. : )
John
[REPLY: John, don’t you thnk that is at least a violation of the spirit of Anthony’s request to commenters? -REP, mod]
I like SPS… Skeptical Pseudo-Science.☺
dana1981, Please take down the insults to Cristy, Lindzen, Monckton and Spenser NOW and I will apologize for being rude to you in return for your gesture.
Come on dana. Tell us you will stop calling sceptics “deniers”. If you don’t then we know you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Just nasty mudslinging. Or would that be losing your most important rhetorical device.
[REPLY: John, don’t you thnk that is at least a violation of the spirit of Anthony’s request to commenters? -REP, mod]
————–
REP, mod
A little subliminal message? OK.
How about instead of Skeptical Science I use the following?
The Skeptical Science blog can be called “The blog whose initials (first letters of its name) shall not be used as its acronym”? Most everyone will know the blog I am taking about. And I can shorten it to TBWISNBUAIA.
Curious as to the thought processes of not referring to Skeptical Science by a normally academically appropriate acronym such as SS?
Nobody thinks anything dubious about using SS in referring to the US’s program called Social Security. Everyone knows what SS in that context means just like everyone knows what SS refers to in the climate blog context.
Also curious if this is the path down which, at some future time, I cannot make comments about the IPCC that don’t fit the IPCC’s official mandate about its brand and self-image? Wow, I just had a little chill here a WUWT.
John
[Reply: Actually, when you think about it, the term “Social Security” sounds a little ominous. Suppose we refer to it as “SocSec”? -REP, mod]
[Reply: Actually, when you think about it, the term “Social Security” sounds a little ominous. Suppose we refer to it as “SocSec”? -REP, mod]
—————
REP, mod,
Not warming yet from that first little chill.
John
My apologies to Dana and John Cook, as I am at fault in my post on this thread.
I will use SkS from now on – actually the unfortunate connection never entered my head, it was just I’m so used to refering to ‘RC’ that the other was reflex. I intended no harm or criticism other than where science is incorrect and over my concern regarding the misdirection inherent in Mr Cook’s choice of site name.
Uhm… does that mean muscle car enthusiats will have to scrape the name plates off their Chevy Nova SS and just make it a plain old Chevy Nova?