People send me stuff.
Yesterday Skeptical Science owner John Cook announced to the world that he thought Willis’s open letter to the new editor of Science was “creepy” and “sexist”.
As is typical with the Skeptical Science kidz, it’s just projection. How much? You have no idea. But it turns out that when you scratch the surface of the SkS Forum, where the principals and moderators talk amongst themselves (seemingly unaware of others watching) you discover what creepy really is. For a supposed site about “climate science” it sure does look a lot like “high school climate science”.
Get a load of the pictures from the SkS forum website sent to me today. A friend of WUWT writes:
(Note: I’m leaving the author of this email private, lest he become another Photoshop victim. Note that all the links are in the open, there’s no hack or mole action going on here. BTW, each word highlighted below is a separate link to an image. – Anthony)
I found something I thought you might be interested in while looking to see what is publicly viewable on the new SkS forum’s website (www.sksforum.org). Little is, but there happens to be a viewable images directory that has a subdirectory, [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded]. This directory has some… interesting images.
One [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/WeAreSkeptics.jpg] has several the heads of several skeptics photoshopped onto people from a movie about the 300 Spartans (300, perhaps?). I assume it was an attempt at humorously painting skeptics as few in number and dogmatic.
But the most interesting ones defy explanation at the moment. There are a number of images where the head of Dana Nuccitelli or John Cook appear to have been photoshopped onto images of [http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrscooterboy.jpg]
[http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/herrtankboy2.jpg]
It’s possible these images were taken from somewhere else and uploaded, but that seems unlikely as a couple of them show signs of further photoshopping done to improve them. To see what I mean, compare this image to this one.
Combined with the fact there are a number of similarly photoshopped images done to flatter Nuccitelli, it seems almost certain SkS members have photoshopped images of SkS members as Nazi soldiers. I can’t think of a single sensible reason they would do that.
I don’t think they dream of being Nazis, and I can’t imagine it was particularly fun to make those images. It’s possible they made these with the idea of a false flag operation in mind, but that seems ridiculous. It’s not more absurd than Peter Gleick’s behavior was, but it’s hard to believe anyone would consider doing that (especially on a forum which has been exposed once before).
[NOTE: Brandon Shollenberger decided that he didn’t care that his name was attached to the above, hence this update. – Anthony]
You have to wonder what motivates them to take the time do things like this, especially when they claim that global warming is accelerating, and there is precious little time left before we all roast.
SkS Kidz will be kids I suppose.
I haven’t looked this good since high school:
L-R: Watts, Monckton, Delingpole.
=================================================================
UPDATE: 10:35 PDT About three hours later It seems that somebody at SkS has been embarrassed that they’ve been caught out, and they have comically simply moved the “user_uploaded” folder to one with a seemingly random (Ric Werme says: “Hey, a11g0n3 is leet-speak for allgone. Oh Lord, there be idiots over there.”) name: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]
Of course that breaks all the links in the story above.
Only problem is, it’s still open to the public there. All images are still visible: [http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/]
Surely they know that the Internet has a permanent memory and all these images still exist elsewhere in folders that people have scraped from the original by now?
Amateur hour cover up tactics. – Anthony
UPDATE2: 11:07AM PDT It seems that they’ve taken down the “leet speak” folder as well, no matter, they still all exist in many places, and I’ll add a gallery shortly. -Anthony
UPDATE3: 11:19AM PDT here is a few of the images referenced above in the story and in comments. I also have a screen cap of the original folder listing at SkS which I’ll upload tonight when I get home.
UPDATE4: 5:31PM PDT, As promised earlier in UPDATE3 here is a PDF capture of the file listing from the original SkS forum snapped at 829AM PDT today.
Index of _images_user_uploaded (PDF)
=============================================================
Related articles
- SkepticalScience goes Godwin-Nazi or something (joannenova.com.au)
- LOL! ‘Mad Haxor Skillz’ Godwinize ‘Skeptical Science’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hardly ever write commentary, nevertheless I
looked through quite a number of reviews here at Skeptical Science takes creepy to a whole
new level | Watts Up With That? and had a couple of important questions for you if you wouldn’t mind. Could it possibly be just me or do quite a few of the remarks look as if they could be generated from really dumb people? And, if you’re article writing on some supplemental webpages,
I wish to stay in touch with you. Could you put up a list of
all of the social media sites such as your linkedin user profile,
Facebook site or twitter feed?
Natasha:
At August 8, 2013 at 12:14 am you ask concerning posts in this thread
It is just you.
Things always seem “dumb” when you lack the intelligence and/or wit to understand them.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Natasha is a spam robot: mouse over her name to see the link.
Jonathan Jones:
Thankyou very much indeed for your post to me at August 8, 2013 at 4:03 am.
Yes, You are right! Thankyou.
And I add a warning that others should avoid the link and avoid providing the personal invitation the spam robot requested.
I wonder if the expected new WUWT system would be able to prevent such devices posting on WUWT.
Richard
Well, I admire their honesty in ‘coming out’ and what legal activity they partake in behind their own doors is no concern of mine (including their Gladiator, Nazi and Megolamania fetish).
Perhaps a discreet email (with a link to a therapist) requesting they keep their Gladiator and Nazi uniform fetish pictures to their own homes and bedrooms wouldn’t go amiss.
Somehow ‘sick’ just doesn’t cut it.
SkS (SS) who knew?
Sks being a soviet rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS would call for Soviet uniforms… anyway both Nazis and Communists being socialists they are not far off.
AlexS:
Neither Nazis nor Communists are socialists. Only a Nazi could be deluded into thinking they were.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Richard,
I’ve always held you in the highest respect, still do, for your obvious brains and integrity. Since it seems extremely implausible to me that a man of you intelligence and character could possibly mean by the term ‘socialist’ the same thing I mean when I say ‘socialist’, I’ve always shrugged this difference off. Actually, I’ve wished for the opportunity to discuss this with you on some more appropriate forum, so I could come to understand your perspective, I’ve never thought WUWT was the appropriate forum for this.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don’t think I’m a Nazi, and I can’t say I understand the distinction you are making. I would prefer to believe that I am ignorant from your perspective, and I have evidence that leads me to believe that I don’t understand what you mean when you use the word socialism, but regardless; I don’t understand the distinction and I don’t think that makes me a Nazi.
As always, very best regards sir.
Mark
Although my comments above regarding a Gladiator and Nazi uniform fetish and megalomania were made ‘tongue in cheek’ can anyone think of a logical explanation why they would photoshop pictures of themselves onto Nazi uniforms?
All they need in addition to prove the megalomania is a few mad scientist and doctor members……oh……..now they’re busted!
@richardscourtney, I see the blending of Joanne Nova and our likely future PM, Tony Abbott as he famously paraded about one day. The sexual slant is of your own making. Say more about you than it does about me.
@DirkH says:
August 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Wow! Your conspiracy theory is much better than mine. Congrats!
Juvenile is as juvenile does.
/Sarc
Rockin cape bro.
richardscourtney says:
August 8, 2013 at 1:50 pm
AlexS:
Neither Nazis nor Communists are socialists. Only a Nazi could be deluded into thinking they were.
It’s a spectrum disorder.
Merovign:
re your post at August 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385050
Yes, I think you must be right when you say
On WUWT American right-wingers
* have repeatedly claimed H1tler was left-wing (yes, really, they have),
* have asserted that socialists are communists and naz1s (when socialism, communism, and naz11ism are each mutually exclusive),
* have accused me of being “an excuser of Stalin”,
* have repeatedly – including on this thread – said I and all other socialists are naz1s and communists.
Each of these claims and assertions is so wrong as to be silly. Taken together they show such a distorted world-view that it amounts to insanity.
Indeed, in this thread we have an example of me and other socialists being called Naz1s and communists with the name-callers taking offence when I replied, “No, you are”.
The name-callers obviously fail to recognise that the gross misrepresentation and insult is at least equally untrue and offensive when they make it against socialist and I make it against them. Indeed, it can be said to be more offensive when addressed against socialists because Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists: the name-callers would not dare to make the same assertion about Jews whom the Naz1s subjected to the same treatment as socialists.
Richard
Richard,
I do not assert that socialists are communists or Nazis. I do not accuse you of being an excuser of Stalin. I do not suggest that you are either a Nazi or a communist.
However, I must again protest that I do not believe it is insane not to understand whatever perspective you proceed from. Let me ignore the issues surrounding the term ‘left wing’, as my working definition has been based on inference from popular usage and is quite possibly without reasonable basis. Instead, let’s examine the source of my confusion regarding the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ (I apologize for using Wikipedia as my source. I got up to look for my old copy of ‘the Communist Manifesto’ and can’t locate it. Still, if memory serves I don’t think it misrepresents what Marx wrote, so from the Wikipedia article on Communism, paragraph three):
Obviously, socialism and communism are not identical, and anyone suggesting otherwise should examine the terms more closely. However, according to Karl Marx they are related. Socialism according to Marx is a transitional stage precursor to communism.
I understand that it is entirely possible that you disagree with these distinctions and or definitions laid down by Marxist theory. I will not venture to say you are incorrect. However, once again, I will suggest that it is not unreasonable that people do not understand the distinctions you are making. Merely because they are good clear crystal to you does not mean they are comprehensible to people in general, right wing Americans in particular.
Best regards.
Mark Bofill:
I am replying to your post at August 9, 2013 at 11:23 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385628
Thankyou for your enquiring message which is a stark contrast to the abusive and offensive posts often directed at me when this subject occurs on WUWT.
I am willing to discuss the matter here in this thread which is about people who using photoshop to pretend a political position . Hence, this is a thread where discussion of political philosophies is not far off-topic.
I think your final paragraph discusses the crux of the matter. It says
OK. You make a good point so I will try to excplain.
Marx attempted to describe certain political philosophies, and he was plain wrong to suggest that socialism is a stage on the way to communism.
A decade ago David Wojik and I had a debate about socialism in a series of editions of a right-wing American publication. (Incidentally, David and I are both AGW sceptics).
David is a right-wing American libertarian and he IS a Marxist.
I am a left-wing British socialist and I am NOT a Marxist.
The initial response of the readership was great confusion concerning what we had written.
Marx attempted to describe political philosophies with simplified descriptions. He summarised the tenet of socialism as being
“From each according to ability and to each according to need”.
This is a reasonable summary because it provides an ability to clearly state the basic tenets of other political philosophies.
For example, the basic tenet of communism can be expressed as being
“From all according to ability and to all according to need”.
And the basic tenet of fascism can be expressed as being
“From the State according to government decision and to all according to government desire”.
It is important to note that socialism predates Marx who published Das Kapital in 1867.
Socialism began with the Tolpuddle Martyrs who founded a “Friendly Society” in the Dorset village of Tolpuddle in the 1820s. The Martyrs were a group of Methodist lay preachers who objected to cuts in the subsistence pay of agricultural workers. They established a “Friendly Society” (a fore-runner of modern trade unions) and organised a strike against the pay cuts using the slogan,
“Christ said the labourer is worthy of his hire”.
For this they were deported to Australia.
Their Methodist Chapel in Tolpuddle is now a museum of their struggle and an annual rally is held in Tolpuddle when socialists from around the world assemble to celebrate them. Wicki provides a reasonable account of the Tolpuddle Martyrs at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs
It is often said that “socialism owes more to Methodism than to Marx”, and this is certainly true.
Although there are no formal links between Methodism and any political party, Methodists continue to be influential in the UK’s socialist Labour Party. For example, in 1997 the Methodist Synod had elected Paul Boateng as the Vice President of the Methodist Conference (i.e. the governing body of the Methodist Church in England and Wales) and he was a Member of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party. The Labour Party won the 1997 General Election so Tony Blair became Prime Minister and appointed Boateng to a Government Cabinet Office hence Boateng had to stand down as Methodist Vice-President.
The principles of socialism are adopted from Methodist Christianity so it should not surprise that socialism adopts a care for individuals (Methodists hold to a doctrine of individual salvation). Indeed, socialism is an extreme form of individualism in that it insists society should meet the unique needs of each individual as far as is possible while expecting each individual to contribute to society.
It is this form of individualism which Karl Marx summarised as being “From each according to ability and to each according to need”. This individualism is the antithesis of communism which attempts to treat everyone in the same way (but does not).
Marx had an economic theory which is known as Marxism. Some socialists are Marxist but most are not.
Importantly, Marx concluded that his economic ideas predicted collectiveism to be an inevitable outcome of industrialised society. From this he predicted that the societal nature of socialism would induce socialists to ‘evolve’ into communists. It is clear that his conclusion and his prediction have proven to be wrong.
Socialism attempts to provide the needs of individuals. I have learned from comments in WUWT threads that some Americans fail to discern the difference between “needs” and “desires”. This failure is strange because most infants learn that difference from their parents whatever the politics of those parents.
A need is something which assists the development of a person. A desire is something a person wants for personal gratification. Maximising the development of all individuals benefits everyone in a society and the society as a whole. A socialist society attempts to provide needs to each of its members and leaves the fulfilment of desires to the members.
For example, a young person may show intellectual capability for higher education (e.g. by passing exams). A socialist society attempts to provide the young person with what he needs to obtain the education. This may be in the form of a financial loan or grant. But money may not be the need – or not the only need – the young person requires. Perhaps his parents are infirm and he provides care for them. In this case, society attempts to provide the care for his parents which can release him to conduct his studies. Hence, society obtains education of all its most able potential students.
Typically, an educated person obtains higher paid employment than an uneducated person. People with high incomes can afford to pay more in taxes than low paid people. In other words, people with large incomes have more ability to pay taxes so society takes more in taxes from them to meet the costs of providing the needs of e.g. poor students.
This is NOT transferring wealth from the rich to the poor. It is assessing individual needs and abilities.
Socialism does NOT have equalisation of wealth, power and/or prestige as objectives. On the contrary, socialism has the objective of treating each person on the basis of his or her needs and abilities.
For example, when the Queen (and the Royal Family) were in difficulties during the Dianna Affair it was the socialist Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who came to her aid. Every individual’s needs are important be he/she rich, poor, powerful, weak, healthy or infirm.
However, not all needs can be met and not all contributions according to ability can be obtained.
The first problem is cost. The state of the economy sets limits on activities. Hence, the first priority of a socialist government has to be growth of the economy. And it is self-defeating to fulfil needs to a degree such that economic growth is inhibited: fewer needs will be met from a smaller economy. Similarly, taking too much tax from the rich is self-defeating. The rich emigrate if too highly taxed and, thus, society loses its most productive individuals.
The next problem is competing needs. For example, business people require minimal costs so they need freedom to operate their businesses as they desire. But disabled people need access to business premises if they are to seek employment. Should business people be allowed to operate in premises without wheelchair access to obtain their need for low costs? Or should their premises all be fitted with wheelchair access which would meet the need of disabled people to compete for jobs?
The latter example demonstrates the importance of voting to socialism. Democratic votes enable society as a whole to elect politicians whose manifestos state the balance of needs they would implement.
And politicians need fair elections. Hence, socialists set limits to the expenditure each politician may spend on electioneering. Hence, everybody has an equal chance of informing the electorate of their election campaign and objectives.
I hope this brief explanation provides sufficient introduction to the origins, principles, and conduct of socialism.
Richard
Richard,
Thank you very much for your response. I can’t yet say that I even know whether or not this answers all of my questions, but as you say, it appears to be a good introduction to your views. I appreciate your time and effort in clarifying the matter, and I’ll certainly spend some time re-reading and thinking through what you’ve said.
Mark
richardscourtney says:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for clarifying your position. All the confusion is why I prefer to label myself ‘A Civilized Human’
When you look at the Republicans (often called the “Religious Right’) you find Republican states are more generous.
By your definitions, one could almost conclude Democrats, being in favor of Big Government, are more ‘Fascist’ and Middle class Republicans, being more generous are more ‘Socialist’ and doesn’t that muddy the heck out of the waters.
I do have one nit to pick. You say
However that is not true. Socialism as you describe it grew out of Christian Altruism. And can bee seen at work her in the America with the pilgrims coming to America and and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21.
According to the governor of the colony, William Bradford,
If we go back to the bible, Jesus says:
However I prefer the Chinese Proverb:
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
That is why when my husband and I are entertaining children we emphasize the importance of LEARNING. I am happy to say that some of ‘our kids’ have actually come back years later to thank us for changing their lives by making them realize poverty is a mindset and the key out is education. And also to remind them learning is not just university but also trades like electrician or plumbing, or carpentry or auto mechanics, something academia never bothers to mention.
Gail Combs says:
August 12, 2013 at 7:33 am
richardscourtney says:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Utopian socialism began as a French philosophical movement, which spread to Britain. Aristocrat Henri de Saint-Simon coined the term “socialism” c. 1817, & Charles Fourier developed a sometimes unintentionally hilarious plan for putting the philosophy into practice.
But the cockamamie crackpot scheme can’t be tarred as totally French. Welsh industrialist & social reformer Robert Owen from 1825 actually tried to create socialist communities in the UK & US. So IMO socialism predates Tolpuddle, which does of course figure in the history of trade unionism.
Saint-Simon had fought at Yorktown, but ineptly attempted suicide when socialism failed to catch on. (Through his collaborator Comte he indirectly influenced Durkheim, an early sociologist & student of suicide.) His last work was “New Christianity”.
Gail is right that communitarianism didn’t last long in colonial America, as a matter of survival. Stealing from the indigenous people of Virginia & Massachusetts did not improve relations with the “naturals”. Socialism is based upon theft, as those with ability rarely contribute everything they produce voluntarily. So for communities larger & more closely related than a family it has never worked & can never work, although states with great natural resources or a pool of suckers from whom to borrow can muddle along for a while.
The team at Skeptical Science has been discussed in the context of the Third Reich on several occasions which they have noted on their website. http://bit.ly/15v3adY This could explain but not justify or forgive their creepy and ugly behavior.
Or perhaps I should have written that AGW activists have been discussed in that context.
richardscourtney says:
August 9, 2013 at 12:45 am
“The name-callers obviously fail to recognise that the gross misrepresentation and insult is at least equally untrue and offensive when they make it against socialist and I make it against them. Indeed, it can be said to be more offensive when addressed against socialists because Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists”
When one tribe of nutcases tries to exterminate another tribe of nutcases, does this make one of them right (wing)?
Non sequitor.
Lenin&Trotzky toppled a social democrat government in St Petersburg. Does that make them right wing?
Gail Combs and milodonharlani:
Thankyou for your posts at August 12, 2013 at 7:33 am and August 12, 2013 at 8:29 am, respectively
i.e. the respective posts at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387615
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387638
Firstly, I am grateful that you both – like Mark Bofill – have expressed rational opinions and not abuse. We can learn from each other by honestly stating our agreements and disagreements. But nobody can learn from the mud-slinging which has typified previous discussions of this subject on WUWT.
And I intend no offence by replying to both of you in this one post. I do this for clarity because you each focus on the same point; viz. whether socialism originated with the Tolpuddle Martyrs or predates them.
I agree there are examples of attempts at communism prior to the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Indeed, the earliest account of which I am aware is in the Bible (Acts 4:32-5:12), and that failed attempt was two millennia ago.
The problem you both identify with all those failed attempts at communism was their utopian nature which assumed communism was a practical possibility. But it is a utopian delusion to pretend people do not have personal desires, greed and a propensity to ‘game’ any system. The American example of “the pilgrims coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21” provides a very clear illustration of why such early attempts failed. I find it interesting that their experience is a direct analogue of the failure of the Biblical example nearly two millennia earlier when those “pilgrims” claimed to know the Bible.
However, in my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1385725
I was NOT discussing communism in any of its forms. I was discussing socialism, and as I said
Of course, various forms of communism still exist; e.g. in Cuba, Vietnam and China. But – in my opinion – they are not purely communist. None of them is socialist, and none of them attempts to be socialist; indeed, they each claim to have developed beyond socialism in their endeavour to be communist.
So, I stand by my contention that socialism originates with the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
I know of no socialist society which has failed (although different versions of socialism have differed in their success).
Additionally,I dispute the assertion of milodonharlani which says
If they gained what they have (e.g. their opportunities and/or education) from society then they are the thieves if they refuse to repay some of what they owe to society. Thieves rarely voluntarily repay what they owe.
Richard
Friends:
I write to point out that at least one nutter has failed to control his behaviour; see the daft and offensive post of DirkH at August 12, 2013 at 9:34 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387679
Richard
#1 – How is it offensive?
#2 – Do you disagree with his example? if so, please explain.
philjourdan:
I objected to the obscene post from Dirk H at August 12, 2013 at 10:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/#comment-1387679
which replied to my having pointed out that Naz1s attempted to exterminate socialists by his saying
You have replied asking
Calling socialists “nut cases” is abusive and untrue.
And it is obscene to imply that attempted genocide of socialists (or any others) is inconsequential.
Needing to have that explained demonstrates a dangerous lack of moral compass.
Also, the non sequitor is in the question. I pointed out that it is silly and offensive to claim socialists are Naz1s when the Naz1s tried to exterminate socialists. Naz1s are right wing because they claim some people are entitled to more rights than others. Their attempted genocides are one example of this.
And Dirk H asked
You have replied asking
His “example” is daft. It has no meaning and/or rational. Governments are often toppled by opponents but that says nothing about the political philosopies of those who topple governments.
I disagree with all nonsense and “his example” is ludicrous nonsense.
Richard
With all due respect Richard, calling socialists “nut cases” is not always offensive. Unless you think that by calling yourself a socialist you are immune from stupid actions and words. I hold the opposing view. What you call yourself does not exempt you from being a “nut case”.
Second, he was clearly demonstrating that the mere “attacking” of one political class does not exempt you from being in that class. He pointed out Lenin/Trotsky, but could just have easily pointed out Trotsky/Stalin (and don’t forget China’s gang of 4). In both cases, socialists attacked and killed socialists. The example is very appropriate. And if your total summation that the Nazis were right wing because “some were more equal”, I direct you again to George Orwell (1984), the old Soviet Union, and the current North Korea. We can debate it if you like, but to dismiss it out of hand is disingenuous.
I have yet to see any right wing manifesto that dictates some people are more equal than others. So while that plank of the Nazi platform is not in and of itself left wing, I would need some evidence that it is right wing. Monarchical yes. But I do not see Prince Charles as a right winger.