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.
So who is it that they’re depicting as the wicked witch of the west? http://www.sksforum.org//images/a11g0n3/Monkeys.jpg
Ric Werme says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:38 am
“Hey, a11g0n3 is leet-speak for allgone. Oh Lord, there be idiots over there.”
He wanted to call it “recycle bin” first but then he tried to be original.
My-oh-my.
None of this surprises me. The increasingly ill-named SkepticalScience site draws a motley crew of neurotic extremists to it as surely as a flame attracts flying creatures of the night.
One of those night-creatures is Dana Nuccitelli who now pens an environment blog for the mighty Guardian newspaper in which he habitually spews out vitriol at those who dare question the ‘coming of the loud’
His blogs attract a lot of interest, not all of it welcome, and despite heavy censorship of posts he can’t (yet?) control the ‘Recommend’ button.
‘Contrarian’ posts regularly attract many, more votes than those who share his views.
He is learning, however, and his most recent post is attracting a much greater number of recommends, and earlier, from those of his ilk than previously.
Perhaps he’s sent out a rallying call to his supporters to do battle with those pesky ‘contrarian Recommenders!
In this post he is aided and abetted by one of his buddies, Andrew Dessler, whose work is featured regularly at the SkS site. Together they turn their baleful gaze upon Dr Tamsin Edwards NAS (Not a Sceptic) who had the temerity to bring a bit of respect and reason (and in a Guardian blog to boot)to the climate debate.
This extract from Dessler’s diatribe may confer a flavour of the post.
(Dr Edwards writes:)
“”much climate skepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence.” She certainly may believe this, but it’s wrong.”
For those of those with a strong stomach here’s the link:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/06/climate-change-scientists-moral-obligation
Anyone who likes clicking that ‘irritating’ Recommend button, to show support for those whose views you agree with, is welcome to join me over there.
If you believe in ‘One Mouse, One Vote’ then exercise that right (Script Kiddies are NOT welcome)
Eric Simpson says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:38 am
“response (I liked the terminology he used, which I’ll make bold), a comment in which ‘Rob’ later had a kind of gibbering ineffectual counter response:”
Rob sounds like Rob Honeycutt, a pal of Nuccitelli, maker of purses in California. Diana and he once appeared in tandem on notrickszone to break our resistance with clever warmist rethoric.
Anthony
Sparticans – Only 500:1 odds – not bad.
Gimli: “Certainty of death, *small* chance of success… What are we waiting for?”
Better yet, when right is on your side,
See the Unbeatable Batallion in Chuck Girard, Soldiers of the Lion
Go route them!
And “poof” they’re gone again.
Looks like they finally figured out how to move the images out of webspace on the server.
If Willis’ letter was “creepy and sexist,” it is only because the PC Police have declared it so. No ordinary American accepts the views of the politically correct. Those views are pushed upon on us by the Leftists among our ruling class who wish fervently that ordinary Americans could be replaced with other more malleable folk. Doubt what I say? Then answer one question. Why does every college in the US, no matter how small or insignificant, have a Diversity Dean funded by the taxpayer dime?
I got most of the images before the two folders were cleansed.
For me most interesting were two groups of images, bars*.jpg and figure*.jpg. Both sets of charts go up to 2011. The first set shows that around 30% of authors took ‘no position’ on AGW. The second set shows that when abstracts are analysed only 30% of authors ‘endorse’ AGW. These seem to contradict the 97% claim.
Who cares what these poisonous little reptiles think? Just deny them the oxygen of publicity.
Anthony:
I would not put up a gallery.
Keep tracking their attempts to hide the images. It is more revealing.
milodonharlani:
Interestingly, there was a picture at this link:
http://www.sksforum.org/images/user_uploaded/skstroopers_marked.jpg
But unfortunately, the link is broken now. Hopefully somebody scraped all the images and will upload them. In the meantime, the name of this picture will have to suffice.
REPLY: it is added now to the images at the end of the post, refresh to see – Anthony
RoyFOMR says:
August 6, 2013 at 10:55 am
—————-
Just my opinion, and as always I acknowledge I could be dead wrong:
I’m not wasting my time engaging on blogs by Nuticelli and Abrahams. Those guys will openly state the skeptic opinion should be ignored and minimized as far as possible. Assuming the Guardian is interested in a lively discussion with lots of comments, they’re going to have to post more blog articles by people who invite discussion if they want my participation.
Let Dana and Abrahams have their echo chamber, I say.
skstroopers_marked and herrcook and scooterboy1 2 & 3 are just puzzling beyond belief. however, why ever they were created, why oh why would they have those handing around
The dudes at SKS probably pictured themselves as Climate Nazis–similar to “grammar Nazis”–trying to get rid of those pesky Climate Deniers.
Too bad their silliness has managed to expose themselves as being anything but skeptical.
Creepy is more a state of mind and one of those strange words more appreciated by those to whom it applies. Boring being another such
Ron Manley;
The second set shows that when abstracts are analysed only 30% of authors ‘endorse’ AGW. These seem to contradict the 97% claim.
>>>>
Those would be VERY interesting to see!
Mark Bofill August 6, 2013 at 11:17 am
I always enjoy and learn from your CIF (Comment Is Free in the Guardian) replies and appreciate that you’re a braver man than me for going into the Donkey’s Den and penning your thoughts.
The more that people suspend their distaste, go to those blogs and see your always respectful and sensible comments and compare them with the subsequent spittle-flecked responses of some, the better.
It was the ill-temper and intolerance in such places that first piqued my interest. I owe my journey from being a mild believer into a confirmed climate sceptic. I owe these people a huge debt of gratitude.
Clicking the ‘Recommend’ button may be a meaningless gesture but it has a purpose or at least it has for me.
Firstly, it allows me to show my appreciation for those whose opinion strike a positive chord and, secondly, it annoys the Dickens out of some of the wild-eyed denizens who squat, and blog, there!
thisisgettingtiresome says:
August 6, 2013 at 11:33 am
“Creepy is more a state of mind and one of those strange words more appreciated by those to whom it applies. Boring being another such”
You’re right. Wrong word. Totalitarian is much better.
Has it come to this?
Self projection? First we had Nuccitelli taking oil money and now these Nazi ‘denier’ images. What next, tobacco? Oh wait, I covered that before with Al Gore when he chopped, shredded and sold tobacco. What about coal? Are CRU took cash from power generation companies. What about dung?
Willis sexist, creepy? I had to check. There are a lot of guys who can’t help themselves, and have to make irrelevant remarks about a good-looking woman. Initially I carelessly thought that that’s what Willis had done. But it’s not the case–writing to Marcia McNutt Willis mentioned her looks as a possible factor making it difficult for her to get honest feedback about her ideas or actions. And since his letter is ostensibly aimed at giving her advice on improving the magazine Science, his comments are quite relevant.
That said, I wouldn’t have gone there. No matter how relevant the remarks, in our adversarial culture not only would Willis’s opponents not get his point, the would deliberately refuse to see his point because of the wonderful opportunity to call him names. It’s not always prudent to say everything that’s true.
RoyFOMR –
Thanks. 🙂 Yeah, I’ll engage if the blog article is reasonable or by someone reasonable like Tasmin Edwards or Warren Pearce.
Well, that was my theory anyways. I knew nobody there was going to be persuaded about much of anything, but I hoped that maybe demonstrating decent conduct and good faith in discussion might count for something with some readers.
I do approve comments over there, but I still suspect engaging people who actively campaign to have discussion with skeptics halted is a mistake.
Regards
But surely all good Climate Scientists leave their ‘dirty laundry’ in a folder called “Censored back to 1400AD”…
davidmhoffer
You can see the files at:
http://www.sliderules.info/temp/default.html