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
John Carter says:
March 3, 2014 at 7:53 am
At least Nick Stokes is, unlike most CAGW mongers, usually polite.
For that he deserves some respect.
——————————————————————–
That is a rare trait from the warmist believers. There are a few who will carry on a good debate without resorting to personal negatives. Not many though out there, though.
A long time ago, I told Nick Stokes that I no longer considered his input worth response, yet here I am… naively posting as if Nick is merely wrongheaded. Nick, if you are reading this, I honestly believe that Josh’s cartoon captures the essence of how I view your machinations. I think that our esteemed host is right, that you are a paid troll and that highflight56433 @ur momisugly March 3, 2014 at 8:29 am nailed your Nic. I also disagree with those who still consider you to be honest, as you’ve made too many posts where your position is untenable and you know it, yet knowing the truth of things, you make your arguments, anyway. You aren’t fooling anyone.
@Anthony
…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
Hmm… Mr McIntyre said “..you are now starting to become dishonest…” in the context of a discussion about Mann’s methods, in which Nick was putting the best light possible on Mann’s work, while simultaneously interpreting Steve’s work in the worst light. It was a complaint that Nick was showing extreme partiality – as, of course – he always does. Testing the limits, as it were. But I don’t think partiality in this instance is to be disproved of.
I find that Nick does a good job of subjecting anti-agw arguments to a searching examination. For that, a little hatred and extremism is a really good thing. No supporter of McIntyre’s would be able to bend over backwards to find a hole as Nick is doing, and that really ensures that AGW positions are watertight. It would be a shame if Nick was discouraged from making his (hugely partial) comments…
Nick is fine.
But what is the point in defending the Hockey Stick and criticizing Steve McIntyre’s analysis of it.
An objective person would have seen through this mess long ago and would not be defending it.
M Courtney says: March 3, 2014 at 8:16 am
Inre Alinsky’s rule #5…
All’s fair in love and war…and this, my friend, is decidedly not love.
Nick Stokes is definitely the Teflon Don of climate discussion. I have zero respect for him, politeness not withstanding. He has been shown to be wrong on countless occasions, but just prods on as if it never happened.
Anyone following the discussions over the years both here and CA know the guy is trying to sell a dead parrot. In my view his tactics is the epitome of dishonesty.
At times, I’ve wondered if Nick Stokes has an even deeper agenda- that he does what he does in an effort to completely unveil the faulty logic and thin reasoning of the nasty efforts of the CAGW proponents. In other words, is Nick Stokes an empire- hacker? Is he devoted not to theft, or malice, but to discovering the flaws in the enviro- based attempt at control over mankind? ( I know,it’s a stretch… it’s even kind of like an argument Nick would make- wholly unsupported by apparent facts…)
Read the linked discussion at CA where Steve M calls Nick out for being dishonest. Nick doesn’t even defend his statements the accusation, but rather ties up his limbs in more knots, aka obfuscate. That is not what honest people do; they acknowledge their error and concede the debate at some point.
Nick is a AGW ideologue, a defender of the indefensible, not one that is searching for truth.
OT:
Did anyone else notice that Great Lakes ice coverage is >90%?
resistance says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:28 am
OT:
Did anyone else notice that Great Lakes ice coverage is >90%?
__________________________
So is my town- we’re at about 99% ice coverage.
There is a lovely South African word for people who think they are so clever no one can tell they are conning, or attempting to con, everyone about them. Those with a functioning BS detector are simple ignored. The word is ‘clevah’.
Clevah, noun, someone who thinks they are so much smarter than those around them they can pull the wool over their eyes at will, often for the purpose of swindling but also for feeding a sense of superiority. Plural, ‘Clevahs’. Synonym: con artist of an intellectual or practical type.
There are a couple of clevahs who hang around WUWT and who engage in obfuscation and thread-jacking simply because it is fun to see if they can get away with it. Sincerity is obviously not a major part of the game. One practical use of such behavior is to get a feeling for how well your opponents can explain their position. Holes in logic or fact can be exploited at other sites where comforting arguments can be created to support the morale of the catastrophists.
Because CAGW relies to a great extent for its success as a meme on the ignorance of the general public, polite trolling for arguments and sowing seeds of doubt about the veracity of proper science may prolong the CO2-heat-thing for another year or more, bringing temporary benefit to those with their hooks in the public trough.
I don’t know if his name is real, but his arguments are not and he knows it. He is not a playah, he is a clevah who ties himself in knots.
Crispin in Waterloo…: says: March 3, 2014 at 9:33 am
Interesting. Never having been interested enough to pursue it, I’ve often thought this to be an element (if not THE element) that motivates the tin foil hat crowd.
Alan Robertson says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:32 am
resistance says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:28 am
OT:
Did anyone else notice that Great Lakes ice coverage is >90%?
__________________________
So is my town- we’re at about 99% ice coverage.
—————————————————————————————–
I think North America is somewhere > 80% ice coverage at the moment. (Snow is just a form of naturally occurring shaved ice)
JM VanWinkle says: “Sometimes I think RH Nick is disingenuous, sometimes I think he is just wrong…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….”
After observing the Stokes for a long time, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two of him. One is intelligent, sincere (mostly) and sometimes even useful. The other is the complete opposite, making idiotic knee-jerk statements in defense of the indefensible, and hijacking threads in the service of trolldom, leaving the other Nick Stokes the task of turning his dog’s breakfast of an argument into something remotely sensible. Often, this is impossible, too deep a hole having been dug.
This is the first time, in my experience, that Nick has not hijacked a thread:)
I don’t know who Nick Stokes is. Given what I’m reading here, I think the cartoon would be more effective if Mr. Stokes’s name were removed from it, and it were used instead to reference any circuitous and illogical argument no matter who does the arguing. Sometimes that person above is me. (Is there a feminine version?)
Stokes sounds like a nice guy, judging from the comments here. Perhaps his objections (even if they are convoluted) will sharpen the minds of his opponents, so cherish your gadfly. In any case, you’ve at least brought him some publicity and the old saying goes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. I hope Mr. Stokes can make the most of it and get a hearty laugh as well from his caricature.
For my money, though, if indeed he argues the political ideas without malice — he deserves an award. There’s so few these days who do that, you know!
First time I’ve heard of him. Glad I have the “handle”. Like other “media noise” in my life, I can turn the filter on and rid myself of it. Anthony, yet ANOTHER service you have done us!
Crispin in Waterloo where it is -24 C this sunny March morning says: March 3, 2014 at 9:33 am
‘Clevah…’ I think you could be on to the source of this knotty problem.
‘Kleva’ is Bislama pidgin for ‘a traditional magician, seer, prophet or sorcerer’.
From ‘Man Belong Mrs Queen’ (sic.) about Tanna where people worship the Duke of Edinburgh (an excellent book).
A plausible hypothesis for the provenance of the “Nick Stokes” comments is the computer program called SCigen, which is credited with generating at least 120 peer reviewed, published papers comprised of vaguely scientific sounding gibberish. The number 120 is the number that were reported to have been withdrawn by the hoodwinked journals (and presumably reviewers who did not take their responsibility very seriously). A link is at http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763.
This hypothesis is consistent with politeness, lack of clear connectivity, indefatigability, etc. It would also defeat google searches for other occurrences since it presumably draws from random distributions to connect sentences and words. Thus Nick may not be a he or a she, but instead an it.
You folks are not asking the correct questions to dear Nick. People are much more, IMO, honest, when you know their identity. Unfortunately for Nick, I’m pretty good at that stuff
So lets work with the following assumptions:
Nick says he is an Australian scientist, but not a climate scientist.
He says he is located in
Location Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
However his blog is called Moyhu. well Moyhu is a small town in North East Victoria, Australia. It is situated approximately 2.5 hours’ drive from Melbourne.
The source if his koala picture is from a server in California.
He is pro AGW
He is a plodder, polite, donated to a moderator’s funeral.
If he is in California, he likely donates to things he supports. Perhaps politicians, which must be disclosed most of the time via publi records.
(My guess is white male between 45 – 65 years old, but of course, this profile will be massaged as I progress)
Bearing time constraints I should be able to find who Nick is. I have started with much less in my profiling work.
Seems to me like he should be entitled to the same respect he shows others.
Juan Slayton says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:56 am
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
: > )
Of course! Change the title line to “IRS Regulations” or simply “IRS Reg” and it would go viral.
Not that someone else couldn’t have that name, but…
“Nicholas “Nick” Stokes is a fictional character on the CBS crime drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Stokes is portrayed by George Eads and appears in the majority of episodes.” Wikipedia
On the other hand, one could note with some justice that I tend to sympathize with trolls in the first place. 🙂 I like to fight and I don’t mind the smell so much. I’m probably like one of those darn annoying CAGWer’s going on about bio diversity, except with me it’s blog bio diversity. You’ve got to watch out for the environment and protect the gadflies and the trolls because they help breakdown and decompose the B.S. that tends to pile up in the corners, yadda yadda yadda, otherwise echo chamber sterile boring, blah blah blah, yeah, ok Mark give it a rest.
But I can’t help it. I think there should be a proper field of study; trolls, tactics, and habitats. I should probably start my own blog and call it the trollhole or something. Except what self respecting troll would visit such a site.
oh well.
Within a reasonable degree of probability, I have found him. Not difficult to do at all. Seems legit. My opinion is that he doesn’t need to be paid: it’s genuine interest. He may troll, but I doubt he gets paid. If Anthony wants him, let me know and I will send him my result.
About a year ago I concluded he is a paid troll and that “Nick Stokes” is not a true name — it stands for “nickname who stokes energy-wasting combat in the deniers’ forums”, I reckon.