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
I agree with the comment above: while I usually disagree with Nick’s arguments, he is almost always polite – even whilst being severely outnumbered – and that places him heads-and-shoulders above most of those arguing for the AGW hypothesis.
Sherry Moore says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
“Within a reasonable degree of probability, I have found him.”
Sherry, have you learned nothing from this blog? We demand numbers here. Where are your error bars? How certain are you? 90%? 95%? 97%?
To paraphrase Marx, we have standards here. And if you don’t like them, we have others.
He used to comment here regularly, but after Climate etc. began he left us be.
I doubt if he’s paid; but maybe he works for a warmist-leaning organization that lets him use some of his work time blogging.
geran says:
March 3, 2014 at 1:47 pm
Egads, no. Either our ideas win because they are correct, or not at all. Censorship has no place in scientific discussions.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“For him [speaking of Stokes], truth is immaterial, as long as he doesn’t have to admit that he is wrong. This is not innocent behavior. It’s not funny or cutesy. It is damaging and destructive.”
M Courtney says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:02 pm
“But I still want to hear from Nick Stokes. He argues his case well. Whether for money or conviction doesn’t matter to me.”
>>>>>
Some folks just love to bathe in lies.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm
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.
Dodgy Geezer says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:01 am
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.
Nick is doing his best to push policies that he knows hurt, impoverish, and even kill the poor. You can rub his tummy and blow in his ear all you want, you can say he deserves respect and we shouldn’t poke fun at him.
Willis:
People say all the same things about me because I am a sceptic and I promote the use of science over rhetoric… Being a sceptic means that I’m hurting the poor and killing babies — just because I am a sceptic
I am trying hard to see the difference. So, what’s the big deal?
Shovel-ready.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:28 pm
“Censorship has no place in scientific discussions.”
>>>>>>
Yup.
Dodgy Geezer says:
March 3, 2014 at 8:01 am
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.
Hm, “the internet never forgets”… I read once his arguments and that was enough for me:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/court-ruling-on-mannati-case/
That does not look misguided to me but rather like a lawyer trying to find an escape route for “his” client, not as someone who tries honestly to say a fair opinion.
Lol – when re-reading the old link I just posted above, I found this comment from Lucia (Comment #94422) :
“If Nick doesn’t see this as appearing to agree… welll… okey-dokey. But I think one has to twist themselves into a pretzel to not read this as appearing to agree. “
– – – – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
I am also enjoying my retirement. Viva to retirement.
Glad you appeared here on this post of Josh’s cartoon of you! Maybe you can get a hand signed copy with an note from him addressed to you? I would.
When I am at a blog where you are commenting, I almost always read your comments. I don’t recall ever actually agreeing with your premises, conclusions or arguments. I must say that you often create oblique interesting points and some surprising tidbits of objective clarity . . . but I often find they are not focused on the relevant thrust of what ‘on the surface’ you are arguing.
Cheers to the idea that “A free and open rational society is a very intensely argumentative place”
John
I fear we are only feeding the narcissist.
If the subject were a “Spawn” character, he would be “The Obfuscator”.
@Willis Eschenbach says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm
“…
He’s doing his best to cast honest men as liars, and liars as honest men.
…”
Well said Willis!
Quandry: how does Mr. Stokes hijack a thread about himself?
Subsitute Stokes for Obama and Putin for Mann
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f3515513%5fAOxUimIAAAKqUxT1AgAAAJG0i2E&pid=2&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=yahoomail
John, let me ask your opinion on a subject, the subject being “Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics”
Do you have any qualms in engaging with another poster who does not *agree* to the same set of (formal or informal) ‘ground rules’ as the balance of the posters in debate (on any given internet forum)?
Every one of us has, at some level, a sense of right and wrong, a sense of what is valid or invalid, and this would seem to be at the ‘heart’ of this “Nick Stokes (controversy and dissent)” issue … it is almost as if (to many in the audience here) as if the senior Demon (Screwtape) or his nephew (Wormwood), the Junior Tempter (albeit at a later date when he has acquired more experience) had stepped onto center stage (and so is born the “devil’s advocate” concept) in the theaters in which Nick appears.
Intellectually honest tactics – There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
On the flip side, according to the essay in the link above written by John T. Reed there are 54 Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics, including these first eleven:
1. Name calling
2. Changing the subject
3. Questioning the motives of the opponent
4. Citing irrelevant facts or logic
5. False premise
6. Hearsay
7. Unqualified expert opinion
8. Sloganeering
9. Motivation end justifies dishonest means
10. Cult of personality
11. Vagueness
… and 43 more …
PS. There is also this, from the story The Devil and Tom Walker – “Old Nick“, a colloquialism for the devil as indicated by the name of the character in the story.
.
Peter Miller says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:28 pm
But most important of all, Nick Stokes is an anagram of Coke Stinks.
=============
1. Socket Sink
2. Socket Skin
3. Sockets Ink
4. Sockets Kin
5. Cokes Stink
6. Cokes Knits
7. Coke Stinks
geran says:
March 3, 2014 at 1:47 pm
As Willis makes such good points, maybe Stokes should be disallowed at sites like this….
Sorry, we cannot do that. ☺ I think he is a mathematical genius. Check out his site which gives me the most accurate 95% statistically significant warming numbers here:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D
Perhaps we can just ‘ban’ him from entertaining (having any contact with) logic or reason then?
/mild sarc
.
Nick is a hair splitter. If you split a hair fine enough eventually you end up with something that isn’t hair. It is sweat or shampoo or dandruff or oil or wax, but not hair.
So Nick takes an enormous pile of BS. As big as the earth. And he keeps on splitting it finer and finer until all that is left is a single atom of gold, or maybe only the electron from an atom of gold, or maybe even less than that. At which point he proclaims, “see I told you it was gold”.
wbrozek says March 3, 2014 at 5:34 pm
I think he is a mathematical genius.
=========
The term BS Savant comes to mind. As in BS Baffles Brains.
Um sorry Nick next time don’t leave your email address on your blog. Run it in the correct tool and you are outed.
Sherry, my identity has never been a secret. I have even, on request, pointed Anthony to a site with a photo..
– – – – – – – – –
_Jim,
That is a great question.
Before, I answer, please note I only very very briefly scanned the content at the link you included.
My answer is intellectual integrity is the basis of my answer.
One part of my answer is if a person is intellectually honest then hell yes I want to debate with them if the context and content of the subject suits me.
If the person is of unknown integrity, then still hell yes . . . engage if the context and content of the subject suits me.
If the person turns out to be mixed bag of integrity, then still hell yes to continue debate if the context and content of the subject suits me; because the subject is my concern not the person is the overriding value to me.
If the person is previously known to be completely lacking in intellectual integrity, it depends on what his/her philosophical base is that determines if I want to debate with him/her. If the philosophy is one which I think needs exposure as irrational then it is important to debate to expose that. If the philosophy is one that is rational then it wouldn’t be bad to have a debate to figure out the root cause of the person’s integrity issues; to figure it out due to curiosity. If the person’s philosophy is just a random collection of popular slogans . . . then hell no I do not want to debate with the person.
NOTE: Don’t you think a part of debating here is the profound love of it? I do. And WUWT is a great venue in which to do it.
As a parting thought, need to go over as to what intellectual integrity is. My thought is it has to do with an integrated approach and process as opposed to a disintegrated ones.
John
Alan Robertson says:
March 3, 2014 at 9:04 am
“Nick, … You aren’t fooling anyone.”
Oh, he’s fooling Legions. Dontchaknow?
The question ought to be: “Does he dull your blade, or sharpen it?”