Yes, why DOES John Cook of 'SkepticalScience' and the 97% have to use identity theft in his 'research'?

If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.

A WUWT reader writes via email:

I thought I might ask you for your comment on this before I rush to judge John cook.

The Reference Frame: Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man

Specifically, I’m curious:

1) Why john would wish to post comments anywhere under any circumstances using another persons name?

2) How many other times has he done this?

3) Does he intend to do this again?

Thanks for your time.

This isn’t a brush away issue that he can ignore, as Dr. Lubos Motl found out yesterday, John Cook has been using the name of Dr. Lubos Motl to post comments that Dr. Motl has NOT written.

Dr. Motl writes:


Today, one hour ago, was the first time when I was seeing these pages but interestingly enough, you may find lots of things over there posted by Lubos_Motl. And this Lubos_Motl happens to use the e-mail address jc@sks… and the same IP addresses as another, less prolific participant of those discussions, John Cook! ;-)In the first thread – including comments about the possible influence of the Sun on the hockey stick and exchanges about a planned alarmists’ letter to Anthony Watts analyzing the meaning of the word “denier” – we read:

John Cook: … If a few more agree with the idea of this blog post (noting it won’t directly engage Watts or even mention him, it’ll be a general discussion post) and the direction I propose we go with the d-word issue, I’ll have a crack at writing it over the next day.

EDIT: sorry, accidentally posted this under my Lubos_Motl username, sorry for any confusion 🙁

Tim Curtis: would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl. There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name. Further, it is his name, and therefore one you are not entitled to use.

Rob Honeycutt: John… You freak me out every time Lubos Motl’s name pops up!

John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.

For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you 🙂

EDIT: one of the conditions now has 10 comments, so only 3 more threads (with 2 of them only requiring one more comment). So Lubos very close to being put to bed 🙂

EDIT: only one more thread to go…

Minutes before this September 26th, 2011 commitment, we were reading these comments in the other threads:

Lubos_Motl: Ocean acidification is a strong sign that humans are raising CO2 levels. But it’s also a grave environmental concern as the acidification is causing damage to coral reefs which are some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Adding insult to injury, the increased CO2 causes warming which is causing further damage to the coral reefs through bleaching. Corals provide both evidence for man-made global warming and concern over its impacts.


Lubos_Motl: The past tells us much about what our future holds in store for us. In the past, when the Earth was warmer than it is now, sea levels were metres higher than current levels. So just on the sea level front alone, we can expect severe impacts on the vast majority of the human population living on coastlines. The past also describes these concerning feedback events, where warmer temperatures lead to further release of greenhouse gases. We’re already seeing this start to happen in the Arctic, with methane bubbling from the permafrost and methane clathrates. The past paints a vivid picture of our future and it’s a picture of great concern.

Well, you can figure out that these paragraphs were written by a scientifically illiterate imbecile rather than Luboš Motl – because you are a TRF reader – but what about others? In Parts 2–4 of the other thread, the same Lubos_Motl wrote lots of other things:

Lubos_Motl: Cherry picking: What this post fails to mention is other factors also affect climate. Urban heat island also causes nights to warm faster than days. Ozone depletion causes the stratosphere to cool. This supposed evidence is just cherry picking supporting evidence and hiding the rest.

The article also cites ocean warming as evidence, and yet ocean warming has stalled since 2003. As more than 90% of global warming is going into the oceans, which means ocean heat is the best measure for global warming, the conclusion is obvious – humans can’t be causing global warming because global warming isn’t happening!

Good point re cosmic rays. The simplistic argument that the sun can’t cause global warming only looks at one possible link between sun and climate – total solar irradiance. But the relationship between the sun and our climate is much more complicated than that, as the solar magnetic field modulates the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth. This affects cloud formation which also interacts with our climate in complicated ways, with lower clouds causing cooling and higher clouds causing warming. A prettily coloured graphic created for young children doesn’t even begin to capture the complexities of our climate system.


Lubos_Motl: It’s hilarious that this article cites Usoskin 2005. That paper concludes that over the last few decades, the correlation between sun and climate breaks down. Therefore, recent warming must have some other cause. This article’s own sources debunk its assertion that the sun is causing global warming!

The full truth about the percentage of CO2 is that over 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, both gases which are not greenhouse gases. So the fact that CO2 is a small percentage is irrelevant to the strength of its greenhouse effect. It’s like holding an election in a town of 1000 people where only 10 people vote. They may only be a small number but each individual has a significant effect. It’s the same with CO2. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it – what do measurements find? Both planes and satellites measure heat as it escapes to space and both find a big bite out of the outgoing heat, at precisely the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat. The greenhouse effect is an empirically observed fact.


Lubos_Motl: Good point re the co2 lag. Not only was co2 higher in the past, it also lags temperature, showing temperature drives co2, not the other way around. The ice core record is not kind to the warmist agenda.

Good point re the number of scientists. The alarmists like to boast about there being 2500 scientists who wrote the IPCC report. But the number of skeptic scientists is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater than the number of alarmist scientists. Not only there is still a debate, the weight of opinion leans heavily towards the skeptic point of view. This article presents the compelling evidence that explains why.

John Cook: Note re Lubos Motl: I won’t use the name Lubos Motl or any of our names in the final webpage used in the experiment (so the last two comments by Rob and Steve won’t be used, I’m afraid).

Full story: http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html#more

To me, this is the most telling comment:

John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.

This is just unbelievable; “the UWA experiment”. Think about what this refers to: University of Western Australia. This is where Cook launched his career defaming climate skeptics by helping Stephan Lewandowsky in designing/running a gussied up poll that was never actually posted on climate skeptic websites, that purports to give answers by climate skeptics, to be used in a paper where it is claimed that climate skeptics are believers that “the moon landing was faked“. What sort of “experiment” was John Cook running by stealing the identity of Dr. Lubos Motl, and writing comments under his name?

Cook is a man who has co-authored two papers about how climate skeptics are not to be trusted because in essence, “they are crazy conspiracy theorists”. Yet, John Cook, now of the University of Queensland after leaving his connections at UWA, has so little moral integrity that he’ll post comments on his own website (the SkS forum, see below) as a skeptical scientist, such as Dr. Lubos Motl?

Who else has John Cook impersonated? Has he encouraged his team to do this? These are valid questions that need answers.

This may be actionable, not just to get his latest smear paper retracted, like the first one was, but legally actionable. And maybe it’s time, because quite frankly I’m getting tired of this crap coming from this band of zealots in Australia who seem to have no scruples or integrity. Identity theft of another scientist’s name to post fake comments is just beyond the pale.

This isn’t the first time Cook and crew has done something reprehensible like this. Readers may recall he and his team of moderator zealots have been caught changing user comments after the fact:

On “Skepticalscience” – Rewriting History

This is why Skeptical Science has it’s own special category on the links at WUWT’s sidebar:

Unreliable*

Skeptical Science – John Cook

* Due to (1) deletion, extension

and amending of user comments,

and (2) undated post-publication

revisions of article contents after

significant user commenting.

Then there’s all the questionable tactics Cook used to create a faked 97% consensus: Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

May I suggest Mr. Cook, that your next fake persona name be: What. A. Slimeball.

UPDATE: Since some commenters have run astray in their thinking, assuming incorrectly that this lab exercise was related to the “moon landing” and “fury” papers, perhaps this addition will help clarify the issue. I sometimes forget readers don’t keep up on the vagaries of the SkS underworld as much as I have.

These comments were from the SkS private “subscribers only” forum, where you had to be on the “inside” to be a part of it. So, these were not public comments like we see on WUWT, but rather a discussion with his network of sycophants helping with his “research”.

The point that needs to be driven home is that rather than getting real comments, he had his buddies (and himself) write faked up comments from their own perspective as “fake skeptics”, and then analyzed those for his research experiment. Whether the results of that experiment made it into any published research is unknown.

Essentially, he and his friends made up pre-biased data, by “assuming” they knew what a skeptic comment might look like, and that’s an issue of integrity. What we see is an attempt to ascertain if a few skeptical comments are influential enough to undo the “good” of an alarmist post. That’s where “noble cause corruption” is at work. It seems he wants to find excuses to explain why everyone should censor skeptics out of the conversation, something he’s actively pushing on CNN right now.

Therefore the important question is: did he get the required ethics approval to make up his own data for that lab exercise?

See:

http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/staff/human-research/approvals

The mendacity of creating commentary from your own group to use it to analyze and then label another group is truly mind boggling.

If readers are going to register complaints, they need to do so in this context, not from the standpoint of this being about public comments faked up by Cook, that remains to be determined, yet given the behavior, we would be correct to look for such instances. Readers should take care not to make complaints to universities that this incident shows that Cook faked public comments, as inaccurate complaints will be ignored and make it more difficult for other complaints to get a hearing.  Until further details become available, it is probably best that readers hold off anyway.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
422 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 23, 2015 10:46 am

utterly speechless

Ted G
Reply to  Brian Cooper
July 23, 2015 12:48 pm

Not speechless, this behaviour by a rabid huxster is totally expected from the likes of John Cook by stealing the identity has proven his morals are that of a cesspool dweller. John Cook you sir are a liar a cheat a thief a totally dishonest man, you don’t have an decedent bone in you body you are a mirror image of the data fraud liars and cheats that live in your shadowy world of grant seekers.

Menicholas
Reply to  Ted G
July 23, 2015 2:43 pm

I second that, Ted G.

Nylo
Reply to  Ted G
July 24, 2015 2:12 am

+1

average joe
Reply to  Ted G
July 24, 2015 12:21 pm

His fan club includes barack obama. Need I say more?

Auto
Reply to  Brian Cooper
July 23, 2015 3:06 pm

A brief query.
Is this legal?
Or – I am no lawyer – illegal?
If the latter – might this be a civil tort – libel?
Or a criminal offence – perhaps malfeasance; misrepresentations; demanding money with menaces [although hat might fit every watermelon under the Sun . . .)?
Auto – asking because I would like to know what to call these shameless carp-imitators.

Auto
Reply to  Auto
July 23, 2015 3:06 pm

Carp – apologies: my orthography radar is a bit off.
Auto.

mike
Reply to  Auto
July 23, 2015 6:59 pm

Don’t know if it helps any, but I call ’em “Gaia’s Yeast Infection”.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Brian Cooper
July 23, 2015 6:28 pm

What a creep. But what should one expect from a guy who likes dressing up like a Nazi?

Non Nomen
Reply to  Mickey Reno
July 24, 2015 3:19 am

Shouting, goose-stepping, raising the right arm, Gestapo and some sort of concentration camp?

average joe
Reply to  Mickey Reno
July 24, 2015 12:23 pm

You ever notice how closely john cook resembles a tasmanian devil? Just sayin…

dr_rebel
Reply to  Brian Cooper
July 23, 2015 8:43 pm

I have written to UoQ’s academic registrar (Prof. Joanne Wright) – see website for contact to alert her to this potentially damaging situation… got to do your bit to help them out,

Bloke down the pub
July 23, 2015 10:46 am

May I suggest that if John Cook is sorry, it’s sorry for having been caught red-handed.

gnome
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
July 23, 2015 10:08 pm

or perhaps it’s just being a sorry specimen that makes him sorry.

Peter Miller
July 23, 2015 10:47 am

John Cook and Michael Mann set the standard in ‘climate science’, so what else would you expect.
That 97% paper of his was such rubbish, but his PR on it was such that all the gullible politicians and ecoloons in general quickly started quoting it as gospel.
When there are no ethics, standards or moral judgement, then John Cook and his cronies stand high in place.

MichaelS
July 23, 2015 10:47 am

John Gleik should be ashamed of himself.

MichaelS
Reply to  MichaelS
July 23, 2015 10:48 am

Sorry, should read Cook.

gmeyers25
Reply to  MichaelS
July 23, 2015 10:55 am

I see what you did there.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MichaelS
July 23, 2015 2:19 pm

Birds of a feather….

David Ball
Reply to  MichaelS
July 25, 2015 1:00 pm

Birds are smarter.

davideisenstadt
July 23, 2015 10:49 am

Antony:
Just to update you and your readers, there has, as of now, been no response from the SkS team.
Thanks for bringing this to at the attention of a wider audience.
It is distressing to read the terms of derision and contempt used to refer to Dr Motl, who was an early proponent and developer of string theory…
Derision and scorn were heaped upon him by…a guy who dresses up like a nazi, and used to draw comics?
wow.

July 23, 2015 10:53 am

Seriously, why hasn’t he been
locked up?

MarkW
Reply to  wolsten
July 23, 2015 4:53 pm

Some idiots are useful.

BFL
Reply to  wolsten
July 23, 2015 8:24 pm

TRF probably feels sympathetic toward his low intellectual level:
“John Cook found a “simply clever” albeit not quite ethical (and legal?) way to raise his IQ by 60 points”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html#more

July 23, 2015 10:53 am

… and the other shoe drops for the warmist crowd.
Sad.

Gary Meyers
July 23, 2015 10:53 am

Someone should take mister Cook out behind the wood shed and [snip -mod]

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Gary Meyers
July 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Oh, come on mod, I was enjoying it up until you intervened! 😉

Sam The First
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 23, 2015 2:24 pm

Ghost, whatever you wanted to do to JC, I’m sure we’d all like to join you and do the same
I have liberal friends who are constantly quoting the 97% at me as a reason why they shouldn’t listen to anything I say on this topic.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 23, 2015 3:17 pm

Sam, I love it when the 97% paper is quoted to me. I quickly reply, “Really? Are you staking your credibility on the 97% paper? That tells me all I need to know about your ability to scrutinize a paper. Say no more.”
They usually pause and look at me with concern wondering what they just said that was so bad. I have a feeling that this forces them to think twice about using the 97% number.

oeman50
Reply to  Gary Meyers
July 24, 2015 7:49 am

Do they have woodsheds in Australia?

July 23, 2015 10:54 am

Wow! Will the U of Queensland fire this slimeball?

Paul
Reply to  Jared
July 23, 2015 11:15 am

Or promote him?

Ian H
Reply to  Paul
July 23, 2015 1:00 pm

He would need ethics approval (which he almost certainly doesn’t have) to use identity theft as a research method. A complaint by one of those whose identity was stolen to the appropriate research ethics committee should be enough to get him in serious trouble.

Jack
Reply to  Paul
July 23, 2015 2:52 pm

He is running a course on how to defeat deniers or some such vague title. So having given permission for that, he will probably be celebrated for impersonation, despite the strict plagiarism rules there.

Lazlo
Reply to  Paul
July 23, 2015 5:29 pm

Ian H has hit the nail on the head. It is also likely that Cook, by impersonation, has infringed acceptable email usage policy (he used jc@uq..). A complaint to UQ on this and the research ethics aspect should trigger an investigation, if UQ is a reputable organisation…

Aert Driessen
Reply to  Paul
July 23, 2015 7:20 pm

He’ll be offered a position at Uni NSW.

MarkW
Reply to  Paul
July 26, 2015 4:06 pm

Jack, I believe that over the last few years, UQ has given up trying to pretend that they are a reputable institution.

Rodzki of Oz
Reply to  Jared
July 23, 2015 4:07 pm

That’s a good question! As someone with two degrees from UQ (BE and MBA) I have been ashamed to be associated with them since they offered the Cook class in denier-sliming.
If they don’t sack him over this, they will sink even further in my estimations (which I didn’t think was possible).

Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
July 23, 2015 11:54 pm

Put in a complaint to the University. There is a Public Sector Ethics Act Queensland which Cook has with doubt breached. This Act applies to all Queensland Universities (mentioned in the Act), government entities and to Local Government Search for the Act and download it

David Ball
Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
July 25, 2015 1:32 pm

Whitewash or slap on the wrist. Or both. Or nothing. Aww, screw it. Can’t even be bothered to care what these idiots are up to, anymore.
I was in for the science before these numbskulls were even born. Still in for the science.
The wonder of the things we know and the wonder of all the holes in our knowledge. What is the connection? What is(are) the driver(s)? Have we even identified them all?
I find that all far more compelling than what these goobers are doing. Always will.
Apologies to the author, Anthony, and do not blame him for posting this. It is sadly necessary.
WUWT? plays an important role in calling all sides out. Keep it up.

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  Jared
July 23, 2015 10:37 pm

If the story is true they must.

benofhouston
July 23, 2015 10:54 am

It’s not that he’d do it that shocks me. Almost nothing shocks me anymore. However, that he would admit to it in a public forum, accessible to all. If I didn’t know the reputations of the people, I would have readily accused a third party of staging the whole thing. Similar to Gleik’s fake SuperVillain memo. This is just TOO MUCH. Too blatant. It staggers belief that he would be so arrogant as to post repeatedly under a fake name and then confess to it on a publicly recorded channel.
It ain’t a conspiracy if they really ARE out to get you.

Mike Jowsey
Reply to  benofhouston
July 23, 2015 5:50 pm

Ben, Cook got found out. From the orginal article:

…[Cook] was discussing things with his fellow climate warriors at the Skeptical Science Forums, a website affiliated with his SkepticalScience.COM. The website was “closed” and only accessible to the community of Cook’s friends, not publicly available at that moment, but its content became available to search engines later; the server linked to below contains a precise, bit-wise copy of the pages that Cook et al. had created. Steve [McIntyre] sent me five interesting examples of the forum pages:

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  benofhouston
July 27, 2015 4:51 am

I suppose if you think the POTUS has your back you can do whatever you like without fear of retribution.
I find this whole thing sickening but it is certainly part of a pattern in this alarmist movement.

Scott Saturday
July 23, 2015 10:55 am

Unbelievable. I’ve enjoyed his weak and often muddled circular reasoning in past ‘responses’ to skeptic arguments, but I never thought he was capable of this type of thing. He belongs on DeSmog Blog.

July 23, 2015 10:55 am

Doesn’t surprise me one bit. The length and breadth of tactics that evil people (yes, I do mean evil) are exemplified by J.Cook, Lewandowsky, M. Mann, A. Gore, Obama, Hansen, etc. Skeptic scientists should realize that this blatant evil exists among a very influential group of alarmists and that playing nice due to holding the belief that these people are convinced of the CO2 impact on climate is a losers game.

Pittzer
Reply to  kokoda
July 23, 2015 12:23 pm

Spot on!

July 23, 2015 10:56 am

Please correct name of the promary subject — he is Lubos Motl not Lubo Motls (his nickname is Lubo)
[fixed- mod]

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Psul Martin
July 23, 2015 9:45 pm

LUMO!

RD
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 24, 2015 6:48 pm

Lowest unoccupied molecular orbital, eh? )

July 23, 2015 10:56 am

Well, then you’ll like this little contribution to the discussion:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html

Harry Passfield
Reply to  TomB
July 23, 2015 12:13 pm

TomB: Hah!! I loved it! When I clicked on the link I got the site – but with a big msg saying: “We use Cookies…” I figured it was mistaken: Cookie uses us!

Reply to  TomB
July 23, 2015 12:38 pm

I read enough to decide that Cook was ‘projecting.’ Try substituting ‘alarmist’ for ‘denier’ and see how it reads.

Harvey H Homitz.
Reply to  pinroot
July 23, 2015 4:03 pm

You got it pinroot!

Travis Casey
Reply to  TomB
July 24, 2015 1:14 pm

Polar bears. Always with the polar bears! UGH.

Curious George
July 23, 2015 10:59 am

Inertia: Lying once started is difficult to stop.
It became a modus operandi of the whole alarmist movement. Then they suffer a “professional depression”.

Harold
July 23, 2015 10:59 am

You have just entered … the Twilight Zone.

Green Sand
July 23, 2015 11:02 am

I wonder who will be first to leap to his defence? The contrived justification should be wondrous to behold.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Green Sand
July 23, 2015 12:17 pm

Whatever do you mean?? The end the means…..well, doesn’t it?

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 12:18 pm

end justifies the means*

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 12:43 pm

Mike: I sometimes think that to these people, “the means justifies the end” (to be clear, they don’t care what the cause is, they just want the control over people).

JPeden
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 2:04 pm

Controllist/Totalitarian Ends vs Means, no distinction: Means = Ends = Thought Control

July 23, 2015 11:04 am

One of my brothers is a cop and he always says if they were smart, his job would be so much more difficult.
“The last point of divergence, and the one I think hasn’t really budged in the last five years, is the opinion that alarmist climate science is essentially a criminal enterprise.”
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/there-can-be-no-doubt-now/
Pointman

eyesonu
Reply to  Pointman
July 23, 2015 12:29 pm

Pointman,
Your point is well taken. RICO?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pointman
July 23, 2015 4:04 pm

Except that the criminals now have the active collusion of the authorities.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 24, 2015 2:57 am

I’d be stunned if there was any comeback on Cook.
“The sin is no longer that a scientist was wrong, because that was always a forgivable mistake and a risk you took, but that they now lie through their teeth to us while at the same time giving us the good old steady eye contact of truth. It’s deliberate, premeditated and totally without any guilt for ruthlessly exploiting the implicit trust in them.”
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/is-it-now-considered-okay-for-science-to-be-corrupt/
It’s a bad patch for science in general.
Pointman

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 27, 2015 4:59 am

Including the POTUS for crying in a bucket!

July 23, 2015 11:05 am

This has to be academic misconduct…. and massively unethical conduct!
Therefore expect UWA and Queensland to do nothing..

Resourceguy
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 11:18 am

Exactly

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 12:16 pm

Yep. They subscribe to my favourite writer’s (Keith Waterhouse) dictum: “Don’t just do something, stand there!”

Tim
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 12:19 pm

They won’t do nothing. They’ll remind him to be more careful with his scurrilous behavior in the future.

Harold
July 23, 2015 11:08 am

Does anybody know the background on the trolling quota? I’ve had my suspicions about this sort of thing, but this removes any doubt.

July 23, 2015 11:10 am

So it appears that he:
1. impersonated a scientist in order to get the quotes he wanted for his research
2. encouraged his friends to write posts providing suitable input to his research
3. impersonated other “names” in order to get the number (quota) of posts he needed for his research.
If that’s true then to me that’s falsifying results and therefore misconduct.

benofhouston
Reply to  Peter Ward
July 23, 2015 11:25 am

Even better, I’m fairly certain that it’s libel.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Peter Ward
July 23, 2015 8:27 pm

Cloning himself was pretty dumb. Doesn’t he know that too many Cooks spoil the broth?

Reply to  Louis Hunt
July 26, 2015 3:19 pm

And after constant reuse, too many soups spoil deh Cook.

Editor
July 23, 2015 11:17 am

How much do they all get paid for their crap?
Unless they say “nil”, I would not think fraud is too strong a word.

M Courtney
July 23, 2015 11:17 am

This is clearly an attempt to prove that sceptics will believe anything from their own side.
And it clearly hasn’t been published so it clearly didn’t find what was useful to Cook. Because sceptics, by definition, don’t believe anything.
He was trying to prove that Climate Sceptics are Fake Sceptics. And failed.
Or he was just trying to discredit real climate scientists – like Motl – in order to ruin their careers.
As Cook is a man who has been known to falsify research in the past (97%) and is an organiser of a way-out-the pseudoscience blog… it is possible he was just trying to commit intellectual vandalism.
This is hard to discuss without going into the spam filter as we all know it’s frau…

Gunga Din
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 2:28 pm

He trying to create the desired “virtual reality”?

Latitude
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 5:42 pm

M, impersonating someone to defravd them….is slander
..and it is against the law

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  M Courtney
July 27, 2015 5:03 am

You could spell it “frowd” we would all know what you mean.

July 23, 2015 11:20 am

Careful, he will change it to Watt instead of what. 😉

Sly
Reply to  philjourdan
July 23, 2015 11:30 am

Resolve the following formula
Cook + R =C*ook

Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 11:20 am

It’s not identity theft as such; but it is impersonation if, and only if, he represented himself as the actual and real Lubos Motl. Such is the nature of pseudonymity on the internet. Every random person has no necessary connection to their nickname.
— Jquip

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 11:25 am

yes…a nickname that happens to be lubos_motl….
random…totally random.

benofhouston
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 11:34 am

Point taken J, but there are some counterpoints
It boils down to: Cook signed another man’s full name while posting in his area of expertise. Full posts that were not obvious satires and were designed to deceive people. That is an active deception to people who are not able to discern the difference.
To compare, Mark Twain is dead, and you are not posting literary criticism or in gilded age wit. Therefore, it’s not deceptive. Or, on a ruder sense, if someone called “GoreTheFirst” comes here, declaring us all heretics that he will chop off all our heads, that would be obviously not be Al Gore. We’d laugh and go on with our lives.
However, if someone submitted a letter to the editor of the New York Times, arguing coherently that carbon markets will harm the poor even worse the climate change and signed Al Gore’s name, that would be deception and Gore would be justifiably enraged.
I may not be a lawyer, but this appears to be fairly straightforward libel.

Reply to  benofhouston
July 23, 2015 4:49 pm

Mark Twain is dead???? Aw, man, you’ve bummed me out. On a serious note, Cook is pathetic.

Jquip
Reply to  benofhouston
July 23, 2015 5:43 pm

I may not be a lawyer, but this appears to be fairly straightforward libel.

Well sure, it could be libelous. In the US that would only require that Motl show that the posts caused him economic damage. But Libel and Slander are different considerations than impersonation or Identity Theft.

DirkH
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 11:45 am

“Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 at 11:20 am
It’s not identity theft as such”
A person pretending to be Mark Twain on the Internet would say that wouldn’t she.

Rdcii
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 12:47 pm

If his intent was to show that skeptics will accept anything “from their side”, then he obviously would have been intending to represent himself as the real Lubos Motl.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 23, 2015 7:59 pm

Mine is a much better example of the grey area. I’m not Tim Allen but my first name IS Tim. I’m not trying to be Tim Allen and I dont think anyone would confuse me for him. Besides Tim the tool man isn’t Tim Allen either. Its a character Tim Allen plays.
This “Lubos Motl” impersonation case is crystal clear by comparison.

Sleepalot
Reply to  Mark Twain
July 24, 2015 12:37 pm

Aus. law is very like UK law. Uk, has a common law tort of “passing off”, that may be relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

menicholas
July 23, 2015 11:23 am

Maybe now people will be more willing to admit that some of the warmistas are straight up liars and fraudsters.
Call them what they are, and identify in plain language what they do.

TonyG
Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 12:07 pm

Won’t happen. They’ll just plug their ears and scream “D3N13R” all the louder.

Peyelut
July 23, 2015 11:23 am

Is there a CONSPIRACY involved here?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Peyelut
July 23, 2015 2:30 pm

Nah. Just a bit of Cooked up lunacy.

David Jay
Reply to  Peyelut
July 23, 2015 4:11 pm

I’ll have a plate of Conspiricy, with Ideation sauce on the side…

David Ball
Reply to  David Jay
July 25, 2015 1:48 pm

And a SLAPP , or two, with espresso for desert,…..

July 23, 2015 11:23 am

At least in Sweden, using some other persons name without written permission is considered as a severe criminal act …

menicholas
Reply to  SasjaL
July 23, 2015 11:31 am

Maybe if Cook can be lured to Sweden…

Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 11:48 am

Like that other Aussie, Assange …

Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 12:08 pm

Wouldn’t work, think Assange …
When someone is impersonating someone else, it should be illegal in many other countries, at least in any democratic country …

Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 1:12 pm

Cook didn’t commit the act in Sweden, so no go …
Regarding the Assange story,
the woman of concern was (still is?) a groupie (today well known radical feminist, with both her feet in her mouth, spewing her nonsense in Swedish media and on Twitter …() that ended up in bed with A. and discovered that another groupie (one of her closest friends!) was doing that too, during the very same period of time … So the rape claim was (still is) bogus, as she was disappointed and obviously as she left traces on the Internet that she couldn’t wipe out completely … If she did comment on how lovely it was, I can’t see how it could be classified as a rape, as she created the hole situation by letting A. live at her place during this period of time … The Swedish media has made a hype of the situation …
A. is only afraid of getting stuck in the Swedish legal system and I can’t blame him …

Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 2:12 pm

“A. is only afraid of getting stuck in the Swedish legal system and I can’t blame him …”
My understanding is that A. is afraid that Sweden would turn him over the the USA if they got their hands on him. That, my friend, is a truly frightening scenario.

Ian H
Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 9:01 pm

… she created the hole situation …

Nice description.

Reply to  menicholas
July 24, 2015 4:51 am

@ markstoval,
aggree, that’s part of our legal system and it wouln’t be the first time …
@Ian H,
Tnx!

Joe Public
July 23, 2015 11:29 am

This should be brought to the attention of “edX” for whom he is a Course Contributor, boasting of being the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland and the course leader for Denial101x.
https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/f48f9966823f4c37a47cbd1366a4fd24/

Eddie Sharpe
Reply to  Joe Public
July 24, 2015 1:48 am

Wouldn’t The Climate Communications Fellow of the UoQ seem to be the UoQ’s face of climate communications ?
How many faces does it take ?

July 23, 2015 11:33 am

You have to lie to support a lie, I don’t think there is any other method.

Eyal Porat
July 23, 2015 11:35 am

This is serious!
I think Lubos Motl must take legal actions, or someone in his behalf.
It is plain fraud.

Mike the Morlock
July 23, 2015 11:36 am

To bad Dr. Patrick J. Michaels did not have this information (cook stealing Dr. Lubos Motl.name) for his Congressional testimony. NOW that would have been fun. Maybe next time. drat, drat, drat.
michael

menicholas
July 23, 2015 11:37 am

This is not reflecting well on Lewandowsky, is it?
I would think that anyone associated professionally or otherwise with Cook had best be speaking up, and that right quick and in no uncertain terms condemning this blatant misconduct.
It may be difficult for anyone closely associated with Cook to claim ignorance.

M Courtney
Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 11:46 am

Lewandowsky – poached by the Royal Society and the University of Exeter.
The RS has seen it’s credibility shredded since Paul Nurse faked the BBC’s “Meet the Sceptics” programme. This is more of the same
As for the University of Exeter?
Nah. I can’t think of a scientific organisation in Exeter that may be corrupt and so corrupting of the university.

ChrisDinBristol
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 5:01 pm

I thought we had him here (Bristol)-to our eternal shame.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 11:50 pm

You’re right. He’s up the M5.
It’s all the same from up here there (I live in Cheltenham).

Reply to  M Courtney
July 30, 2015 6:24 am

Lewandosky poached – lovely thought, but who would make a meal of him? 😉

philincalifornia
Reply to  menicholas
July 23, 2015 11:04 pm

“anyone associated professionally or otherwise with Cook had best be speaking up”
You mean like President “97%” Obama ?

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 24, 2015 2:36 am

Poor Ed “97%” Davey, former UK Climate & Energy Change Minister, didn’t survive his first election since using the phoney consensus (not that he realised )

DirkH
July 23, 2015 11:42 am

When Nuccitelli and Rob Honeycutt pestered notrickszone for a few weeks or months, that was when the SkS kids envisioned their CO2AGW Truth Attack Superhero teams, I actually had a rather good impression of Rob.
Now, given that he was in on that identity theft “UWA experiment”, and all the rest of the SkS kiddies, I gotta revise this opinion. They are all frauds. As none of them has blown the whistle. They are all equally immoral. I wanted to say unethical but these days I think ethics is a fraudulent parody of morals for the relativist anyway.

rogerknights
Reply to  DirkH
July 23, 2015 3:29 pm

“They are all frauds. As none of them has blown the whistle. They are all equally immoral.”
Tom Curtis (not “Tim,” as the head post has it) stands out there for his willingness to say unpopular things.

July 23, 2015 11:42 am

They say certain bad behavior is only difficult the first time you do it. Soon one becomes “given to their sin”, and it becomes something one doesn’t think twice about. Finally it becomes so familiar and so much a part of one that one commits such a glaring example that one gets called on it. Apparently this hold true for “Cooking the books.”

andrewmharding
Editor
July 23, 2015 11:44 am

Cook more like Crook. It is becoming more obvious by the day that AGW “theory” is falling apart. The faithful will do anything to hide facts before Paris in December, if that involves adjusting data or impersonating scientists who disagree with AGW so be it. The end justifies the means, how many times have we heard this in history and what does it say about the people who can justify anything to promote their beliefs?

July 23, 2015 11:47 am

The ends justify their means.
There is no level of ethical behaviour they can breach as they recognize no limits.
The old truth, a fool is certain where more rational people doubt .
The purveyors of the Cataclysmic Climate Cult are idiots, hence they will continually exceed our expectations of their moral depravity.
The 5 basic laws of human stupidity by Carlo Cipolla really apply here.
Fanatics and fools harbour no doubt of the veracity of their data,no possibility that they could be mistaken and know they have the moral high ground.
Most of us have difficulty achieving such a triumphant state of certainty, what with doubt being the best tool to limit excess.
Most people learn from the things they knew for sure, that turned out to be wrong, but some others must remain convinced they are perfection personified to their bitter end.
In some cases as personified by the Team IPCC ™ and their sycophants they will be perfectly wrong all their lives.
Of course Cook will be promoted for this behaviour, he is modern academia personified, Gilbert& Sullivan comes to mind.

M Courtney
Reply to  john robertson
July 23, 2015 11:53 am

Cook’s done nothing worse than Trenberth (lose the Chinese data, that’s convenient).
Or Mann (hide the decline trick, that makes the proxies look useful).
Or Steig (let’s extrapolate the peninsular over the whole Antarctic, that looks scary).
But Cook did one thing that’s unforgivable.
He’s been caught.
He’s been caught in something that can be challenged legally and not just via pal review.

DirkH
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 12:08 pm

Well Gleick has been caught, and nothing happened to him. They’re protected, by the media, the politicians, by ALL the taxpayer money of the world.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 5:03 pm

Gleick never admitted in public to falsifying documents. Nor did he admit to identity theft in order to acquire the stolen documents. To this day he claims that they were e-mailed to him anonymously.

July 23, 2015 11:48 am

The entire leaked SkS forum is online here:
the article in question is here:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-09-23-Immortalized!.html
2011-09-25 15:36:48 Lubos Motl username
John Cook
john@skepticalscience…
123.211.208.191
Was waiting for someone to notice and freak out. I still need a handful of comments for each condition of our blogging experiment so I created a new user account, partly so it’s not confusing having comments from the “author” of the blog posts and secondly, having a Lubos comment might’ve got some attention and attracted a few SkSers into the threads (that idea didn’t pan out at all). Anyway, while I have your attention, the links for the 4 conditions are:
Warmist blog post, all warmist comments
Warmist blog post, all skeptic comments
Skeptic blog post, all warmist comments
Skeptic blog post, all skeptic comments
All I need is a few more comments in each thread, to get it up to 10 comments each, so please go in there and post a strongly pro-warmist or pro-skeptic comment to help with our experiment. Thanks!
There is another article about it here..
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-09-21-Need%20a%20handful%20of%20comments%20from%20SkSers%20for%20our%20blogging%20experiment.html
John Cook
john@skepticalscience…
123.211.208.191
BUMP: am bumping this thread, just a reminder, need about 6 more comments per condition so just need a few SkSers to get in there and engage with each other. Links below:
I’ve been conducting a psychological experiment with UWA cognitive scientists testing for the effects of blog comments on readers’ comprehension. The first stage of the experiment was live on SkS and we’ve analysed the data and found that for a warmist blog post, there was no difference in reader comprehension when the reader was exposed to all warmist comments or no comments. However, when the reader was exposed to all skeptic comments, their comprehension dropped.
So it’s officially been quantified – reading the comments threads on denier blogs will make you stupid.
Anyway, we’re now moving onto stage 2 of the experiment – they’re going to conduct a similar experiment in the lab at UWA but with a twist – they’re going to have 4 conditions:
Warmist blog post, all warmist comments
Warmist blog post, all skeptic comments
Skeptic blog post, all warmist comments
Skeptic blog post, all skeptic comments
You’ve already seen and been horrified by my hideously evil skeptic blog post. I’m now asking SkSers to perform duties even more arduous – I need you to embrace your inner-climate-denier and post skeptic comments avidly supporting the denier post. Specifically, we need 10 comments for each condition. So it only really requires a handful of SkSers going into the 4 conditions (linked above) and interact with each other, either wholeheartedly embracing and endorsing the post or vigorously criticising and nitpicking it. We will then take the 4 conditions into the lab and see what impact they have on reader comprehension, see if it confirms our first result.
Note: we’ll of course change the names in the lab experiment so your comments will be anonymous and it won’t be shown as an SkS post either.
So many thanks in advance for helping us out with our experiment 🙂
—————————————————————-
As this is done in conjunction with UWA, and Cook used a real, VERY identifiable persons name (Lubos Motl) , also someone who is an opponent of John Cook’s this should be horribly unethically for UWA.
oh look – John Cook publicly labels Lubos Motl (a respected scientist) a – Climate Misinformer.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Lubos_Motl.htm

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 12:28 pm

Good sleuthing, Barry. Shall we take bets that the whole stinking lot of them will be given a bye?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 12:34 pm

Barry: What you and Lubos have described – with evidence – is surely Academic malfeasance. Surely there is a process within academia for sanctions on Cook. No? Is UWA such a naive institution? (Def: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement)

Tom T
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 1:10 pm

We need to know the nature of this “study” did the university approve it on the understanding that these would be real skeptic comments? I find it hard to believe that an experiment where you use fake strawman quotes would be approved.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 1:14 pm

well done sir well done.

Jonas N
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 2:21 pm

Well, further down the same thread:

.. t need 10 in total for each so if a few SkSers could jump in and engage with each other, get blatantly warmist or blatantly denier, would be great:

Prefaced by:

Note: we’ll of course change the names in the lab experiment so your comments will be anonymous and it won’t be shown as an SkS post either

What can one say? Maybe: Who would have expected better?

MarkW
Reply to  Jonas N
July 23, 2015 5:05 pm

He’s doing a study, and he’s openly asking people to pretend to be something that their not in order to get enough posts?

Onyabike
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 2:30 pm

Cook: “So it’s officially been quantified – reading the comments threads on denier blogs will make you stupid.”
No bias here then? – Weird science…

FTOP
Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 2:39 pm

I find Cook’s analysis interesting. Basically, he is saying that “reader comprehension” (which is another term for brainwashing) is unchanged regardless of the volume of warmist postings, but as soon as independent thought hits a warmist blog “reader comprehension” drops. Like roaches, warmist blog propoganda scurries under the flashlight of skeptic logic.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  FTOP
July 23, 2015 3:17 pm

“their comprehension dropped” = “they began to see the truth”.

Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 2:44 pm

Wow. Not only did they use false identities to make comments, they were blatantly fabricating skeptic comments and representing them as genuine for the purposes of measuring their impact on readers
In other words, they didn’t measure the impact on readers of being exposed to skeptic comments. They measured (if you could call it that) the impact to readers of comments fabricated comments. This is so many levels of wrong the Devil himself could not untangle it.

Reply to  Barry Woods
July 23, 2015 3:07 pm

Barry: Well found. This reads as if Cook was asking his friends to write comments, including non-genuine ones, to be analysed in one of Cook’s papers. You may even read this as Cook writing fake comments himself.

Tom T
Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
July 23, 2015 3:56 pm

Dr. Tol he is merely taking hypothesis testing to the next level. Since its inception hypothesis testing has been criticized by many as simply tearing putting forth a strawmen H0 and tearing it down. Its not surprising to see hypothesis testing move to the next level from strawmen H0’s torn down with real evidence to strawmen H0’s torn down with strawman evidence.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
July 23, 2015 8:26 pm

The thing is that any intentionally “skeptic” comments by SkSers aren’t likely to have any actual logical substance. To argue logically means to argue for the truth and I cant see them doing that if its contrary to their beliefs or even seriously questions their beliefs.
Besides, frankly I doubt they’re capable otherwise they’d think that way all the time.
So they’re most likely arguing illogically with varying degrees of capability to convince and then are surprised when some people cant spot the logical flaws and are confused.
This is an experiment? Cook wades in the toddling pool of intellect.

ferd berple
Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
July 24, 2015 6:40 am

Cooks Conclusion: fake comments by people pretending to be someone else, who’s position they do not agree with, are likely to confuse the reader.
WOW! What amazing insight can we next expect? That water is wet?

Mike the Morlock
July 23, 2015 11:57 am

maybe I’m being silly but at some point shouldn’t the University of Queensland’s ethics committee be approached ? Publicly if possible. (Being from the USA, I don’t think I would have any pull)
I think below may be the relevant link.
michael
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/integrity-compliance/human-policies-legislation

Two Labs
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
July 23, 2015 12:05 pm

They won’t care. C is gone and L bring in grant money.

Two Labs
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
July 23, 2015 12:08 pm

I should clarify. L brings in grant money AND has his study methods approved by UWA’s human subjects committee. He’s clear as far as UWA is concerned. That’s just how these things work. I left the U in disgust last year /not UWA, btw).

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
July 23, 2015 1:58 pm

They are proud of him:
http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
July 24, 2015 12:05 am

Mike it goes further. The Public Sector Ethics Act Queensland applies to University of Queensland and all its employees. Cook has breach many sections of the Act. I think the Act comes under the criminal code and I believe complaints should be made the University and to QCAT (Queensland Civil and Adminstrative Tribunal)

July 23, 2015 11:57 am

Well, he also gave his “Skeptical Science” blog an intentionally misleading name. Seems to be a pattern. He does seem to have a real gift for and affinity to propaganda; maybe that accounts for his apparent fascination with Nazi outfits.

rogerknights
Reply to  Michael Palmer
July 23, 2015 3:43 pm

I think we should go easy on that Nazi outfit business. In his mind he was innocently:
1. Making a visual pun on the initials of his website.
2. Visually communicating “I’m a storm trooper for climate justice,” because he’d replaced the Nazi insignia with his site’s Puzzled Penguins logo. (You have to look closely to see all the small substitutions.)
It’s not a crime but a blunder.

Editor
Reply to  rogerknights
July 23, 2015 6:10 pm

> 1. Making a visual pun on the initials of his website.
That episode left me thinking he chose the name and initials to approximate SS.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  rogerknights
July 23, 2015 10:21 pm

“I think we should go easy on that Nazi outfit business.”
Not to worry. I don’t think of the guy as a Nazi. More of an inept cartoon super villain:

When the cartoon guy boasted “Nothing is beneath me!” I immediately thought of John Cook. 🙂

Reply to  rogerknights
July 23, 2015 10:56 pm

rogerknights, if John Cook ever explains why he chose to host those images like you just did, I’ll probably make fewer jokes about it. Mistakes get made. You own up to them, and then you move on. But note, you do have to own up to them. Until you do, they’re fair game.
If anything, people have been quite tame on this on. It’s probably a good thing I don’t live near Cook. If I did, I would have made flyers with his image on them advertising his site. Because what he did is not funny, but that kind of would be. Mostly because there are so many jokes that would be perfect for it.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  Michael Palmer
July 23, 2015 11:38 pm

Michael Palmer.
Skeptical Science choose the title “Skeptical” as they are skeptical about climate change skeptism – they say so on the website.
The photoshopped photos are intended as a lark, it is obvious. Think of them as satire.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 5:57 am

Would that picture of a noose at the UofM on the black deans door be a “lark” as well?

harrytwinotter
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 7:05 am

philjourdan.
If you explain to me the relevance of your question, I might be able to answer it.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 10:52 am

Doubtful – you cannot even follow a link. How are you going to answer anything?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 11:53 am

http://www.strangehistory.net/2013/07/28/image-murder-of-woman-and-child-at-ivanhorod/
Yes a lark, but of course. just a lark, now we understand
If Y were to say more the mod would have to edit me.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
July 26, 2015 8:49 pm

His interest in propaganda is might have influenced the choice of his field of study as Stephen Lewandowsky’s grad student; the cognitive science of decision-making, and I didn’t read details about his research.

Scott Basinger
July 23, 2015 11:59 am

What a douchebag.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Scott Basinger
July 24, 2015 6:38 am

He’s more like the douche.

Two Labs
July 23, 2015 12:03 pm

“Tim Curtis: would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl. There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name.”
Little of this crowd does surprises me, anymore. But this statement…
I guess it completely escapes Mr. Curtis whose sanity he should doubt in light of this.

papiertigre
Reply to  Two Labs
July 23, 2015 2:02 pm

It’s fairly irregular that Lubos even posts on global warming issues. For instance, he’s been focused in on the Greek default lately. The majority of his posts are deep in the weeds physics. Occasionally he dips into AGW.
Hardly a compulsive obsessive like Cook

Russ R.
July 23, 2015 12:05 pm

Does anybody feel like challenging Cook on his sock-puppetry in the comments over at the SkS site (if only to see how quickly your comments get deleted by moderators)?

papiertigre
Reply to  Russ R.
July 23, 2015 2:13 pm

It’s been 3 or 4 years since anything of note has popped up at SkS. I mean stuff he’s proud to tell mom about.
Why gussy up the place?

Menicholas
Reply to  Russ R.
July 23, 2015 3:03 pm

I tend to believe a thorough shunning is the best idea.
They will alter, edit or delete any comment in any way they choose, so why even give them a URL or email address?

Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 12:06 pm

I’m a great proponent of a person’s facial expressions as being the window to the soul. When I look at Cook (and Lewandowsky as well) the windows are cloudy. It’s all in the eyes. A sincere smile lights up the eyes, as does a sincere emotion of any kind. In the few pictures employed by this two-man clown troupe, their eyes are absent from the expression. The classic is the Nazi Uniform picture…the grimace on Cook’s face is from the nose down, and the nose itself is bolstering the disdain with which Cook ‘jokes’.
The Lewandowsy ‘ideation’ video? Same thing. He’s very phony and devious, plain as the nose on his face.
Just my $0.02, but all of this slithery slimeball stuff is to be expected from the likes of Cook….just look at his face.

MichaelS
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 2:07 pm

I was thinking the exact same thing when I re-Googled his picture and thought what a smarmy, disingenuous look he has.

Non Nomen
July 23, 2015 12:08 pm

I bet he is going to tell us that it was a “d+enier” impersonating “J.C.” impersonating Lubos Motl. One Cook is enough to spoil the broth. Must be pretty interesting for a man like Lewandowskiwitch to study such a case of mistaken identity.

rogerknights
Reply to  Non Nomen
July 23, 2015 3:47 pm

“One Cook is enough to spoil the broth.”
Thread winner!

DirkH
July 23, 2015 12:13 pm

He could try impersonating Judith Curry. That way, the initials in his e mail address wouldn’t give him away. Also, it would be gender-bending so he would be a hero of the media.

CaligulaJones
July 23, 2015 12:18 pm

Who are these children, and why do they think they are smart (and moral) enough to tell me how to live (to paraphrase Kathy Shaidle)?

July 23, 2015 12:19 pm

If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again

Scarface
July 23, 2015 12:21 pm

The man is too dumb to take a dump. Q.E.D.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Scarface
July 23, 2015 12:46 pm

EUREKA! So that’s why he’s so full of ..ah it.
(-:

PaulH
July 23, 2015 12:23 pm

It sounds like Mr. Cook is suffering from “Noble cause corruption”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption
“Noble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that persons “will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result,”a result which appears to benefit the greater good.”
“Conditions for such corruption usually begin where individuals perceive no administrative accountability, lack of morale and leadership, and the general absence of faith within the criminal justice system. These conditions can be compounded by arrogance and weak supervision.”

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  PaulH
July 23, 2015 12:30 pm

That managed to remain on Wikipedia? Haven’t the PC trolls edited it yet???

PaulH
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
July 23, 2015 5:30 pm

I know! I was surprised to find this definition there, so I made sure to copy the salient paragraphs here. Maybe I should have taken a screen shot too. ;->

Reply to  PaulH
July 26, 2015 9:16 pm

I think Noble Cause corruption is often a euphemism for narcissistic entitlement

Wijnand
July 23, 2015 12:23 pm

Wow. This is pretty bad.
Another peek behind the curtain.
It gets nastier every peek.
Will there ever be consequences?
Doubt it.

emsnews
Reply to  Wijnand
July 23, 2015 1:59 pm

More like opening the outhouse door in summer. Flies abound.

Bellator Deus
July 23, 2015 12:23 pm

If you want to know what the weasels do, observe what the weasels CLAIM their opponents do, and then you will know what the weasels do.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Bellator Deus
July 23, 2015 9:18 pm

Exactly.

July 23, 2015 12:27 pm

I just emailed the following to CNN. I suggest that everyone else ought to do the same to any outlet that is publishing John Cooks opinions.
==============================================================================
Dear CNN,
You have been posting articles on Climate Change Denial by John Cook. For example: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html
John Cook, founder of the website Skeptical Science, has been and apparently posting comments to the Skeptical Science website using the user name Lubos_Motl.
Lubos Motl is a theoretical physicist who highly skeptical of climate change. Cook has adopted the identity of Motl when making posts. That, in and of itself, is very troubling. Faking comments or posts by assuming someone else s identity is wrong. However, from the comments Cook himself made, it appears that Cook posted comments as Motl then use those very same comments in an ‘experiment’ that Cook himself ran.
For more background on the situation please read:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
This type of behavior is unacceptable and very well may be illegal.
I suggest that CNN needs to rethink your relationship with John Cook. At the very least, CNN should investigate the situation. If Cook has been posting comments with the intention to persuade people that he is Lubos Motl, that in and of itself is enough to shatter the idea that anything Cook reports on the subject of climate change is believable. If Cook used the fake comments in his ‘experiments’, then that is scientific fraud.
CNN is in the news business and that business is based upon honest reporting. The purported behavior of John Cook is beyond dishonest. CNN needs to remove all content related to John Cook until this issue is investigated.
Sincerely,
Eric Dahlgren
==============================================================================
This goes beyond labeling, it goes beyond the faked studies. This is so absolutely unacceptable that I am (almost) at a loss for words.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Eric D
July 23, 2015 1:37 pm

Eric; CCN will dismiss all our comments Perhaps FOX might find some joy to it. Myself I am hoping that some persons in the Australian Gov picks up on it, as some of their past policy decisions were made on studies done by Mr. Cook.
“Why none dare call it Treason” anyone care to finish?
michael

Chuck L
Reply to  Eric D
July 23, 2015 2:26 pm

It’s been years since CNN has done honest reporting. They are barely distinguishable from MSNBC.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Chuck L
July 23, 2015 10:42 pm

Everyone has a breaking point, my friend. They might be biased journalists, but they are still journalists. Clear and unambiguous fraud admitted in his own words is pretty darn condemning, and it might open people’s eyes. That’s why sending this to CNN is important. They have private leverage against Cook and their reputation to protect. Even if they don’t believe it is enough to discredit him, something like this should at least get a boss to come down and say “stop embarrassing us”

CaligulaJones
Reply to  Chuck L
July 24, 2015 6:30 am

As Kate from smalldeadanimals.com says, CNN is that background noise at the airport.

Another Ian
Reply to  Eric D
July 23, 2015 4:24 pm

Eric
You might do better with James Delingpole at Breitbart UK.

knr
July 23, 2015 12:30 pm

‘ why DOES John Cook of ‘SkepticalScience’ and the 97% have to use identity theft in his ‘research’?’
I would guess it is because he is lying scum bag that cannot pratice good science .

M Courtney
Reply to  knr
July 23, 2015 12:36 pm

You are too kind.
He does not practise good science.
That doesn’t mean he cannot practise good science.
It just means he will not practise good science.

Dawtgtomis
July 23, 2015 12:41 pm

Knowledge of this tends to raise one’s suspicions that there might not be as many individual trolls out there as folks would think.

Gail Combs
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
July 24, 2015 8:32 pm

Trolls use many names to make it look like there are more of them. There are also bots
An example: How do you stop Twitter trolls? Unleash a robot swarm to troll them back
Given that the Seabrook Nuclear protesters were paid #10/hr (Boston Globe Want ad) I do not find the idea of paid trolls unreasonable.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
July 23, 2015 12:41 pm

John Cook et al would make Heinrich Kramer proud.

Bryan A
July 23, 2015 12:42 pm

Anthony,
Seems to me that he would be more likely to use
Watt A Slimeball
It does make you wonder though about that Conspiracy Ideation paper paper and the validity of all the purported responses as perhaps ALL SKS kidz using various pseudonyms weather from Identity Theft or just synthesized like the Model Data.

TonyG
July 23, 2015 12:48 pm

Here’s hoping Lubos follows through. Still not likely to stop much of anything though.
Do you guys begin to see why I tend to be so pessimistic about this? When these *** can do stuff like this and their supporters not only don’t condemn, but support them, wherein lies hope?
I don’t see any of the usual suspects on the warmist side weighing in here.

M Courtney
Reply to  TonyG
July 23, 2015 1:02 pm

But now whenever the 97% paper is mentioned it can be pointed out that the 97% were all the author faking the responses under false names.
And it might even be true. It fits his modus operandi.
He won’t claim otherwise. Also, he can’t point to his raw data as we know that was rubbish.
We’ve got him. Because he’s proven to be corrupt.

TonyG
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 1:10 pm

And it won’t matter one bit to those pushing the agenda. It won’t matter to the politicians. And it won’t matter to the media. THAT’s the point I’m making. We have the proof, and they WILL NOT LISTEN because they don’t care.
The tiny hope I have is with the very few people who are actually open-minded enough to listen and engage. I just don’t think they represent a large enough group to matter. Certainly that’s the case in my personal circles.

DirkH
Reply to  TonyG
July 23, 2015 1:12 pm

“When these *** can do stuff like this and their supporters not only don’t condemn, but support them, wherein lies hope?”
Well quite simple really. The lying will be their own downfall. While the truth is on our side, and will lead us to victory.
Or put another way: An organization so corrupt cannot afford anymore to hire one honest soul as they would risk exposure of their corruption. THey must lie MORE! There is no way back for them – until it reaches a point where they will look so ugly not even criminals will touch them with a ten foot pole.

Menicholas
Reply to  DirkH
July 23, 2015 3:14 pm

Ugly, and plain old ridiculous.
Ridiculous is worse for credibility.

rah
Reply to  DirkH
July 24, 2015 7:12 am

It is the best proof possible that the argument is political and socially ideological and not scientific. People tend to wed to those ideologies so strongly that no logic or evidence of criminal activity can change their minds.

mpaul
July 23, 2015 1:05 pm

Forget about the legal aspects, this is yet another gut check for the climate science community. Here we have a researcher who produced a paper that was cited by the President of the United States and is used routinely to discredit skeptics. Now we have evidence that suggests that this researcher has been falsifying data.
Will the climate science community mount an investigation? Does climate science have any ethical standards? The reaction of the Journals and the Universities involved with Cook will say volumes about the credibility of climate science.
In the past when these things have happened, the climate science community has swept them under the rug. So why should we “trust the science” if the scientists and untrustworthy? Why should we “trust the science” if the climate science establishment has no ethical standards?

leon0112
Reply to  mpaul
July 23, 2015 2:42 pm

10+

Reply to  mpaul
July 23, 2015 3:30 pm

“Forget about the legal aspects, this is yet another gut check for the climate science community.”
Yes, indeed it is. You make a great point.
I wager they “science” community will fail this gut check yet again.

jaypan
July 23, 2015 1:22 pm

This Cook is, together with Mann and Oreskes, an “advisor” for climatetruth.org, the organisation behind forecastthefacts.org, collecting signatures to force Smithsonian to fire Dr. Willie Soon.
What a bunch of evil people, and 97% of scientists are not standing up against them. Disgusting.

Jack
Reply to  jaypan
July 23, 2015 3:06 pm

How many fake signatures have they collected?

Nylo
Reply to  Jack
July 24, 2015 2:58 am

+1!

PC
July 23, 2015 1:24 pm

Silly question: what kind of “experiment” requires sock puppet commenting? I guess this is the state of social “science.”

Menicholas
Reply to  PC
July 23, 2015 3:18 pm

The kind that is used to paint climate skeptics as conspiracy theorists and the like.
Or the kind that purports to show that skeptical commentary makes people stupider.
This is a similar meme to one that built up steam a few elections ago, that people who watch Fox news actually become dumber the more they watch…as if knowledge is being sucked out of ones eyeballs directly out of the brain, like the space vampires in the movie Lifeforce.

Mark Bofill
July 23, 2015 1:29 pm

Good God.
I hope any SkS’ers with any shred of integrity (if there in fact are any with a shred of integrity, I’d like to believe there are) reading this reconsider the wisdom of associating with John Cook via SkS.

M Courtney
Reply to  Mark Bofill
July 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Most of the SkS’ers knew his pseudonym because they are his accomplices.
That’s what you expect from a pseudoscience site like SkS.
Yes, the Guardian has proven fraudsters as regular commenters.
The Guardian just has poor technical understanding. They don’t get science.
And they don’t realise SkS are the loony fringe, expecting warming 5 x the level of mainstream science.

knr
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 1:51 am

They know but do not care , SkS are ‘on message’ so that is all the matters .

M Courtney
Reply to  Mark Bofill
July 23, 2015 1:50 pm

I knew my comments would get modded out eventually.
I’m just so wrathful at the awful abuse of power that this cartoonist has wrought on the integrity of science.
Sorry.

PiperPaul
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 2:53 pm

It was most likely the fr**d word. I’ve noticed that posts get released from mod hell after a quick review from moderators to make sure someone (who may in fact deserve it) isn’t being called names.

Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 3:33 pm

“… I’m just so wrathful at the awful abuse of power …”
Who could blame you? I would be very suspicious of you if you were not wrathful.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  M Courtney
July 23, 2015 9:53 pm

M Courtney
John Cook-The-Books is a failed cartoonist. Like Hitler (Cook’s SS uniform) was a failed artist.
Eugene WR Gallun

Bob
July 23, 2015 1:39 pm

John Cook is not a scientist. He is a psychology graduate student. As has been published in the literature, most social science studies are wrong. These guys like to make things up as they go along. Remember Cook throwing away about 90% of his selected data? That’s par for the course for psycho-dummies.
It comes as no surprise that Cook is trying to bring down real scientists like Lubos Motl. Lubos earned his PhD by doing original research, while kiddies like Cook make it up. Cook gets away with it because the psychology field is made up of dishonest people who could not make it in legitimate science. It’s all about jealousy.
Crooks like Cook will always be around.

mikewaite
Reply to  Bob
July 23, 2015 2:22 pm

I am a bit puzzled . Unlike most people here it seems I know very little about J Cook so I did a bit of looking around and via the Wayback machine found his own statements about his credentials , from a time when he was setting up skepticalscience.:
“About Skeptical Science
This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could’ve continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I’ve pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn’t forced to study for impending exams. —–”
I did not make this up, the link is :
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
Is this the same person that all this post is about ? He is claiming a first class degree in Physics – no mean feat surely?

Bob
Reply to  mikewaite
July 23, 2015 5:01 pm

Hi Mike. In your link Cook says he is not a scientist. On other sites he says he is a PhD candidate in psychology. His papers certainly are not science, and don’t know of any physics papers he has written. No doubt, he is a smart guy, just confused about the real world and the scientific method.Go ahead and analyze his data collection methods in his phony attempt to arrive at a 97% consensus number and you will see that he has forsaken science altogether.
His methods are laughable and make intelligent people shiver to thin, that crap like Cook’s is published at all.
I don’t know the guy, but I have read at least one of his papers. Is he really a cartoonist? That’s probably the better career for him.

Bob
Reply to  mikewaite
July 23, 2015 10:58 pm

Hello again, Brian. It is instructive to read the comment of Brandon Schollenberger who captures what is exactly going on with John Cook. Here’s the link to his comment
.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/#comment-1991962
Cook is one of those guys that dreams up a project, decides his outcome, and then fabricates his data to arrive at that outcome. This is Cook’s science, and is a crooked as it gets. If this guy wanted to buy you a beer, you would slit your throat avoid the situation.

David L. Hagen
July 23, 2015 1:42 pm

Possible courses of action. Contact: CDPP Australia’s General Prosecution Service
General Fraud

The prosecution of fraud offences is a major part of the practice of the CDPP. These prosecutions are fundamental in protecting the resources of the Commonwealth for the benefit of all Australians. Fraud prosecutions are diverse, can be committed in numerous ways and span the broad range of Commonwealth programs and assistance available to the Australian community, as well as the Australian taxation system.
Other types of fraud prosecuted by the CDPP include: . . .
. . .identity fraud;
Commonly used offences
s.134.2(1) Criminal Code – obtaining a financial advantage by deception
s.135.1(1) Criminal Code – general dishonesty – obtaining a gain . . .
Penalties
1. The maximum penalty for an offence against section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code is 10 years imprisonment.
The maximum penalty for offences against sections 135.1(1), 135.1(3) and 135.1(5) of the Criminal Code is 5 years imprisonment.
Sentencing
The CDPP provides sentencing data to the Commonwealth Sentencing Database (CSD). Permission to access the CSD can be obtained at http://njca.com.au/sentencing/ .
Relevant Legislation
Criminal Code

The University of Western Australia has Guidelines for dealing with fraud and corruption at UWS
(Recommend archiving all the relevant posts before they are deleted. )
Another effective recourse would be to notify the Australian Museum’s Eureka Prize Sponsors to tell them hear how their donations were used to honor fraud. Perhaps they could be persuaded to have the funds recovered and donated to Lubos and others exposed this fraud!

July 23, 2015 1:43 pm

How many other people has he impersonated?

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
July 24, 2015 4:54 am

Well, I dunno, Phillip. It could well be that poor little Mr. Cook is truly hampered by a heretofore undisclosed disability of the psychological kind: Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder) seems to fit the bill, does it not?!

David Ball
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
July 25, 2015 3:47 pm

Hilary, my uncle has that. It’s ok, though. He’s good people.

Bill Marsh
Editor
July 23, 2015 1:53 pm

Anyone familiar with Lubos’s writing style can tell those are not authored by him. Pretty outrageous behavior

EternalOptimist
July 23, 2015 1:58 pm

All this stuff coming out from the Pope. Has anyone checked where Cook was at the time ?

Menicholas
Reply to  EternalOptimist
July 23, 2015 3:28 pm

Hehe!

Menicholas
Reply to  EternalOptimist
July 23, 2015 3:29 pm

Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Cook and his Holiness in the same room at the same time? Hmmm…

emsnews
July 23, 2015 2:08 pm

Pamela Gray
July 23, 2015 2:12 pm

As a world dealing with the evils of extremism, we ask the people who’s faiths are being taken to extremes by others as a cover for terrorism to police their own, or to at least speak out with a vengeance! Granted, this current save-the-climate issue on this thread pales in comparison. Still, laws enacted to deal with the perception of impending global climate doom could begin a road to such an approach as terrorism’s known atrocities.
It is time for Cook AND Lewandowsky to go before a jury of his peers. Else the silence of those peers deafens.

davideisenstadt
July 23, 2015 2:25 pm

still no response from SkS…
silence of the trolls, I suppose.

Hot under the collar
July 23, 2015 2:25 pm

“John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.”
I take it he stole the identity and qualification of Dr. Motl in order to conduct taxpayer funded ethical university peer reviewed research to prove that skeptics are unethical.

Bruce of Newcastle
July 23, 2015 2:29 pm

My suggestion to Anthony is if possible he should enable gravatars. They are based on the email address without disclosing it, so immediately you can ascertain if someone else is using your name. And if someone is posting on climate blogs with different names but the same email address you can immediately tell from the icon.
Both the computer generated and especially the user chosen gravatars are valuable for verification, since they don’t change and are common to most WordPress blogs.

Editor
Reply to  Bruce of Newcastle
July 23, 2015 10:42 pm

Anyone with n email addresses can have n identities.

July 23, 2015 2:47 pm

I would be shocked if I learned that anyone who has followed this “debate” for any length of time is surprised at this latest example of chicanery from the alarmist side. I have been watching underhanded trickery from the alarmists for decades. Let us not forget the original Hansen congressional testimony and the turned off A/C units at the very start of this racket. (yes, I do mean racket)
Let us recall that the governments of the world all see something in this racket for themselves and science is now mostly a government funded racket. So, my friends, what else can be expected? As the man who resurrected the libertarians movement in the US in the middle of the last century once said, “the state is a gang of thieves writ large”.
One in a while the state will toss one of its own under the bus if it pleases them or helps them, but it is rare. So, I wager that Mr. Cook will get away with this one just as he did the last one. He will not pay any damages nor will he see even an hour in jail … “Scott Free” comes to mind.

Jack
July 23, 2015 2:57 pm

Stealing someones name happens or used to happen a lot on Andrew Bolt’s blog in Australia. It was always the Marxists and warmists that did it. They would take someone’s name and put in comments opposite to their usual position. Readers quickly woke up and opposed the thief. Now they used devices like calling themselves Dr..
Bolt is not a scientist but he contributed a chapter in the same book as Anthony. He compiles sceptical pieces for his readers.

Another Scott
July 23, 2015 2:57 pm

From Lubos Motyl’s blog entry http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html: “Thank you very much, crook and kook Cook!” If nothing else, people will start calling him “John Crook” and just reference that blog entry if he or anyone else complains….

Hot under the collar
July 23, 2015 3:02 pm

The fact that climate change academia does not take these people to task speaks volumes.
John Cook and his cronies and the media publishing their ‘research’ have proven that mainstream climate change science is a lie and fit only for flushing down the toilet.

Jonas N
July 23, 2015 3:14 pm

I have a question here:
Obviously John Cook is not above deceiving or lying to make (ie. create!) the point he wants to make.
However, the lubos_motl moniker was only used in they (supposedly) secret SkS-Forum and maybe for some faked UWA-experiments.
Which means he would not be above faking ‘responses’ to a supposedly posted polls on SkS (or other places) under faked identities where he (according to his own words) could:

.. get blatantly warmist or blatantly denier,

My questions is:
Has he used this ‘identity’ anywhere in a public or official capacity?
Obviously, the guy’s not that smart, but even he must realize that a moniker like: lubos_motl combined with an email like jc@sks .. will arise suspicions.
My question is: Can it be demonstrated that John Cook officially or anywhere publicly tried to impersonate Lubos Motl?
Without that, I’d think, all we have is a proof of a deeply depraved character running SkSc .. (And that, we knew already, didn’t we?)

Tom T
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 23, 2015 4:26 pm

As I said to Dr. Tol Cook is only taking hypothesis testing to its next level. Standard hypothesis testing in actual science is creating a strawman hypothesis then tearing it down with real evidence. Cook has simply extended that logic and is tearing down a strawman hypothesis with strawman evidence.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 23, 2015 8:40 pm

Mind boggling, indeed.
I just wrote an email to my last year and next year psychology instructor about this. I’m curious what, if anything, he will say.
He might have interest because he and a group of his students were writing up a paper for publication on the psychology of why people don’t change their views on climate change when presented with facts. Or facts as he and the students sees them, anyway. Regardless of their views, surely he and they cannot defend John Cook’s behavior here!

StefanL
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 23, 2015 9:57 pm

@Tom T
Not exactly.
He is creating a strawman hypothesis and _confirming_ it with strawman “evidence”.

Jonas N
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 23, 2015 11:57 pm

The point that needs to be driven home is that rather than getting real comments, he had his buddies (and himself) write FAKED UP COMMENTS, and then analyzed those ….
The mendacity of creating commentary from your own group to use it to analyze and then label another group is truly mind boggling

I completely agree with that. However it is something very different from ‘identity theft’ or ‘impersonating’ somebody else publicly, which probably would be actionable ofenses …

Non Nomen
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 24, 2015 12:49 am

I doubt very much that this was a lab “exercise”. I suspect ist could have been some sort of rehearsal for a large-scale deception. What we see here is imo just the camouflage. The fact that the broth-spoiler disgused as a ‘n+azi’ shows not only a considerable lack of understanding of history, but some highly questionable disposition towards megalomania. May be he even thinks he is at war with the skeptical world?
IF he got some sort of (un)ethical approval, this might be considered as aiding and abetting identity theft.

knr
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 24, 2015 1:49 am

Such an approach would be consider professional malpractice for an acedmic , however its clear his university views such approaches has ‘acceptable’ has long as they results in news grasping headlines .
The sad reality is once Obama stood up in public and give the whole 97% BS validation , Cook became virtual untouchable, becasue it was his ‘work’ that the paper prior to it that Obama was seen to refer too.

Ben Of Houston
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 24, 2015 6:11 am

Anthony, a question. I don’t know what data WordPress makes available to you, but can you analyze your own archive to see if there was any other psuedonym abuse by this group in general or Cook in specific?

David Ball
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 25, 2015 3:50 pm

It is a human induced “super strawman”. Just trying to get with the lingo. 😉

July 23, 2015 3:21 pm

How low can you go?

Non Nomen
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
July 24, 2015 12:52 am

There is always room at the bottom…

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Non Nomen
July 24, 2015 2:26 am

No. 2 on the thread

Craig
July 23, 2015 3:21 pm

At least it wasn’t my university, QUT……….yet?

harkin
July 23, 2015 3:24 pm

I googled ‘skeptical science Lubos Motl’ and the first four entries were:
‘Climate misinformer: Lubos Motl – Skeptical Science’
You really can’t make this stuff up (unless you’re Cook).

mpaul
Reply to  harkin
July 23, 2015 7:06 pm

Google has hired a group of climate communications fellows — hand picked climate activists whose job is to manipulate search results to promote Google’s view of climate science. http://blog.google.org/2011/02/making-sense-of-science-introducing,HTML

RD
July 23, 2015 4:00 pm

It’s all projection with this charlatan John Cook. I’m not surprised his discipline is psychology as they are more often than not sick people. https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/why-shrinks-have-problems

Don B
July 23, 2015 4:06 pm

Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences – Robert Louis Stevenson
Not only have alarmists not had to suffer consequences, they are often rewarded for misdeeds. It is past time that the inevitable happens. Perhaps Lubos Motl can start the ball rolling.

July 23, 2015 4:08 pm

I have a different theory to most people commenting here. I don’t think that this guy and his cronies are acting like warmists – I think they are more wicked and less principled than that. I think they are simply out to create mischief, confusion and hatred wherever they can. I think they are deliberately injecting lies and deception into a controversy, and then doubling up the effect if they can, by revealing what they have done, but in a way that points fingers at one side. Oh yes, I realise JC has a history in this which is ‘obviously’ in acting in an unprincipled way for the one side. However, I think this is quite a long-term intervention which deliberately uses the ‘experiment’ motif, and has been through several phases over several years. He and his collaborators are cleverer than we might think. Never underestimate your enemy, and NEVER believe them. There are people acting here who are, above all, antagonistic to the truth. Warmists are more likely to believe they are friends, being more naive and trusting than sceptics, but their own honest but mistaken beliefs are being cruelly and deliberately trashed here.
Someone is attempting to game the whole arena.

Farmer Ted.
Reply to  stuartbeaker
July 24, 2015 3:54 am

It’s Marxism. Destroy the capitalist system, no matter what the cost. And here is the giveaway.
Australia’s original proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme intended to tax agriculture’s recycled “carbon” emissions on the same basis as fossil carbon emissions. They intended to tax very poorly researched supposed emissions by cattle and sheep, but studiously refused to allow credits for the sequestration side of agriculture’s carbon cycle, the carbon which the grass they eat had removed from the atmosphere.
This would have quickly bankrupted Australia’s livestock grazing industries. In turn this would have rendered the 60% of Australia’s land area which is used for grazing economically valueless, enabling the government to direct that land into “socialised” ownership without compensating the current owners for the loss of their savings.
Agriculture is the last sector of the Australian economy still dominated by small business capitalism. The last sector where the owners make the business decisions and do the work. Half of the people engaged in farming in Australia have already been driven out, and the decline is gathering pace.
This would also very likely cause the collapse of the entire financial system. As I said, no matter the cost.

Alan Robertson
July 23, 2015 4:10 pm

Ok, I admit it- I’m guilty. I went over to SKS to find out what they have to say about this thread and… spiked their daily visitor count.

RD
Reply to  Alan Robertson
July 24, 2015 12:14 pm

I hate Illinois Nazis…not unlike those SKS clowns and John Cook LOL. Keep up the good fight wuwt crew!

Duke C.
July 23, 2015 4:44 pm

It is interesting to note that Steve McIntyre contacted Lubos about this. Since English is not Lubos’ first language the syntax is a bit garbled. But I think there may be a Steve Mc type forensic examination in the works.

harrytwinotter
July 23, 2015 4:49 pm

A Godwin – really?
Even by WUWT’s low standards, that is low.
[standards haven’t changed, only your opinion of them – if you don’t like what is said here, you have the adios option. this might be better since your sole purpose here seems to be to complain. -mod]

davideisenstadt
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 23, 2015 5:40 pm

does that apply when one chooses to dress up as a nazi?

harrytwinotter
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 23, 2015 7:56 pm

davideisenstadt
Not that I can see any evidence that Cook did dress up as a Nazi officer.
But even if he did, what is the relevance?

Non Nomen
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 24, 2015 12:17 am

harrytwinotter
July 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm
davideisenstadt
Not that I can see any evidence that Cook did dress up as a Nazi officer.
But even if he did, what is the relevance?

Grössenwahn – the german word for megalomania

davideisenstadt
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 24, 2015 12:39 am

If you haven’t seen the evidence, i am literally speechless…why dontcha try a google image search for cook? But my guess is you’ve already seen it, after all Cook himself posted the image to the SS website.
As for the relevance of that, its hard to invoke Godwin when the target himself dresses like an SS officer.
When the comparison is made by the individual in question, its not incorrect rhetoric to point it out.
Have you dressed like a nazi recently?
Had photos taken of you playing dress up?
Posted those images on your website?
Anyway, I did your google search for you…7.7 million results, .19 seconds.
here, check for yourself.
https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Cook+nazi&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1825&bih=896&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAGoVChMIk_229qDzxgIVRPWACh3IQwsB&dpr=1
lazy troll.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 24, 2015 7:18 am

davideisenstadt.
I still haven’t seen any evidence Cook dressed up like an SS officer. And I have not seen any evidence that Cook posted the photo on the SkS website.
And what does a photoshopped photo of Cook have to do with the accusation of identity theft? Kind of ironic when the photo was probably stolen ie it was a theft.
It is a Godwin.
[here you go, from the Sks forum via this WUWT post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/ – mod]
Cook as Nazi from the SkS forum

Tom T
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 24, 2015 9:21 am

harrytwinotter,
Its not some randome SS officer. Its a Photoshop of Heinrich Himmler himself.

benofhouston
Reply to  davideisenstadt
July 29, 2015 6:30 am

Harry, you are being nonsensical now. making up claims that well documented things didn’t happen, and self contradictory as well. He didn’t do it, it must be fake and if it wasn’t then it was stolen

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 23, 2015 6:15 pm

Harry you really are a sick puppy, I have had some experience with the twinotter a simple basic plane, not built as tough as the old single otter but an OK plane. That said to have the name of a plane in your posting name could possibly indicate a similar confused standard of thought processes as aforementioned Mr Cook.
That would suggest to me that you may benefit from some counselling and a huge amount of education, then get back to us.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  wayne Job
July 23, 2015 7:53 pm

Name-calling.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  wayne Job
July 24, 2015 9:37 am

heres a few names for you…I think that they are apt.
apologist, shill, liar, fool.

Reply to  wayne Job
July 24, 2015 12:54 pm

The Twin Otter is a fantastic plane. Harry, meehh. Not so much. (The Beaver was the most fun STOL though.)

harrytwinotter
Reply to  wayne Job
July 25, 2015 4:22 am

davideisenstadt
More name-calling. Give it a rest.

schitzree
Reply to  wayne Job
July 25, 2015 1:28 pm

See, this is why I can’t even take climate trolls like Harry seriously. Am I really supposed to believe he doesn’t know about Cook’s Nazi roleplaying? Or that Climate Nazi wannabes have in the past quoted mein kampf, called for skeptics to be rounded up and place in concentration camps, made propaganda films full of false depictions of their enemies or even showing their children being killed for daring to disagree, or any of the many other Nazi like behavior they have got up to? Really?

markx
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 23, 2015 8:01 pm

Harry, it is very well accepted that Godwin’s Law does NOT apply in cases where people have actually been photographed dressed as Nazis.
In that particular case Quatermain’s Law applies, and it is open season on them: Give them as much flak as possible.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  markx
July 23, 2015 10:38 pm

Markx
“Harry, it is very well accepted that Godwin’s Law does NOT apply in cases where people have actually been photographed dressed as Nazis.”
Reference?
“In that particular case Quatermain’s Law applies…”
I have never heard of Quatermain’s Law before, do you have a reference to that one also?

M Courtney
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 12:01 am

harrytwinotter, if You photoshop yourself as a SS Officer then I will call You out as a bad person who is offensive to those who suffered in the Holocaust.
You don’t get to claim “Godwin” or “It’s just a laugh” or that “My freedom of speech means I can support the SS”.
You do have that freedom, but you will be condemned.
That’s what Cook did. I condemn him for it.
You support him for it.
Be ashamed.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 12:53 am

M Courtney.
Well I did, so too bad. You do not get to tell me to feel ashamed.
They appear to be a lark.
As to your other accusations – bizarre. You might as well accuse WUWT of the same as they are promoting the photos to a wide audience. Not to mention other satire I have seen this website.
PS nice of you to comment on my comment that is still under moderation, moderator’s privilege I guess.
[mcourtney is not a moderator here, and has no access to the system of any kind -mod]

benofhouston
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 6:22 am

Harry, a “lark”? Let’s just say he had a lapse of judgement. Fine. One of my friends dressed as Hitler for Halloween in High School. His explanation, “it was the scariest costume I could think of”. However, it was still considered offensive and he was forced to go home and change.
However, Cook isn’t a child in school. He made those pictures as an adult and posted several of them himself. It shows his lack of character and judgement.
To compare, When SkS was first launched, Watts and the mod group cracked down on anyone who used the “SS” acronym for the site, citing it as poor taste and name caling.
Personally, I would not continue to post them. However, using them as examples of the quality of this man’s reasoning while discussing his poor judgement on another matter? That is certainly fair game in the realm of debate.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 7:22 am

“[mcourtney is not a moderator here, and has no access to the system of any kind -mod]”
Fair enough, I made a mistake. My comment was flagged as “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”, so I assumed only moderators could see it, other than me.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 7:45 am

benofhouston.
Indications are the photos were downloaded from the SkS server without consent. A photo intended for a private audience. And a satirical photo at that. It may well have been done in response to the SS slur posted by some of the commenters on this forum.
“poor judgement on another matter?”
Well that is an accusation only, and a serious one. Identity Theft is considered a crime under many legal jurisdictions. Personally, I do not see any relation to the Godwin, other than to perhaps discredit Cook.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 10:55 am

That’s what Osama Bin laden said too. You got the denial down pat.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  M Courtney
July 24, 2015 10:17 am

hey hoary:
you should be ashamed.
your mom should be ashamed…9 months of work for less than nothing.

benofhouston
Reply to  M Courtney
July 29, 2015 6:27 am

You are really going to try and claim that these pictures were private? If you post pictures on a public web server, then they are public. If we had gone into his e-mail account, hacked into his PC, or broke into his iCloud, then that would be something else entirely.
As for Identity Theft being serious accusation. Yes it is. However, the evidence is unambigious, actions were clearly done by Cook, and he admitted to it in his own words with the explicit statement that desired effect and (from responses) the actual effect was to make people think that Motyl was writting comments. Unless you somehow are saying that someone else posted as Coook pretending to have been posting as Motyl, a defense that surely would have surfaced by now, trying to say.that he didn’t do it is invalid and commenting about the seriousness of the charge. You can make the case that this isn’t Identity theft in a legal sense, but that’s an entirely different discussion.
The pictures were raised in the commentary of his reasoning for how he thought this could be mildly acceptable, which is an opinion piece. Pulling up the fact that he has shown poor judgement in the past is perfectly valid in this context.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  M Courtney
July 29, 2015 9:23 am

benofhouston.
Familiarise yourself with the details before you accuse someone of something.
And always keep in mind: the forum postings were stolen.

TonyG
Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 24, 2015 6:20 am

Notice: no condemnation of Cook’s deliberate deception, but rather an attack on WUWT.
Just as I said would happen. So predictable.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  TonyG
July 24, 2015 7:49 am

TonyG.
“deliberate deception”.
You have evidence of a deception? I do not see any myself.

davideisenstadt
Reply to  TonyG
July 24, 2015 9:38 am

the only evidence here is that youre an asshat.