Climate skeptic basher John Cook joins the George Mason University #RICO20 gang

Via GMU press release:

gmu-center-climate-education

We are delighted to announce that John Cook, PhD will be joining our team as a Research Assistant Professor, beginning January 2017.

Initially trained as a physicist, John recently completed his PhD in psychology at the University of Western Australia.  His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy, and how to neutralize those influences.

Despite his newly minted PhD, John has been a towering figure in the field of climate communication for the past decade.  In 2007, he created Skeptical Science – a website/app devoted to explaining climate science and rebutting global warming misinformation.  Skeptical Science is widely seen by climate scientists and other climate educators as an invaluable educational resource.  For his efforts, John has received numerous prestigious awards including a 2012 Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge (Australian Museum), a 2013 Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award (Australian Conservation Foundation) and a 2016 Friend of the Planet Award (National Center for Science Education).

John has also published five books on climate change and/or science misinformation – including The Debunking Handbook (with Stephen Lewandowsky) that has been downloaded over ½ million times from Skeptical Science – and dozens of scientific articles.  His research paper titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming (Environmental Research Letters, 2013) – that definitively demonstrated that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate is happening – is the most-ever-downloaded paper from that journal, or any journal published by the Institute of Physics.  Not bad for a social scientist!

In 2015, John developed and taught a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) through The University of Queensland titled Denial 101x: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.  This course – which uses an innovative pedagogical technique called misconception-based learning – has attracted over 25,000 students from 167 nations.  John is currently teaching the course for a 2nd time to 1,873 students from 114 nations.

Given the innovation and rigor of John’s climate communication research – and his total commitment to helping stabilize the earth’s climate – we are fortunate indeed to be welcoming him to America, and to have him join the 4C team.


Oh boy, looks like Cook will be Cooking up some new crazy campaigns to try to minimize those people who have an opinion different than he does.

Some background on GMU and the RICO20:

George Mason professors call for RICO probe of ‘climate change deniers’

https://aminewswire.com/stories/510639406-george-mason-professors-call-for-rico-probe-of-climate-change-deniers

Jagdish Shukla’s #RICO20 blunder may have opened the ‘largest science scandal in US history’

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/02/jagadish-shuklas-rico20-blunder-may-have-opened-the-largest-science-scandal-in-us-history/

More on the George Mason Centre for Climate Change Communication and its founder Ed Maibach, here:

Propaganda from The Public Purse

http://sppiblog.org/news/propaganda-from-the-public-purse

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Beats me how a university with such a strong economics department is also home to this bunch of fanatics…

Komrade Kuma

Beats me completely how any university department could take this grinning galoot seriously at all. That he has written a book with Lewandowsky is hardly a recommendation and that he went over to La Lewny’s old department at UWA to do his PhD does not say much at all.

Bryan A

Not sure about those numbers though…sounds like
in 2015 there were 25000 students from 167 countries, roughly 150 students per country
in 2016 thare are now 1873 students from 114 countries or 16 students per country
Sounds like there won’t be sufficient interest for a 2017 course

Bryan A

Porjections would indicate 1.6 students per counter from around 80 countries for a total student populace of 125 or so next year

David LeBlanc

Easy. That’s how they make their money.
If being a skeptic was the profitable, easy way to go, that’s what they would be doing instead. Follow the money. Scientists are a venal as anyone and maybe more so if grant money is involved.

Griff

Susan Crockford? Paid by Heartland.. Willie Soon? same…
James Delingpole makes a living out of it – is Monckton not paid for his lectures?

Matt Bergin

Griff it is not who pays for the research that’s important it is whether the science is correct.

gallopingcamel

Are you this David LeBlanc?
https://www.google.com/#q=Leblanc+Thorium
If so you can count on my support.

george e. smith

Is this an actual real person that this Press Release is describing.
I think that maybe the Pope has just screwed up in making Mother Theresa a Saint.
Clearly this chap is far more deserving of Sainthood than Mother Theresa.
Well I see he has a PhD in Psychology.
I know a Psychologist; two of them in fact; my life long best friend and his wife. They are likely the world’s leading authority (both of them) on the learning processes of retarded children; and how to apply effective remedial teaching processes, to return a good fraction of them to perfectly normal status, to completely avoid K-12 Special Ed needs.
Well they study ” behavior ” That is what Psychologists do.
They do NOT study what people think. As a trained Physicist Dr John Cook should be well aware that there is no known Physical process for downloading and deciphering the content of another person’s brain. Or even a dolphin or a crow’s brain.
People who claim they can do that are called ” Psychiatrists “.
Well Ricky Ricardo called them ” Pee-sick-ee-uh-trists ” with the accent on the “sick”, which is about what they are.
So what the hell is “Dr” John Cook doing outside his field of expertise trying to figure out climate skeptics.
It’s very simple John; the “consensus 97%” claims of what climatists call a physical model of the earth’s climate simply do not either explain or predict or postdict what the experimental observations of earth climate history shows has happened.
So we have another Wizard of Aus who thinks we can just ignore what he is doing behind the curtain.
G

Bryan A

Obviouslt a “Stand-Up Psychologist”

Look at his Ph.D. description… Ph.D. in misinformation..
Yes, he got a Ph.D. in Climate Propaganda…

Greg

His research paper titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming (Environmental Research Letters, 2013) – that definitively demonstrated that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate is happening – is the most-ever-downloaded paper from that journal, or any journal published by the Institute of Physics. Not bad for a social scientist!

What he failed to point out was the 97% of climate skeptics are ALSO convinced that human-caused climate is happening. The whole debate is about how much.
Quite why a Physics journal decided it was the right place to carry a paper about psychology is another question entirely.
“His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy,”
Well, he’s certainly an expert on that, he’s been doing to for over a decade.
May be he should stop dying his hair, it’s making him look pasty.

siamiam

No
Pis-e-a-see–a-crist.

observa

“So what the hell is “Dr” John Cook doing outside his field of expertise trying to figure out climate skeptics.”
Well you know how he is at fizzicks?

This is the same John Cook of the notorious “97%” paper?

oeman50

Indeed.

Komrade Kuma

100% the same. Its the only thing about the guy you could take to the bank. The rest is basically a cartoon.

BruceC

Shouldn’t that be 97% correct. 😉

GlenM

Excepting that he is not in his photoshopped Reichsführer ss Heinrich Himmler uniform.The man should be Kook- not Cook.He headed up crash course in climate denial ism at UQ.

M Seward

No in this case its 100% and as GlenM points out that’s 100% kook. On reflection though perhaps he lives in a kookoon which wopuld explain a lot.

Ronald Braud

If you want someone who knows all about providing scientific misinformation, you would be hard pressed to find a more knowledgeable person for the job.

SMC

Heh. They’re doubling down on the CAGW meme. I guess they haven’t figured out that they should stop digging. Should be interesting.

RCase

Exactly right. After the Shukla mess, you’d think they’d be a bit less aggressive in recruiting these polarizing figures.

Resourceguy

Towering opinion wins in some circles.

To keep the AGW issue alive, particularly in the US, the people of influence need to be moved out of semi-obscure places and into positions where titles give them even greater believably. Consider how Chris Mooney, of Desmogblog minor fame ( http://www.desmogblog.com/chris_mooney) is now “Chris Mooney, Washington Post reporter” ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/chris-mooney ). If legendary Watergate-era WashPo editor Ben Bradlee were alive today to see that designation, one could wager that Mooney would be looking for work tomorrow, and other heads would roll at WashPo for hiring Mooney in the first place.

“If legendary Watergate-era WashPo editor Ben Bradlee were alive today to see that designation, one could wager that Mooney would be looking for work tomorrow, ”
Would have never been hired in the first place and I doubt the current crew would be there at all.

MarkW

If legendary Watergate-ero WashPo editor Ben Bradlee were to apply at the WashPo today, he would never get hired either.

Tom O

Is this really the George Mason post for him? Including this lovely line –
” In 2007, he created Skeptical Science – a website/app devoted to explaining climate science and rebutting global warming misinformation. ”
I wasn’t aware that Skeptical Science rebutted global warming misinformation, I thought it generated it.

gofigure560

spot on, friend.

EM

The Skeptical Science site is the Westboro Baptist Church of the climate alarmist world.

didn’t the RICO thing just backfire big time?
anyway i’m glad we know who the actors are and where they are so that when their game is up and the economic harm they have caused has been counted, we will know where to find them so that we can file all those lawsuits.

The Original Mike M
DonM

That photo, along with the PhD in Propaganda Dissemination, says it all.

RCase

There’s some good info from PopTech there – namely the admission from Cook on the SkS site that says ” I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.”

Steve C

Wow. It’s a pity there isn’t a Nobel prize for comedy – the writer of the above blurb would be a shoo-in.

Harry Passfield

Blurbs like that are usually written by the person being hired – much like your CV.
But I did like this line:

Initially trained as a physicist,

because the following words were missing: but failed to qualify…

Edmonton Al

Right on Harry .

John Boles

Anybody watch any of the “Denial 101x: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”? It is a fascinating look at how they view us climate skeptics. It seems to me that the psychology runs like this: the CAGW faithful do not reduce their own C02 emissions because in their minds the final 3% of the people are not on board and therefore they cannot start walking the walk with only a measly 97% so they have to lash out at the 3% until the 3% get religion. It is hilarious how they fume at us skeptics as if we are stopping them from turning off the lights, stop flying, stop driving, stop heating their homes, etc.

Anybody watch any of the Denial 101x: … ”
A few brave souls actually signed up for it :-O
Do a search at Jo Nova’s site or copy/paste (maybe just click on)
http://joannenova.com.au/?s=Denial+101

GoatGuy

At [b]one time[/b] not so long ago, 97% (maybe closer to 100%) of all [i]certified, licensed doctors[/i] believed that [b]ulcers[/b] were caused by stress, reactions to complex or spicy food, drinking, aspirin and allergies. That was until 1980 or so. Then it was found that [b]well over 95%[/b] of all stomach and duodenum ulcers are festering sores colonized by especially tough helipbactor pylorii.
Thus, with some balking and shouting, the treatment revolutionized.
This may sound as a [i]“skeptic’s argument”[/i], but it is not. It is fact.
97% of scientists CAN be wrong.
Dead wrong.
At [b]another time[/b] not so long ago, 97% (or higher) of the geology professors, PhDs, practitioners believed that the Earth’s continents were static. That they ‘are what they are’. Oh, many (thousands!) had noted the curious hand-in-glove matching of West Africa to East South America, as if they once were glued together. And so on. No real theory dominated, with there being various (vacuous) ideas of an ‘expanding earth’ and so on. Then it was found that the [u]rocks themselves[/u] on the matching coasts were actually duplicates. As were the occasional fossils. And it was found that subduction was real around the ‘ring of fire’. And that sonograms of the mid-oceans showed a big long stripe down the middle of the Atlantic. And so on… 97% now believe in tectonics. Or higher.
My how times change.
Yet [b]another time[/b] in the late 19th century (1800s for the calendar nomenclature challenged), the speed of light was known, but light itself was reckoned [b]by 97+% of scientists[/b] to require an [i]“aether”[/i], an invisible, non-viscous ‘fluid’ or ‘matter’ in which light might flow and propagate. Michelson and his rotating mirrors, reflectors on hills and pretty-good geometers (surveyors) of the distances showed that … no, there was no aether. None.
The [b]Hip Einie[/b] (Einstein) pondered thus, and realized that there was a strong relationship between time and the invariant speed of light. Thus [i]Special Relativity[/i] was born.
Aether died.
Relativity was born.
The Hip Einie was right.
97%?
Let’s see… then there was [i]phlogostin[/i] – the supposed heat-of-reaction ‘stuff’ contained in some materials.
And the theory that ‘purple glass’ (after a hundred years of outdoor exposure) was caused by picking up contaminants.
And the proposition that materials of [u]different density[/u] ought to fall at different rates.
Leaning tower of Pisa… and all that.
There have been [b]many spectacularly long periods[/b] where 97% of The Establishment have been convinced, and have mandated pogroms to sniff out the Infidels, to uphold some idea or another that was just plumb wrong. People have died from harboring such ‘wrong-headed’ [b]dis-[/b]beliefs in doctrine.
Thus I propose…
That for anything as [u]unpredictable[/u], as [u]chaotic[/u] and [u]capricious[/u] as [i]“the weather”[/i] (and axiomatically, [i]“the climate”[/i]), that any time some bunch of scientists … say 97% of ’em … claim they can predict the deep future, stand clear and let the fleas fester amongst themselves. Maybe [b]our[/b] ‘infidel’s’ arguments of dissatisfaction with claiming climate-change is a human-mediated event isn’t quite right. But their unshakeable belief is suspect too.
Now, back to regular programming.
[b]Goat[/b]Guy

Marcus

…Oops !!!! There. I said it for you….your welcome…LOL

Helicobacter pylori

Harry Passfield

Try to find your keys instead of [ and ] when it comes to html.

Harry Passfield

Harry Passfield

‘less than’ and ‘greater than’ (sheesh)

While I’d agree that the percent of educated people who once believed in stress as the cause of ulcers, static continents, etc. was high, I suspect it wasn’t as high as it’s purported for human-caused climate change because 1) the climate change propaganda machine has been furiously shouting down any opposition for many years now. As a movement, climate change advocates enjoy a protected status where any dissenters find themselves regularly scorned in many outlets, and even place their careers in jeopardy. 2) I doubt that 97% number is at all accurate. I’ve seen other surveys of academics put out different (and lower) numbers. Cook’s 97% figure was used, not because that’s what an objective review of literature revealed, but because it conveniently reinforced the same number Gore pulled out of his ass years earlier.

Bryan A

Goat Guy,
Instead of this bracket [ use this one

Bryan A

<

Bryan A

] = >

I guess you wish you hadn´t rounded it all off with:
“Now, back to regular programming.”
🙂 🙂 🙂

Please see the WUWT “Test” page, link on the top nav bar, before you try to post more HTML in a comment. https://wattsupwiththat.com/test/

Bruce Cobb

Funny how “climate change” has to be “communicated”.

John Boles

RIGHT ON BRUCE! It is all marketing, the little people need to be TOLD that it is happening, so they can start “feeling” it, or rather believing it. It is fun to listen to the believers preach what was long ago debunked.

EricHa

NASA to Collaborate with Artist to Document Climate Change
http://artforum.com/news/id=63518
http://artforum.com/uploads/upload.001/id30750/article0.jpg
You are feeling warmmmmmm

Bryan A

Interestingly that link states that a chunk of ice the size of Calif was gloing to break off Greenland
Greenalnd is 836,109 Sq Mi
California is 163,696 sq mi
Greenland is about to Calve a berg that is almost 1/5th its size????
Yeah RIIIIGHT

RobR

Cream rises to the top, while curds languish in a stew of rancid pretension.

hunter

More Climate Imperialism cancer spreading….and of course in a very lucrative fashion for the profits of doom….

This appointment certainly speaks to the poor quality and self dealing of GMU shown previously. The 97% paper was an unmitigated disaster exposed by Richard Tol and others.

Harry Passfield

Quite right ristvan: As Cook’s puff piece says:

[97% paper] is the most-ever-downloaded paper from that journal, or any journal published by the Institute of Physics. Not bad for a social scientist!Such a pity he failed also to provide the data and methods.

commieBob

The solution to Cook’s problem is simple. Just keep the public from finding out any facts. Once the argument becomes one about facts, the alarmist side is sunk.

Politically, these goofballs are as incompatible with George Mason’s principles (the REAL George Mason)
as one can get. Any half competent analysis of Cook’s most infamous study (the opinion of “scientists” about global warming) would brand this psych major (no math required, no brains required) as an
incompetent experimenter/statistician/scientist of the first magnitude.

Kevin Schurig

So, just another nut for the collection.

One needn’t be a scientist to realize the utter stupidity of Cook’s study of the “opinion of scientists” about global warming theory. He sent a handful of sophomores to read studies of climate over the past decades and asked them to determine , on the basis of their readings, to estimate what the opinion of the authors of those studies might be , as regards to global warming. Aside from the fact that the estimated opinions were
old and obsolete (or died with their owner), anyone with half a brain would have sent questionaires to the
current crop of climate scientists and solicitated their current opinions, undistorted by the estimates of a bunch of college sophomores. John Cook, Fool would-be scientist.

” … sent a handful of sophomores to read studies … ”
I think it was just abstracts of studies. Or was it low-grade word-search of abstracts? Then there were issues like did the “readers” collaborate with each other, the numerous study authors who tried to advise that the classifications were incorrect, etc. Then the huge a$$ covering exercise that followed. You have to have a strong stomach or be a masochist to follow it.

Rob

They actually refer to the “rigour” of this guy’s research! This is the man who faked a survey and then lied about it. Absolutely laughable.

“I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science
Need anyone say anything more?

Resourceguy

Thanks, I needed that.

george e. smith

Well we have no quarrel with a man who sells his stuff for less.
He; of all people should know exactly what it is worth !
G

observa

“Need anyone say anything more?”
Well he did have more to say on the subject-
‘But beneath the politics is a more elemental instinct – an aversion to alarmism. We’ve been burnt before. The media predicted an ice age in the 70’s which never eventuated. Y2K was going to destroy society – it was barely a hiccup. And I won’t deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Hysteric predictions that Manhattan will soon be underwater. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears. Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn’t change the science underneath’
Nope. If their dire predictions based on their computer models are a load of alarmist hooey, then naturally you need to concentrate on any skeptical types psychologically.

BallBounces

“his total commitment to helping stabilize the earth’s climate”
Seriously?? I mean, seriously ????

Marcus

…Well, personally,….. I do believe he should be “committed” … at least until his mind is a little more “stabilized”….we would all sleep better at night !

MarkW

So far his “commitment” is limited to whining that other people aren’t doing enough, and not paying him enough while not doing it.

BallBounces

Guys like this make what Moses (Red Sea) and Jesus (Sea of Galilee) did look like chump change. But then again, maybe he’s just an ordinary guy who wants to Make Climate Great Again™.

Jeff Alberts

“Guys like this make what Moses (Red Sea) and Jesus (Sea of Galilee) did look like chump change.”
Which they probably never really did anyway.

lee

I’m not sure whether he is the “blowhard” section or the “s*ckh*le” section.

sciguy54

“His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy, and how to neutralize those influences.”
We should therefore expect JCs body of work to consume itself?

george e. smith

A self referencing Treatise.
Microsoft Excel will kick that out as a programming error.
g

He should be on the terrorist watch list.

Louis

“…definitively demonstrated that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate is happening”
That paper was “definitive”? Really? That’s like taking one poll in the middle of 2016 and saying you definitively know who is going to win the U.S. presidential election. People change their minds as new data come in. And in this case they lumped in everyone who even hinted that climate change was happening regardless of whether they said it was “human-caused” or not. Then they threw out the majority of responses that they didn’t like. If they used the same method to judge the effectiveness of a new drug, they would go broke from all the lawsuits. Their method didn’t even resemble the scientific method. No wonder George Mason University wants this trained propagandist to join their team. They appear to be all in when it comes to spreading propaganda.

Dog

Went from being a physicist to joining one of the darkest fields in science, psychology…
“His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy, and how to neutralize those influences.”
So basically he’ll be employing the same tactics used by some of the most evil people in history (which helped shaped modern advertising) to combat ‘skeptics’?
Clearly these people know no shame:
“Shame was an emotion he had abandoned years earlier. Addicts know no shame. You disgrace yourself so many times you become immune to it.”
-John Grisham
http://www.azquotes.com/author/5945-John_Grisham

Pierre DM

You’re Dog gone right on.
Here is a guy whom basically wrote a paper that has been proven to be fraudulent yet has basically beaten the system with his paper which is still quoted regularly in many circles including thrown regularly in our face here at WUWT. Now why would a university that is enmeshed in a fraudulent controversy involving climate change want with a expert at physiologically beating the fraudulent tag.?
Maybe the university knew more about Shukla’s double dipping than they claim? Red flags and sirens are going off, I’m skeptical.

Gary Meyers

Research Assistant Professor, does that mean that John gets to troll the internet all day?

Bruce Cobb

Maybe he’ll grace us with his presence!

Resourceguy

At some point, universities have to be recognized by the consumers as over-priced opinion platforms. It’s getting worse over time.

John W. Garrett

You have got to be kidding me.
I thought George Mason had standards. Clearly, I was wrong.

Joe Wagner

Yeah, well. Things change.
As a GMU Alumnus, I am quite disappointed in this action.

Pat Frank

You should write and let them know. Joe. Be sure to mention that any donations from you will dry up until GMU re-institutes the standard of dispassionate unprejudiced scholarship.

george e. smith

Well handsome dude, Walter E. Williams, will forgive you for having to confess.
G

Joe Wagner

@Pat Frank- Oh, I do let them know. Every time they ask me for money, I give them my opinion.
Not that it matters- they soaked me enough already, time for another mark- I mean -student.

DaveS

Cook is evidently exactly of the right standard for the department he is joining.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

Look on the bright side — at least this will make Australian skeptics happy …

Jeff Id

It’s not about the money though.

Mike the Morlock

Maybe, maybe not. Note the date his new job starts, Jan 2017, after the elections.
If Hillary does not win something will come up, he will have a change of heart etc.
At GMU he is under our roof, subject to our laws. Mr Cook meet Mr Smith and Mr Subpoena…
michael

I can think of few who are more qualified and experienced to write a paper on misinformation in climate literacy than John Cook.

Steve Oregon

It’s illustrative to recognize how the climate crusade is championed by mostly dishonest nitwits.
Every fringe cause has their iconic morons.
But the climate crusaders Cook, Romm, McKibben, Oreskes etc are really quite a collection of lying lunatic lefties.

Gunga Din

Hmmmm…..If much of what the US’s “Founding Fathers” said and tried to do is dismissed in “Higher Education” because they were humans who didn’t always live up to the ideals they expressed in their personal lives (such as in the Declaration of Independence and “All Men are created equal…” because Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner), how can a PC University give a job to someone who proudly put up a picture of himself dressed as a Nazi SS Officer?

Mike the Morlock

Gunga Din September 19, 2016 at 12:21 pm
Ah, maybe its not as widely known as we would expect. Hmm, once its splashed across the college websites it will be fun to see the little darlings run off to their safe spaces with their hands over their ears.
michael

BobM

You haven’t been to Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello lately. They don’t refer to “slaves”, they were all “enslaved workers”. Get it? That puts the onus on Thomas Jefferson as the “enslaver”.
You can take the tour of the slave housing and are supposed to feel terrible, I guess. What I saw was quarters that seemed nicer than where Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, and Davey Crockett was born in Tennessee. Looks to me like Jefferson’s “enslaved workers” were better off than dirt poor freemen. There is a very PC 21st Century condescension toward Jefferson because he was too busy helping create a completely new country, and apparently was not Superman, as he neglected to end slavery in his spare time.
Beautiful Mansion, lovely grounds, but stay away if you don’t want to wretch at the PC crapola. Go to Mt. Vernon instead, where George Washington is still a hero Founding Father. Better hurry though.

drednicolson

Washington mostly gets a pass on that front, since he arranged for his slaves to be freed after both him and his wife had died. He had also intended for the Mount Vernon plantation to be divided up into plots to provide those former slaves a livelihood, but his wishes in that regard went largely unhonored.

Joel Snider

Why is it these control-freak fascist types are always short little twerps? Is Little-man syndrome behind it all?

Jeff Alberts

Ad Hominem much?

Bruce Cobb

It’s important to understand the psychological root causes of compulsive Climate Liars like Cook.

Jeff Alberts

That’s not understanding a psychological root cause, that’s just making fun of how a person looks. Perhaps the root cause is because people made fun of how he looks, especially from the veil of anonymity.

Gunga Din

I suspect that my recent comment is in moderation because I used the “N@z@” and the $$ words.
I’m sure it will be cleared.
But in case it went directly to the “bit bin” or wherever auto deletions go, I’m calling it to your attention.

Gunga Din

I forgot to add ” Mods “.

Gunga Din

MODS, Thanks.
[Ask not for whom the mods toil, lest they troll for you … (Hangingway, 1936. As Modified.) .mod]

Dennis Gaskill

John Cook……………………………………………………………………mmmmmmmm.
Another Educated Idiot come to enlighten us.
He got his PHD in propaganda.
These people are really getting desperate .
I guess, we are too stupid to grasp the pearls they cast at our feet.

Ken in Kelowna

I’m wondering what rock these “Climate Stabilization Committee” members plan on hiding under when the expected slight but inevitable global cooling begins over the next couple of years. For a good diversion and some refreshing insight, I recommend the futuristic sci-fi short story series Time Protectors.

Tom in Florida

“His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy, and how to neutralize those influences.”
Well, if anyone in the entire world is most qualified to speak on misinformation and how it influences people, it is he. He is the Grand Poobah of misinformation.

When I woke up this morning the air in Virginia felt horrible, kind of greasy with a distinct slimy sewer suffocating touch.
Now, I understand!
George Mason’s department of idiocy has decided to try for a CAGW implosion by adding vacuous dead weights to their team.
Only, the political and prosecutorial scene in Virginia is different than Australia.
Logging in under false identities, (hacking) is frowned on here.

Skepticalscience apparently lacks understanding of the proper relation of TSI (a forcing akin to power) to temperature (an indication of energy) as shown in the graph at https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm where they are plotted together. TSI is a forcing so its time-integral is the only meaningful comparison to temperature.
The SS graph is as nonsensical as plotting your speedometer reading on the same graph as your odometer reading. The time-integral of TSI should be compared to temperature the same as the time-integral of the speedometer reading is the odometer reading.

Caligula Jones

To use a baseball metaphor: not much bench strength on the warmist side is there?

BillTheGeo

Another place to cook the books!

gofigure560

This scam is so bizarre it would be laughable, except for what it’s costing taxpayers, and it’s anti-science dogma which threatens (at least) western civilization. ISIS should love these folks.

Bruce Cobb

No joy in Warmville.

yarpos

“His doctoral research focused on the negative influences of misinformation on climate literacy” that definitely is an area he would be expert in. You cant make this stuff up.
To somebody from outside the inner sanctum like me the world of academia seems increasingly slimy and self serving.

Mike Maguire

We are living in an alternate universe, where up has been defined as down and down is up. The king of climate science misinformation reigns from a position purporting to bust myths and explain authentic climate science.
At his site, he has something like 193 myths that us deniers use that he is supposedly busting with his version of science. I could probably type non stop for the next 24 hours exposing his delusional versions of science.
I’ll pick out one of my favorites, since I forecast global crop yields(production estimates) for a living, mainly using the effects of weather(as an operational meteorologist for 34 years) but dialing in all inputs that contribute……..including CO2 levels.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
Almost the entire explanation is clearly garbage. Much of it theoretical garbage.
This is actually how plants responded to elevated CO2 in hundreds of studies:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
This is how crops have been responding in the real world. The past 2 years…….that have featured the hottest global temperatures ever……….also featured the biggest crops ever for corn and soybeans in the worlds most fertile crop producing region:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProd/CropProd-09-12-2016.txt
Is this despite the global warming/climate change?
No, it’s been, in part BECAUSE OF IT and the increase in CO2. Our weather and climate during the past 4 decades has been the best for life and crop growing since the Medieval Warm Period, ~1,000 years ago………that was warmer than this in most places(despite what Cook claims).
He also makes this delusional statement:
“earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops”
If anything, global warming will allow agriculture to expand to higher latitudes, like it did during the Medieval Warm Period. One only has to look at the planet greening up, including deserts to show how silly his statement is:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
To go along with his broken, theoretical climate and plant science, Cook has a picture of a soybean plant being eaten up by Japanese Beetles………..as if farmers in the future will no longer be able to spray for pests, which will devour their crops.
None of this is happening, in fact, it’s been almost the complete opposite of everything he has stated.
Fortunately for John Cook, his junk plant science/agronomy, fairy tale weather explanations and exaggerated climate projections don’t have to be applied in the real world, where one must have accountability.
Instead, he gets promoted. It’s the alternate universe………where up is down and down is up.

Eric Blair, who wrote as George Orwell, had that sort of mindset down pat in “1984” . War is peace…..

Griff

And what’s wrong with that list of myths?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
There are a lot on there which are plainly myths to anyone with any science background and quoting them in discussion on climate is a sure way to get your argument dismissed…
this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm
or this:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
for example.
If you can’t present a skeptic, evidence based point of view which contradicts what’s in that list, then you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you use the argument…

JPeden

Griff
September 20, 2016 at 2:22 am
If you can’t present a skeptic, evidence based point of view which contradicts what’s in that list, then you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you use the argument…
The biggest Myth propagated by the CO2-Climate Change Propaganda Op. is that its *CO2-Critical* Hypotheses involved are *not* Scientifically/Empirically Falsified by their Record of [100%] Prediction Failure in the Real World, aka, “evidence based”.

Griff,
Climate models for far into the future projections ,(2100,3100) are perfect examples of pseudoscience and not worth the paper it is written on. They are not testable,thus junk.
Try reading up on the Scientific Method,which destroys your claims easily since the method says you MUST be able to test the hypothesis in real time:
” I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.”
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Utterly fails the third and fourth steps.

Griff,
Your linked list of “mythis” says that it’s a myth that CO2 was higher in the past.
That’s not a myth, Griff.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Sweet Old Bob

Well…..congrats on getting yourselves a bad “RAP”
hope the rest of your sheets are better… 😉

Chris Hanley

“John [Lewandowsky’s sidekick] recently completed his PhD in psychology at the University of Western Australia …”.
=======================================
Climate change™ ‘science’ and psychology are natural bedfellows:
“Psychology isn’t science. Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability …”:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

jaymam

In an odd way, this is cheering news!