Pielke Jr. on John Cook’s Ministry of Truthotron

Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 10, 2021.

This is funny
I am looking at the silly paper on an AI tool for spotting “denialists”

The training material codes Phil Jones Climategate email stating that he will keep certain papers out of the IPCC as climate denial category 5.2🤣

I'm starting to think this must be a Sokal!!

Another fun one
An accurate representation of my peer-reviewed research with @JessicaWeinkle @maue is climate denial category 1.7

More fun ‘n games with the Skeptical Science guys
My mere existence as described in the statement below from their training dataset is labeled as climate denial category 1.7 😎

My polite responses to Joe Romm earn a climate denial category 5.2 rating 😎

How did my widely-cited peer-reviewed work & I specifically became coded as "climate denial" in this algorithm?

Algorithm training was done by people pursuing a decade+ vendetta against me

They are automating character assassination & calling it "science"


More seriously
Let's say a Facebook or Twitter decides to run with the new AI climate denial detector

That means that anyone mentioning this peer-reviewed, widely-cited & accurate paper would be labeled a "denialist"

That's … crazy, right?

It also means that anyone mentioning me and the fact I am a professor at the University of Colorado and details of my accomplishments would be labeled by the algorithm as a "climate denialist"

I know the Skeptical Science guys intensely hate me, but this is . . . something

In the test of the climate denial algorithm it flagged a mention of this peer-reviewed paper (2005, 412 citations) as "climate denial"

Pielke Jr, R. A., Landsea, C., Mayfield, M., Layer, J., & Pasch, R. (2005). Hurricanes and global warming. BAMS, 86(11), 1571-1576.

On one level the climate denial algorithm is a huge success

These guys have spent a decade+ trying to demonize (falsely) me & my research as a "denier"

They have successfully automated that effort & in the process revealed to everyone exactly what they are up to 👀

More for this thread . . .

Other unambiguously true statements flagged as "climate denial" by the nice algorithm developed by the good folks doing this "study"

If we didn't know it already, I've got one of these🎯 on my back 🤓

Don't worry good science wins in the end😎

Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 10, 2021.

5 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 11, 2021 6:13 am

Haters gotta hate.

Lazy haters use a bot.

Reply to  Dave Stephens
December 11, 2021 10:02 pm

Haters gotta hate.

You’re channelling your inner Taylor Swift

You’d betta shake it off, shake it off

Tom Halla
December 11, 2021 6:14 am

Algorithms, in this case more of an Al Goreism, are just the automated opinions of the programmers.
What a pity that the courts almost always deny “scientific” opinions can be libel, which this clearly is.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 11, 2021 6:52 am

They cast Pielke as a “denier” and this causes him harm. Quantifying that harm would be a little difficult and the magnitude would probably not be very great, not large enough to catch the attention of an attorney that would work on contingency. So, taking any legal action would involve expense without a sufficient return even if the courts could be trusted.

At the University of Colorado, the administration hates him and so do many of his environmental “scientist” peers. Despite their squeals of inclusion, supporting diversity and promoting a welcoming community, the administration in reality wants everyone to fall into a single line. They want Pielke gone and they would nitpick him to death to get rid of him.

Pielke is like a pebble in a shoe, a thorn in their side. He is mostly objective and he slows down the alarmists, which is good. He’s worthy of the support of realists, though what the best way to do so is a good question.

Last edited 1 year ago by Scissor
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scissor
December 11, 2021 9:06 am

The odd thing is that Pielke thinks CO2 is a problem.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 11, 2021 9:59 am

Yes, it seems that that is implicit in his positions, though I wonder. I have not read any of his books to get a better understanding of his stance on this point, but as far as his policy positions are concerned, he’s a realist.

For example, he knows that globally, we cannot/will not commission a nuclear power plant every day.


Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 11, 2021 12:38 pm

Partial agreement isn’t helpful because it implies there is room for discussion. It’s the narrative or nothing.

Reply to  Ted
December 12, 2021 4:33 am

Correct you have to go full retard for the CAGW crowd or you are against them.

Mike O
Reply to  Scissor
December 11, 2021 9:35 am

Pretty sure that you could come up with an algorithm to calculate damages …

Reply to  Mike O
December 11, 2021 9:48 am

That’s true, though it’s often been said that the squabbles within academia are so vicious because stakes are so low.

University positions are useful, but the big money is in government (laws and fund allocation that is).

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 12, 2021 8:04 am

Legally, in most jurisdictions, an opinion, “scientific” or otherwise, is by definition not defamatory. To defame someone you must make a false assertion of fact. Due to the highly questionable Sullivan decision, to defame a public figure like Professor Pielke you must not only knowingly make a false assertion of fact, but malice, not mere mistake, must be the motivating factor.

Last edited 1 year ago by BrianB
Kevin kilty
December 11, 2021 6:23 am

Stuff like this really puts the “artificial” in AI, doesn’t it? It is a shame we currently spend so much money, resources, and time trying to undo 400 years of human progress. Who actually benefits?

Reply to  Kevin kilty
December 11, 2021 7:02 am
Gunga Din
Reply to  Scissor
December 12, 2021 11:25 am

It’d be interesting to see a similar breakdown for “CAGW”.

PS I didn’t see any mention of poor siting of weather stations, “adjusting” past records, satellites, failed projections, Yamal 06, etc.
(Maybe they didn’t want to call attention to them?)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 12, 2021 11:32 am

This was meant as a reply to David Wojick below.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gunga Din
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kevin kilty
December 11, 2021 12:18 pm

Who actually benefits?

Those insecure people with huge egos.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2021 12:07 am

…and those elected people in the government…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Deano
December 14, 2021 8:50 pm

You are being redundant.

Peta of Newark
December 11, 2021 6:32 am

Just switch it off

Windmills may help

December 11, 2021 6:34 am


Andrew Wilkins
December 11, 2021 6:47 am

Cook is a weapons grade twat.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 11, 2021 7:36 am

Do not insult twats,
much pleasure is derived from the vertical smile.

Reply to  saveenergy
December 11, 2021 8:32 am

It’s horizontal to some perspective.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  saveenergy
December 11, 2021 11:14 am


Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 12, 2021 3:35 am

Look up the Star Trek and other SciFi parody webcomic Sev Trek. That’s what John Cook was doing before he decided to jump on the AGW bandwagon. I used to read his comic but hadn’t been to the page in quite a while. When I did, he had the comic archives and a new page with a link to his new Skeptical Science website.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 12, 2021 4:33 am

No just a normal twat.

December 11, 2021 7:02 am

AI (ay-eye) reads the same Al (Ay-el) as in Bundy. So, from now on, whenever I see the abreviation AI I’ll think of Al Bundy. Sorry Mr Bundy.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 11, 2021 8:17 am

“Ay-el”! Good one, Bob. That’s just the way Al’s wife pronounced his name in times of family stress.

Great show. It touched on a lot of sensitive subjects during its run. By today’s standards, it’s pretty tame. But it’s funny. I love the theme song.

Doug S
December 11, 2021 7:11 am

This is amazing to watch. Climate Change alarmism is clearly a religion/religious quest reminiscent of the religious crusades hundreds of years ago. Can you imagine the eternal humiliation these religious zealots have brought upon their family names and reputations. An entire group of people who fell under the spell of a cult-like religious movement circa 2020 AD.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Doug S
December 11, 2021 7:34 am

an inquisition

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doug S
December 11, 2021 8:21 am

Climate Change Alarmism is a cult.

One of these days the cult members are going to realize they have been fooled, and their worldview does not represent reality. I wonder how they will react then?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 11, 2021 11:08 am

The theory is that crowds go mad en mass and only recover their senses one by one, so it will be just a trickle.

December 11, 2021 7:14 am

The interesting thing is that to the extent this machine works it then becomes a potentially useful search engine for us skeptics. It would be great to be able to find the latest skeptical writing on a specific issue.

Reply to  David Wojick
December 11, 2021 7:19 am

Here is Cook et al’s crude issue tree, which does touch on most of of the issues:
They may be helping skepticism! They call it misinformation but I call it sound skeptical argument. (And I am a logician.)

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Wojick
December 11, 2021 8:36 am

Its hugely funny. A handy reference for searching for “climate truth.”

Reply to  David Wojick
December 11, 2021 8:42 am

I like that “denier” was not used anywhere in the text. There are a couple among the citations, and “contrarian” has a positive connotation in certain circumstances, for instance contrarians in the stock market are known to make money by seeing trends develop before the general population.

Yes, his issue tree reveals where the alarmists are weak, what they miss.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Scissor
December 15, 2021 2:46 am

For several years here I advocated “contrarian” as the most neutral term for our side. I’m pleased that I’ve had some impact, apparently.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Wojick
December 12, 2021 11:33 am

(This was mistakenly posted as a reply to a different comment above.)

It’d be interesting to see a similar breakdown for “CAGW”.
PS I didn’t see any mention of poor siting of weather stations, “adjusting” past records, satellites, failed projections, Yamal 06, etc.
(Maybe they didn’t want to call attention to them?)

Reply to  David Wojick
December 12, 2021 11:32 pm

Thank you for that ‘issue tree’. 1,2 and 3 are straightforward admissions of our accusations against them, but 4 and 5? Since when do we think “science is conspiracy”? More disturbing is their take on ‘policy’. Those are THEIR talking points, reflected upon what they imagine our idiot concerns are. I for one have never said “green jobs won’t work”, when we all know those will actually just be make-work for entitled whelps in a world with no real, proper, contributive manufacturing and production careers available outside Chinese factories and the Amazonian soy farms.
But yes, how exactly shall we exploit this tool that gives us so much insight into the mind of our Enemy?

Reply to  David Wojick
December 11, 2021 7:57 am

Good insight!

When fighting the communists, it’s good to know their tactics and the moves they are likely to make. It’s kind of like Lenin, or whoever, that said they would hang the capitalists with their own rope.

Reply to  Scissor
December 11, 2021 8:48 am

Also their findings support Benny Peiser’s recent observation that the debate is entering a new phase. Skeptical arguments against the nonsensical green “solutions” like net zero are growing well. Works for me!

Reply to  David Wojick
December 11, 2021 10:01 am

That seems to be where Pielke makes valid points.

Thomas Gasloli
December 11, 2021 7:31 am

Why is it remarkable, that after lying about “climate change” for 30 years, they would automate the lying? Big Tech and Big Media have been nothing but all lies all the time for years. And not just “climate change”, look at Covid: two years of lies, two years of doing the wrong thing, and we are at the same rate of hospitalization as last year. They must lie because they are all fools and incompetents with too much power.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
December 11, 2021 7:59 am

No, not two years, two weeks.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Scissor
December 12, 2021 3:39 am

Now they’re giving kids pizza in exchange for getting the vaccine, then telling the kids not to tell their parents. Uh, that’s what child abusers do. “Don’t tell your parents.” Getting a covid vaccine should be up to the individuals or their parents or guardians.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
December 12, 2021 11:40 am

“Piece of candy, go for a ride?”

Joseph Zorzin
December 11, 2021 7:31 am

wow, automatic cancelation!

December 11, 2021 7:35 am

Until these leftarded liars are severely physically and financially punished they will continue to spew lies, just as Faux Joe Xiden did on the Tonight Show.

Reply to  2hotel9
December 11, 2021 8:01 am

In the meantime, Michael Mann deserves to receive the Jussie Smollet award for truth in science.

alastair gray
Reply to  Scissor
December 11, 2021 11:24 am

I really want Mikey Mann to get a Nobel. It would make this scientific dwarf so happy and it would reinforce the parody that Nobel prizes have become. Please can Greta get one too. For science, not peace

Reply to  Scissor
December 11, 2021 1:59 pm

Jussie Smollet award for truth”

Does that come with bleach and a decorative rope?

Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 4:32 am

That is only include in the Raciaal Equitie category.

Reply to  Scissor
December 12, 2021 4:30 am

Justus Fer Juicie.

Walter Sobchak
December 11, 2021 7:35 am

“Don’t worry good science wins in the end:-)”

Excessive optimism. The more heavily armed, well trained, and well supplied when in the end.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 11, 2021 8:23 am

Mother Nature will win in the end.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 11, 2021 8:24 am

win not when

Dave Fair
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 11, 2021 8:39 am

No, bad economic results “win” in the end. The average citizen knows nothing of science and couldn’t care less, especially CliSciFi.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 11, 2021 2:06 pm

G’Day Dave,

“The average citizen knows nothing of science…”

What he does know about is his wallet/bank account – and if he has neither of those, cold and hunger.

And then the ballot box. If enough people vote compared to the number of eligible voters it gets somewhat harder to cheat. (Thinking in terms of ‘ballots’ counted at 3AM, without proper supervision.)

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 11, 2021 12:35 pm

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled !” 

Richard Feynman, according to The Meaning of it All, 1999 it was also his closing comment on the Challenger disaster report.

December 11, 2021 7:47 am

You may well be entirely correct but if it runs counter to the narrative… you aren’t.

That’s where “fact checked” opinions come in…

December 11, 2021 7:52 am

All I can figure out of this situation is that Cook went to see Lewandowski to treat his psychoses, but then they both succumbed to the imaginary nemesis of “climate denial”, so now this condition dictates their every thought & behavior.

Cook is like the Robin Williams character in “The Fisher King” where he imagines a fire-breathing knight on horseback bearing down on him with murderous intent.
The knight for Cook is a “climate denier”.


To bed B
Reply to  Mr.
December 11, 2021 10:01 am

He was acstudent of Lewandowsky where he did a PhD in cognballs science. I suspect that he would have gotten more sane psych advice from Lewandowski – and tips to improve his game.

December 11, 2021 7:58 am

I’ll bet BitCoin that this AI truthotron will say the Answer to the Ultimate Question is NOT 42 !
Anyone who says it is 42 is an Ultimate Question DENIER!.

Reply to  bonbon
December 13, 2021 12:18 am

No..Wrong.. The answer is always 42. It is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything!

December 11, 2021 7:59 am

Now I am 100% convinced that it is a religion and that it is dangerous.

Tom Abbott
December 11, 2021 8:28 am

From the article: “They are automating character assassination & calling it “science”

A good description of the process.

Instead of character assasination, why don’t the alarmists offer a little proof of their climate change claims? Answer: The Alarmists don’t have any evidence to offer, so the only thing they have left is character assasination of those who point this out.

December 11, 2021 8:40 am

Facebook had to admit in a Congressional hearing that their “fact checkers” are not experts and are merely giving their “professional opinions” regarding the postings they are “fact checking”….WOW! They used that claim also as a defense against liability saying their fack checkers’ “opinions” are protected speech…..REALLY? Even when they are used as justification to CENSURE and REMOVE someone else’s opinion on their own Facebook page?

Jeff Alberts
December 11, 2021 9:04 am

Calling Cook’s program “AI” is like calling calling a molehill a mountain.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 11, 2021 9:41 am

It’s more like a Truthinator, killing truth whereever it can be found. Sara Connor?

Jeff Alberts
December 11, 2021 9:10 am

Phil Jones should have been panned for using “as well” twice in the same sentence.

Pat from kerbob
December 11, 2021 9:20 am

Cook’s algorithm is simply an extension of climate models, built to provide a pre-determined answer.
Because it’s all they know

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 12, 2021 12:16 pm

Their “facts” only add up after run through computer they programed.
(Remember the “fudge factor” in the climategate emails?)

December 11, 2021 9:31 am

Ignorance is strength

Ask any climate alarmist

alastair gray
December 11, 2021 9:47 am

Oh Roger Now they will remove your doorhandles and install 6 inches of insulation on your office walls to shrink your work space further. Nil Illegitemum carburundum! but to be targeted by the Ministry of Truth means that something you are doing is right. Keep up the good work. You and others like you are a beacon in these dark times.
It is deeply sinister that the censor monster is moving out of the dark shadows. It feels like I am living in a hybrid of Middle Earth under Sauron and Ayn Rand’s horrible distopia

To bed B
December 11, 2021 10:13 am

Looks like the latest AI has discovered the trough and what its snouts for.

Brent Hargreaves
December 11, 2021 10:19 am

This is very worrying. The climate clergy are both ruthless and skilled in propaganda and suppressing rational arguments as if they are heresy. I hope that Dr. Pielke has the fortitude to continue to seek the truth; to not cave in to coercion.

I hate to admit it but these b*stards have the ear of politicians and much of the gullible public.

December 11, 2021 11:41 am

Religion (e.g. morality, ethics, law) for people capable of self-moderation. Competing interests to mitigate the progress of others running amuck, or not (e.g. single/central/monopolies). All’s fair in lust and abortion, I suppose.

December 11, 2021 1:22 pm

“After nearly five years of development and tweaking, John Cook and his colleagues debuted their project: a machine-learning algorithm that can detect climate misinformation on the web.”

This smells of Podesta. Who else would fund John Cook and his misfits for five years?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 7:34 am

I wouldn’t be surprised.

Clarky of Oz
December 11, 2021 1:29 pm

The use of “Artificial Intelligence” can only be justified by a lack of acccess to the real thing.

Martin Pinder
December 11, 2021 1:38 pm

They must be rattled about something. If the views you hold are true then why feel the need to seek out & fact check opponents so strongly? What’s the worry? Do you have a little nagging doubt that your views may not in fact be true after all, or is it something more sinister? Is this ‘Denialism’ really dangerous & a threat to something?

December 11, 2021 6:01 pm

they should have used topic analysis.

long ago i worked for a company that sent 1800 field reps into the field daily to make reports

rather than read 100os of meeting notes a day i just used topic analysis.

it works

Reply to  Steven M Mosher
December 12, 2021 4:37 am

What is wrong with the good old coin toss then it’s basically the same thing and same prediction skill level.

Paul Penrose
December 12, 2021 9:00 am

While these algorithms are indeed artificial, they are not intelligent. They are just fancy expert systems, but instead of each decision node needing to be explicitly designed and coded into the program, they train “neural network” based systems to build up a (hopefully) more robust decision matrix. It is, of course, highly dependent on the training materials used. If you feed it faulty (biased, wrong, etc.) information, it will produce faulty results. You can only trust them as much as the people that trained them.

Trying to Play Nice
December 12, 2021 3:21 pm

What a tool. Having been educated in computer science and then spending my business career actually using computers to do something useful, I can say this clown should be ostracized for the rest of his life.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights