- Make a fake poll
- Use fake questions about a fake topic
- Do fake statistics
- Make a fake press release
- Lie about everything you just did
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
Recent Comments
- arn on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- arn on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Greg in NZ on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- Peter Carroll on Bicycles Can End Bad Weather
- dm on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Francis Barnett on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- czechlist on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Jehzsa on “Gender-responsive climate action”
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
Hold on, doesn’t two lies make a truth?
Wait, its ‘three lefts make a right’.
Nevermind.
* Have your friends fake answers to the poll.
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
-Micheal Crichton
Get your mates to ‘peer review’ it, post it in a true-believer journal and claim that the science is settled.
Kook and Nutter – next comedy duo.
OT – Impressive huge sub tropical low passing over WA. Not much wind and moderate rain, but the Sat photo looks fantastic. Almost 4000km diameter! Wait for the alarmists to talk this one up.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/au/national/satellite
What in the world is this post going on about? As best I can tell, none of the lines are applicable to Cook et al’s work. What “fake poll”? What “fake questions” and what “fake topic”? So forth and so on. The biggest example is, what statistics did they even do that could possibly be fake? The closest Cook et al came to using statistics is they did some basic arithmetic.
Aside from being an excuse to use the work “fake” a lot in reference to their paper, I have no idea what this post is going on about.
I can’t actually rehash the last two years for you personally. Sorry.
Steven Goddard, given you seem unwilling to do the simple thing of explaining what in the world you are talking about, I’ll make myself clear.
I am arguably the most vocal critic of Cook et al’s work. I am well aware of what the paper claims to do and what their work actually does. Your descriptions of it in this post are not only wrong, but ludicrous. This post has no basis in reality, and it makes it seem you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Furthermore, your publication of what appears to be figments of your imagination is offensive as people who see your fantasies are likely to dismiss legitimate criticisms as more delusions. You are, in effect, sabotaging efforts at criticizing Cook et al’s grossly incompetent and dishonest efforts.
So long as you continue to stand by absolutely insane things like what was said in this post, you have no credibility, and anyone who promotes your writings risks being viewed as equally incompetent.
Brandon, did you get your brain “as is”?
Morgan, what I said is true. What Steven Goddard said in this post is false. Anyone who had any knowledge of the Cook et al issue would know this.
You can insult me for pointing out Goddard’s post is absurdly wrong, but that’ll do nothing to address the fact his post is absurdly wrong. It’ll just make this page look even worse than it already does.
Blah, blah, blah. Nutter has a “97% consensus” column in the Guardian where he spews utter nonsense every week. If you you want to defend his crap, feel free.
Steven Goddard, I’m not seeking to defend Dana Nuccitelli or John Cook. I hate the idea of doing so. However, what you said in this post is utterly idiotic. It is completely wrong and has no basis in reality.
If you want to criticize Cook and cohorts, go for it. There are at least a hundred things you can legitimately criticize them for. Pick some of them, and I won’t say a word in disagreement. But if you go out and make things up, I’ll say so so it’s clear my criticisms of Cook et al are real even if yours are not.
Quite frankly, if you believe what you’ve written on this page, you have no idea what Cook et al did, and you have no room to criticize them. This post is every bit as bad as anything they’ve done.
I take it you have never read Nutter’s “97% consensus” column in the Guardian. ROFLMAO
Steven Goddard, their column in the Guardian did not do the things you list in this post. As such, whether or not I have read it is irrelevant.
If you think you have a case to make, you should make it. If you don’t, but instead make responses solely to belittle me, you’ll simply support the argument I’ve been making.
A refusal to make any effort to support your claims can only make you look bad.
you can’t buy entertainment this good……….
Brandon, It appears your pedantry precedes your sense of humor.
In Brandon’s defense, the only thing Kook has done wrong is to make a claim about Barko Bama that Brandon nitpicks to death. What a boring, useless wankmop.
John Cook has done a great number of things wrong. Many of them were in or related to his Cook et al paper. The most recent example I examined is a case where I observed he, and his Skeptical Science team, are liars. They used a fabricated quote on multiple occasions and are aware of the issue. Rather than do anything to fix the problem, they use censorship to hide it.
I highlighted this issue numerous times. I even mentioned it on Twitter every 12 hours for about a week. I only stopped doing that when I figured everyone who would see it had already heard about it multiple times. I still think the issue is incredibly important though, and until it’s addressed, I plan to label every member of the Skeptical Science team a liar whenever I discuss them.
Suggesting I only criticize John Cook for one thing is ludicrous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of my activities. Suggesting John Cook has only done one thing wrong shows a level of blind faith I cannot fathom.
Brandon, I suggest you switch to a different brainsmith.
From memory,
Cook and Lewandowsky were involved in two different ‘Polls’ and two different papers.
One of the papers was about ‘polling’ skeptics and finding they believed the moon landing was faked.
Actually it was the poll that was faked since they never polled any real skeptics and then lied. They said they had contacted Anthony Watts and others to put up their poll but had an unknown grad student send a cryptic note that was lost in the spam bin. The only sites that were actually polled were heavily censored CAGW propaganda sites where most skeptics were either banned ages ago or never go. (If they have not been banned yet it is only because they never frequent the sites in the first place.)
The second paper was a count of papers that ‘Supported’ CAGW. Again it was shown that quite a bit of sleight of hand was involved in the methods used to do the count. This is the 97% that I think Steve is referring to.
5/21/2013 Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them
9/03 2013 Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
So I certainly would consider the word FAKE quite appropriate when connected to Cook.
Gail Combs, I have discussed both of those papers at great length. In fact, I was the first person to point out issues with the second paper you refer to, and I did so within days of the paper being published. As for the first paper, I have a four post series on my blog about it (making up ~10% of my current posts thus far), and I’ve collected them into a rough draft of a document I’m currently considering distribution options for. There’s also been suggestions I use what it shows to publish a journal article which would show exactly why Lewandowsky’s conclusions were baseless. (I was also one of the driving forces behind getting Lewandowksy and Cook’s collaborative paper, Recursive Fury, quasi-retracted).
In other words, I am well aware of these issues. I have been involved with them from the start. And I certainly have no fondness for Lewandowsky, Cook or Skeptical Science.* However, even being as generous as I possibly can, your response cannot explain Goddard’s post. What you described did not have a “fake poll,” did not have “fake questions” and was not about “a fake topic.”
I’ll also note readers here have given multiple, contradictory explanations for Goddard’s post. That suggests nobody here knows just what he is referring to.
*The fact it would be difficult to find anyone more critical of these people than me makes it remarkable several responses here have painted me as in line with them.
Brandon,
Cooks site was a big part of the Lewandowsky fake poll scandal. Their private forum didn’t remain private, and it was shown they colluded.
The 97% consensus project was simultaneously add-on and smokescreen, to divert attention from the fake poll fiasco.
Ben, I struggle to guess what “fake poll scandal” you’re referring to. No idea I can come up with involved collusion shown in the leaked Skeptical Science forum. I certainly can’t think of a “fake poll scandal” The Consensus Project was done to “divert attention from.”
It’d help if you gave enough information people could tell what you’re talking about. As it stands, it sounds like you’re really misguided.
Nutter reported the 52% AMS poll as 97%. I take it you don’t have anything better to do?
Steven Goddard, that cannot possibly be what Ben was referring to. He claimed The Consensus Project was done in order to “to divert attention from the fake poll fiasco.” That project was created long before the reporting you refer to. Additionally, Ben referred to this supposed scandal as “the Lewandowsky fake poll scandal.” The reporting you refer to by Dana Nuccitelli cannot be attributed to Lewandowsky having done a fake poll. You are suggesting an interpretation which is completely and utterly impossible.
As for having something better to do, there are many things I’d much rather be doing. One of them is writing my next post discussing Mann’s antics over the years so people can see how horrible his behavior is. However, I cannot ignore a person said to be on my side sabotaging the arguments I make by posting what appears to be mindless drivel from a mad man.
Even if I could ignore your ridiculous behavior for what it is, I certainly cannot ignore it while Mark Steyn treats you as a legitimate source. I intend to write a great deal demonstrating Steyn’s viewpoint was legitimate, but if he genuinely believes a post like this one, I don’t think viewpoint is.
You are lining up one straw man after another, and it is getting incredibly dull.
Steven Goddard, you have constantly belittled me without providing a shred of support for anything you’ve said on this page, either in the post itself or in your responses to me.
I understand you may find it “incredibly dull” for a person to care about things like facts, truth and reality. That doesn’t excuse you from ignoring those things.
So I take it that you agree that Dana’s claim of 97% in the AMS 52% poll is correct.
Nothing I have ever said even remotely suggests that. I don’t even agree he made that claim.
Please try to be less obvious when you make things up about people.
You show up here talking trash about some personal issue of yours. You don’t even seem to be aware of Dana’s regular 97% Consensus column in the Guardian, and you don’t even know what I am talking about. Yet you persist in spewing your own BS.
Steven Goddard, I am not “talking trash about some personal issue.” Nothing I’ve said on this page has been personal.
Similarly, I am well aware of Dana Nuccitelli’s column at the Guardian, and I’ve done nothing to indicate otherwise.
There are two reasons I “don’t even know what [you are] talking about.” One, you refuse to say what you are talking about. Two, what you are talking about, as far as I can tell, doesn’t exist.
Look in the mirror.
I hope you realize this is basically nothing more than, “I know you are, but what am I?” That is not how you hold a discussion. It’s not even how you hold an argument, unless you’re in grade school.
If you don’t know what I am talking about, why did you launch an aggressive personal attack over it? I have no idea what your agenda is, but it sucks whatever it is.
One doesn’t need to know what someone is talking about to know they’re wrong. If you said we know John Cook is a murderer, I’d know you were wrong whether or not I knew who you thought he had murdered.
Similarly, I know John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli did not do what you claim they did in this post. I have no idea what you think they did, but I do know you’re wrong about it.
Lots of people who don’t understand what I am talking about are sure that I am wrong.
Given how obvious it is to anyone who is familiar with the issues, that doesn’t surprise me.
If you want to make a case you’re mistreated, or that these people are fools, you should try actually saying what you mean. Otherwise, all you’ll have is some people who, judging by the comments here, don’t know what you mean but agree because they like the sound of it.
I’m opposed to the teaching of chimpanzees how to use computers, for fear that these kind of posts would result. Brandon, back to your cage.
97% of all chimpanzees agree that humans should have their noses bit off and eyes gouged out. Does that make it true?
C’mon, Brandon – don’t be so serious. This is a blog which doesn’t pretend to be pure analysis, on the same level as, say, Climateaudit or your own. As Steve’s signature says at the bottom of every post, “Just having fun”.
Steve’s just as likely to go off on a freedom to bear arms tangent, or an Obama-born-in-Kenya post, as he is to actually post something serious about climate. In fact, that’s not quite fair – most posts are serious and about climate, while some are on other topics altogether and use a certain poetic licence.
Anyone reading Steve’s blogs regularly will realize that you need to expect a lot of very serious posts, but some other random stuff thrown in here and there, just because he wants to.
That’s not to detract from yours and others’ thoughtful analysis of Lewandowsky, Cook, Nutticelli and others. It’s just that Steve Goddard isn’t Steve McIntyre and he never will be.
Anto, I didn’t criticize Steven Goddard for not being serious. I think his repetitive use of “fake” was nothing but a petty attempt at smearing people he dislikes, but that’s not something which would cause me to comment in disgust.
I commented here for one reason: Steven Goddard made things up. I wouldn’t accept that from Skeptical Science team members, and I won’t accept it from WUWT contributors. It’s no different than how I’ve repeatedly criticized Richard Tol for making ludicrously wrong claims about Cook et al while many supposed skeptics happily embraced him.
I believe when people are wrong, they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what “side” they’re on. It doesn’t matter who they support or criticize. I think that’s the only way one can truly claim to be skeptical or fair.
Now then, if my comments weren’t justified, Goddard could have easily slapped me down. All he had to do was show what he said in this post is true. Heck, he could have just showed it was based in something resembling reality. Instead, he adamantly refused to even say what he was talking about.
If behavior like that and a post like this are accepted by skeptics, I can’t see what’s supposed to be more appealing about skeptics than warmists. It’d seem mindless acceptance of utter nonsense is common to both sides.
Alright. I’ll bow out. You two are big enough and ugly enough to argue amongst yourselves.
Anto, I find it awkward you effectively equate Steven Goddard and I by saying we “are big enough and ugly enough.” As harsh as my language has been, it has been completely justified. Stating the truth in simple and direct terms is not being ugly. I get my language may be unenjoyable, but if one accepts the arguments I’ve made about Goddard’s writing, there is no denying the language was appropriate.
On a related note, I was intending to drop this as I figured my point had been made and there was no way anyone would budge on their views. Unfortunately, I was told Goddard’s pieces on the modern temperature record are good, and I felt obligated to check for myself. After that, I couldn’t ignore this and instead wrote a blog post about it.
I think you’ll find a decent case for behavior as harsh as mine.
It was a fake poll because they didn’t poll anybody, they merely looked at abstracts.
They used fake questions because they didn’t ask any questions to actual people who could answer them.
It’s a fake topic because AGW is a fake topic.
They did fake statistics because they are not statisticians.
They made a fake press release by choosing only those who already agreed with them.
They lied about everything because they are Cook and Dana.
OK Brandon?
Morgan, that makes no sense. You just said they did a “fake poll because they didn’t poll anybody.” They never claimed their survey of abstracts was a poll. Not doing a poll while not claiming to do a poll does not mean they did “a fake poll.”
Similarly, not asking questions is not asking fake questions. By your argument, we could approach anyone who did anything, ever, and have the exchange: “You asked fake questions!” “I didn’t ask any questions.” “Exactly!”
I don’t want to even try to imagine how you figure “AGW is a fake topic.”
The idea you think you can say they “did fake statistics because they are not statisticians” is incredibly disturbing. By that standard, practically anyone involved in global warming discussions can be accused of doing “fake statistics.”
And that’s about all I can say before my head kills me for punishing it with this insanity.
Brandon, I’m Australian. “You’re big enough and ugly enough to look after yourself” is one of our sayings. Sorry if it doesn’t translate. It’s not meant to be taken literally.
OK Brandon so you’re just a troll, then. Somebody who goes around the web making idiotic arguments with everybody for the sake of argument.
Trollenberger.
Kook, Nutter, and Trollenberger
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
This is a good thread. Still laughing about brain “as is” and “big enough and ugly enough”, even used the “as is” today. I guess old geezers like me are easy to please.
We laugh at pretentious crap and worry about serious stuff?
Trolinberger minus onions,
Be advised. They aren’t scientists. They are climate scientists, which is a branch of environmental scientist, which is a branch of social scientist, which is a branch of political scientist, which is a branch of liberal artist, which is a branch of bullshit artist. The only reason you believe them is they are this magic word “scientist” like they are the witch doctor or the medicine man? If you are blinded with science and you believe them because they claim to be scientists, then you are a moron. Nothing but a moron.
Morgan, it’s silly to distinguish between “scientists” and “climate scientists” when none of the people referred to on this page are climate scientists. No amount of criticisms you may level against climate scientists will mean we should or should not true people who are not climate scientists.
As for suggesting I’m a moron because I believe them because they say they’re scientists, that’s probably the dumbest idea yet. I’ve repeatedly shown I don’t trust them. Heck, I’ve publicly called John Cook a, and I quote, “filthy liar.”
If you are trying to say we are on the same team, then act like it.
If you think mindlessly fawning over one another, no matter how wrong anyone might be, is a requisite to being teammates, I certainly am not on your team. That sort of closing of ranks is one of the major reasons global warming proponents are criticized. I’m not going to engage in the very behavior I criticize other people for.
Right is right; wrong is wrong. I call both as I see them. Anyone who thinks that isn’t a good process certainly isn’t on my team.
If you think mindlessly attacking other skeptics over things you don’t understand is winning you any brownie points, you are mistaken.
I’m not “mindlessly attacking” anything, and while I “don’t understand” what you’re saying in this post, that’s only because I can’t read minds to see what delusions yours hold.
The truth is I wouldn’t understand what you were saying if you said, “John Cook apple, apple pear plum!” I’d still say you were posting nonsense.
As for earning brownie points, I can’t say I care about the idea, and I certainly don’t know who I’d earn points from. All I know is when people post nonsense, other people should point out it is nonsense.
Brandon, put a sock in it.
“What do you mean put a sock in it? By “it” I assume you mean my mouth. But why should I put a sock in my mouth when I’m typing on a keyboard? I should put the sock on the keyboard. I think if you want me to put a sock on the keyboard you should say so, instead of telling me to do something which, if I did it the way you instructed, in my mouth, would not change what I type at all. This is utter nonsense”
When have I ever claimed that Obama was born in Kenya? I have pointed out that his literary agents believe he was born in Kenya. My analysis is quite serious thank you.
I never said you did, Steve. I said an “Obama-born-in-Kenya post”.
Big difference between an “Obama-born-in-Kenya post” and an “Obama’s close associates say he was born in Kenya post”
I have no information on the topic.
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked.”
It is a sure sign you are talking Marxism and not science. Socialists are forever redefining terms. For example they took over the word liberal with all its positive connotations in the minds of people. What used to be called a liberal (aka Classic Liberal) is now deniged as a Right wingnut.
Unless you understand the philosophical basis behind the word ‘Consensus’ you miss the whole point of what has been done.
The Philosophy Of Karl Marx
This is why the output of models is considered data and field observation are of no consequence.
The formation of ‘Consensus’ is the product of the thesis,(the CAGW idea) and the antithesis(the Natural Variation idea)
This is why we are called “Deniers of Climate Change” because we deny “Climate Change” which the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change defined:
Unfortunately this is the philosophy now taught in our schools and the reason for the ‘War on Logic’ and the promotion of Emotion as the basis for decisions.
I mention the corruption of our schools. This was done deliberately.
Robin (a lawyer) at invisible serfs Collar is doing a lot of research on the United Nations ‘Common Core’ which is now being implemented.
His newest essay is Collecting Student Data to Practice PsychoPolitics on a Massive but Invisible Scale without Consent
Remember the founding Director-General of UNESCO was Eugenist and Fabian Julian Huxley.
If you bother to look every time you turn around you trip over another Fabian in a position of power. Do not forget that the London School of Economics was founded by the Fabian’s and is churning out people like David Rockefeller and George Soros every year. These people are not necessarily card caring Fabians but have a similar mind set. (The education for the masses and the education for our Elite rulers is different BTW. THEY get a ‘Classical Education’)
This article also shows the difference between the masses vs the Elite here in the USA
America’s Ruling Class—and the Perils of Revolution
Thank you Gail. Nail on head, as usual.
I see Brandon using about 3000 words to say, “What in the world is this post going on about?”
I would note the Brandon seems to have trouble figuring it out. I agree with Brandon: he has trouble figuring it out.
Please, provide us with more wisdom, & “calling out”, Brandon. You are definitely not a guy who doesn’t “call them as he sees them”, that’s for sure.
I always miss all the fun!
If I may levy one minor criticism, Steven: you neglected to mention “fake scientists”. 🙂
Steve, don’t feel bad this is apparently normal behavior for Brandon as he tried to accuse me of being unable to support my Kook et al. accusations at Lucia’s,
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/#comment-113162
“…that means they classified many papers authored by skeptics as either “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position”.” – Poptech
“Poptech, I saw you make a similar claim over at WUWT. I figured somebody would have corrected you by now. The authors didn’t use every paper written in every journal. There’s no reason to assume every paper you refer to was included in their study. Unless you take the time to check what was and was not included in their study, you’ve got no basis for what you’re saying.” – Brandon
Yep… he was wrong,
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them
Even better he later denied he made the comments,
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/nir-shaviv-one-of-the-97/#comment-113337
“I never claimed or suggested papers were not misclassified…” – Brandon
He seems to make reckless accusations and then twists himself in knots trying to get out of them. You have to understand the mindset, Brandon delusionally believes himself to be PERFECTLY objective (and everyone else biased), the only other person in the climate skeptic community who has this disease is Steve Mosher.
I don’t feel bad. I just wish this idiot would shut up.
This thread only goes to prove that it is never a good idea to visit this site if you don’t bring your sense of humor with you.