There are some really, really odd people in the world today. Odd in a not very nice way. Odd in a creepy way.
It doesn't surprise me that Anthony Watts doesn't find this insulting and sexist rant creepy.
It doesn't surprise me that some people think Josh's ad hom cartoons are funny not creepy.
It doesn't surprise me that some people think it's not creepy when Anthony Watts deliberately stirs up his fans by referring to SkepticalScience as SS:
June 10, 2013 at 1:53 pm The acronym SS somehow seems so appropriate.
Henry Galt says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm Nope. SS is what I have invariably monikered them.
(There's much worse on WUWT, which I won't repeat here.)
It's kind of creepy that all those people who don't think any of the above is creepy, also think it's not creepy to download images from someone else's private web site, plaster them all over your blog and make up paranoid conspiracy theories about them, writing:
It’s possible they made these with the idea of a false flag operation in mind.
Has Anthony so quickly forgotten it was he who called them the SS and got his mob to chime in with worse? (WUWT watchers will note the irony, with paranoid conspiracy theorising Anthony posting as many protest articles against Lewandowsky et al's NASA Faked the Moon Landing as he did the 97% Consensus, if not more - and almost as many as he did protesting Marcott et al.)
And it's kind of creepy that these same people who don't think any of the above is creepy, do think its 'creepy' when in order not to feel too creeped out, those who've been subject to those creepy attacks from WUWT and others, take the sting out by poking fun at themselves in private, and privately share a joke with their friends who've also been creeped out by the creeps actions above.
PS To add to the creepies, one lowlife is even going to the extent of (erroneously) scrambling for a legal technicality to excuse Anthony Watts thievery and creepy perving. No morals, no values - very creepy.
PS To add to the creepies, one lowlife is even going to the extent of (erroneously) scrambling for a legal technicality to excuse Anthony Watts thievery and creepy perving. No morals, no values - very creepy.
Still, there is this:
And there is this (which Anthony Watts will never forgive or forget):
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: OFA.BO/gJsdFp
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013
And this (h/t MikeH)
Retweet if you agree it's time to #ActOnClimate. pic.twitter.com/xZxi6KdInY
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 11, 2013
And then there is this - which is much more important than any of the above:
Recall Michael Mann's Serengeti Strategy and raise a glass to all the heroes at SkepticalScience.com for their tireless work, for keeping on keeping on in their efforts to save us from ourselves.
Oh - and this that surfaced is just delightful:
WUWT is no match for Scooterboy and the Overcooked Prawn!
Well, when you have no scientific argument with which to challenge the scientific consensus, this is what you are reduced to. And there will be consequences.
ReplyDeleteImagine the scene, three decades from now. All who sailed in SkS and RC will be lauded for attempting to present the facts. Those who ladled the misinformational chum will stand in an unforgiving spotlight.
Good luck to them.
I think this week must be creep week at WUWT. There has been a string of creepy WUWT, creeping out one creepy event after another from them all week. And it's not even halfway through.
DeleteAs you and others have argued, the deniers are probably feeling the pressure. So, crazier and creepier. One wonders how far it will go and how unpleasant it will get as the years go by and the evidence piles up. Intellectually - and politically - a horrible future awaits our denialist chums.
DeleteThanks for link to Josh's cartoons. He has found his market.
ReplyDeleteStrange how WUWT links the term 'denier' to the holocaust, cue faux outrage, but the acronym 'SS' slips under the radar and is appropriate to use. Must fit in with Monckton's 'Hitler Youth' jibe. Even stranger is how rightwing conservatives are so prone to labelling others with opposing 'views' as fascist.
ReplyDeleteYe olde denialist projection. In lieu of a scientific argument, it's all they've got.
DeleteThe SS was in reference to the SkS posted images of Nazi uniforms to which the images of SkS persons (Cook and Nuccitelli) were affixed. Even after SkS became aware that such images were visible to the public, it did NOT delete them; instead, SkS placed the images in another directory still visible to the public. Such an action is both creepy AND likely worthy of outrage - at least by Holocaust survivors.
DeleteNo doubt, this comment will not be posted publicly, but I hope the SkS moderator who deletes it can at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of Cook permitting the continued posting of such images (as evidenced by their relocation instead of deletion) at the same time he labels a "denialist's" open letter as being creepy. Compartmentalization is a wonderful tool for those with eyes wide closed.
KR
DeleteVery odd, considering that the "SS" term has been applied off and on to SkepticalScience and its authors for a couple of years now - Watts has to keep telling his commenters to stop it, and it frequently shows up on other denial blogs as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awattsupwiththat.com+"+ss+"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abishophill.squarespace.com+"+ss+"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajoannenova.com.au+%22+ss+%22
...for just a few examples. It hardly started in the last few days.
"Even after SkS became aware that such images were visible to the public, it did NOT delete them ... an action is both creepy AND likely worthy of outrage"
Now that, I'm just going to have to call you on - as complete BS. Whether they did it well or not (and the sub-directory move looked clumsy) those images were gone within about a day - and at least 80% of the ones I looked at were graphs or web imagery, things I suspect they had no desire to delete. They weren't "public" images, either, AFAICS, but rather located in a poorly protected (likely by error) folder that someone else hunted up and deliberately publicized in a clear attempt to embarrass.
Consider the difference between something public (say, in your front yard), and something poorly kept private (where someone deliberately trying the various gates to the back-yard finds one unlocked, and throws it open, calling on all the neighbors to come look). Who's responsible for that public view, eh?
Hacking at a private forum? That, I would opine, is plenty creepy all on its own.
"Now that, I'm just going to have to call you on - as complete BS."
DeleteNo, it is not complete BS. The initial reaction of SkS was to MOVE the images and NOT delete them. That action has been documented and posted via screen scraps on WUWT. Therefore, I stand by the legitimacy of my earlier statement - presented fully, "Even after SkS became aware that such images were visible to the public, it did NOT delete them; instead, SkS placed the images in another directory still visible to the public."
I'll take your word that they've been deleted since the move because access to that directory and its parent have since been restricted. Understandably, though, the remaining images (I never calculated there percentage as a total of all images int he directory) were not creepy but actually related to the science of climate change.
"They weren't 'public' images, either, AFAICS, but rather located in a poorly protected (likely by error) folder that someone else hunted up and deliberately publicized in a clear attempt to embarrass."
What makes the images embarrassing is NOT their discovery (whether deliberate or not) but rather their content - period.
"Hacking at a private forum? That, I would opine, is plenty creepy all on its own."
Certainly, you're entitled to an opinion on whether the public revealing of such images is creepy, as are others. However, accessing a web site via ftp rather than http will likely produce interesting results. The .edu web sites are infamous for the same! But viewing such results is not hacking given that no restrictions were placed on accessing the material by the web site owner/operator. Webster defines hacking as, "gaining access to a computer illegally." There were no locks or gates (i.e., permissives) on either the entire SkS directory structure or images; the locks were absent with no tangible sign of their existence and the doors were full open and decidedly inviting.
If your neighbors left their window full open as they argued, should they be surprised to hear their argument discussed across the neighborhood? I think not. Indeed, even Peter Gleick employed a version of this reasoning (albeit not really analogous) when defending his actions last year against the Heartland Institute.
My opinion is that that public revealing of the SkS images was more inconsiderate than creepy, but the SkS images themselves were creepy.
My guess would be that the images were moved en masse by their web administrators for further consideration by the owners. Wholesale deletion would have removed a lot of graphs.
DeleteThis is still a case of someone trying all the locks, then opening an unlocked door and calling the neighborhood in (repeatedly, in the case of the moved images). Personally, the proper behavior should be to drop the owners a note informing them of the security hole.
By your reasoning: 'Well, gee,' said the mugger, 'any reasonable person would have been looking behind them in that neighborhood, so I was fully justified in mugging them. They were inviting me!' Try that in court, and let us know how that goes...
I’ll let Anonymous (KR et al., if extant) have the last word in that I don't intend to respond further after this comment. I believe that neither side will sway the other and agreeing to disagree appears to be the final outcome.
DeleteBut... I don't believe the concern about the SkS images focuses on "how" they were moved with respect to other images in the directory - en masse or not. The concern focuses on the fact that SkS images were not deleted - at least initially - but remained intact and moved elsewhere. Focusing on how they were moved is like worrying about the placement of the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks – it’s immaterial to a more troubling reality.
And as stated previously, there were neither locks not doors on the entire SkS directory structure or images. Thus, there was no "trying" of locks and doors, which is a euphemism for hacking. There was, though, and open portal through which any could (and did) enter.
I DO agree that the neighborly thing to have done is inform your exposed neighbor that they have no locks or doors. Not to do so would be inconsiderate. However, this presumes an amicable (or at the very least neutral) relationship with the neighbor, which I think all would agree does not exist between SkS and WUWT for reasons justified or not by either party.
"Try that in court, and let us know how that goes..."
I don't need to because the SkS has adopted the Creative Commons, Attribution 3.0 Unported (Non-Commercial and No Derivatives) License - http://www.skepticalscience.com/creativecommons.shtml .
As a result, a web site user (even those that walk through open portals) is permitted to copy, distribute and transmit the web site’s work provided it is properly attributed (WUWT acknowledged that the images originated from the SkS uploaded files), is not used for commercial purposes (WUWT neither charged a fee to view the SkS images nor were they incorporated into a commercial product – e.g., syndicated cartoon), and is not altered, transformed, or built upon (WUWT presented the SkS images in their entirety to include directory structure – even after SkS re-arranged the structure by moving the directory in which the images were maintained originally).
It's a rather generous license, one that would be difficult to defend as having been violated in an Australian (Queensland) court of law, I suspect - presuming that Cook would prefer not to travel when defending the web site's license.
Thomas Murphy - what a load of crock! As KR and I pointed out - the images you refer to were obvious an an attempt at defusing the awfulness of Anthony Watts calling them SS and encouraging his troops to write much worse. I expect you would know better than me (I don't visit most denier dens) that lots of other people attack Skeptical Science in a similar low fashion.
DeleteYou make a big deal of them moving images not deleting them. These images were mainly working charts and other resources from what I could see. The other images were very few. There's no way I would delete my climate image resources just because Anthony Watts snuck in my open window to steal and perve. He's a creep and behaves with no morals whatever, but there's no way I'd let creeps like you and he control my work or dictate what I can and can't do.
Now you're trying to justify Watts' behaviour after the event by going all legal/technical?
Sheesh. What you're now admitting is "it wasn't the right thing to do but maybe I can weazle my way out of it by finding some technicality in the law".
That goes to character and speaks volumes of yours. And the images were on a private forum, not on SkepticalScience proper - so the technicality you are scrambling for wouldn't apply in any case.
Most people will view Watts and your behaviour and attitude as slimey at best. I understand deniers deny because of world view and cognitive impairment. Now I also am learning that some deniers come up short in the morality and values department as well.
As I indicated earlier, yours is the last word on this issue. Enjoy.
DeleteBlimey! You couldn't even get that right :(
DeleteI'll make it right and make my word the last for now, unless someone else wants to chime in.
(I assume the "Enjoy" was either sarcasm or obsequiousness - Willis-style. It takes a lot of energy cleaning up the disgusting mess deniers make.)
ANXIOUS PARENT: I'm really worried about Timmy. He's proclaimed himself a libertarian, he won't use public transport, and he seems to think the cartoons at WUWT are funny.
ReplyDeleteDEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Ah, 'Josh's Syndrome'. Yes, this is serious.
It's getting worse: how low can you go.
ReplyDeleteJorge says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:00 pm
John Cook looks like a child molester in that photo.
The comment has since been snipped.
"SS"? Well, Anthony understands what his readers want.
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama's twitter account keeps tweeting the 97% consensus graphic to his 34 million followers.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/355433365475848193
No wonder the cranks are in collective apoplexy over the Cook et al paper.
"The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal," - Albert Einstein
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete