Oh this is fun, Bishop Hill catches John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” in a revisionism gaffe using The Wayback Machine.
Skeptical Science and its host, John Cook, have been much commented upon recently, the site’s grubby treatment of Roger Pielke Snr having caused considerable disquiet. I’m grateful to reader PaulM for pointing me to another example of the way things are done on John Cook’s watch.
… he shows the issue and the proof…then…
Astonishingly, more than six months after having their errors pointed out to them, the denizens of Skeptical Science rewrote the article and then inserted comments suggesting that their commenters hadn’t read the article properly.
I’m simply flabbergasted.
And it’s even more amazing when one recalls that Skeptical Science was recently the recipient of an award from the Australian Museum for services to climate science.
Read all about it here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
My long time concern about Skeptical Science has been one of visual nature, but I’ve kept it to myself until now. Here’s the current header for the website
Can you really put much stock in a website that offers a fake photoshopped representation of Antarctica’s flora and fauna in the header? At least they are in good company, as NOAA/NCDC and Science have also used fake photoshopped imagery to their advantage.