Bishop Hill and the skeptical cookbook

Oh this is fun, Bishop Hill catches John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” in a revisionism gaffe using The Wayback Machine.

He writes:

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.

Of course there’s always the Penguin image they could use, which goes well with Ursus Bogus

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Antarctic, GLOC and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Bishop Hill and the skeptical cookbook

  1. The link to The Bish’s palace needs some pruning. The html includes an extra sentence.

    REPLY: Fixed, thanks -Anthony

  2. Gras Albert says:

    Anthony

    Your link is is incorrect, it’s pointing to a non existent WUWT page

    [Reply: Already Fixed. Thanks. -REP, mod]

  3. Michael Eiseman says:

    The Bishop Hill link is 404 due to including the following paragraph being included in the link:
    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.

  4. H.R. says:

    Can’t they find another bit of ice to pose those critters on? That piece in the pictures of the penguin and the bear is getting to be too recognizable.

  5. Gras Albert says:

    As for this particular article’s history and the site’s moderation policy in general, might one suggest that Skeptical Science is [snip -over the top, I don't agree with what they do, but that's overboard in this context -Anthony]

  6. pwoodsvt says:

    Thanks for this information. I visit SkepticalScience frequently because I like to see both sides of the global warming argument. The site makes some good arguments but there are many places where their explanation is weak (the explanation of C02 lagging behind temperature). I would love to see more of these arguments of theirs debunked.

    By the way, the link to the bishop-hill article did not work. I had to copy the url and paste it in my web browser.

  7. DirkH says:

    He’s got an advantage over wikipedia there – the wikipedians must first find an excuse to delete an article to get rid of that pesky history. (Assuming that they don’t just falsify their own article histories. Well, only the top rank of wikipedians will have the necessary privilegues for that.)

  8. DickF says:

    Reminds me of how the Soviets used to retroactively rewrite/airbrush disgraced leaders out of existence in books and photographs.

    I’ve found that if someone is willing to lie to you about something that doesn’t matter very much (such as a minor embarrassment), they’ll usually lie to you about the kinds of things that do matter, as well. One has to wonder how people like Cook (and his minions) can look themselves in the mirror in the morning.

  9. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I visited SS once a couple of years ago – and like RC – I never went back…….both show glaring bias and flaws.
    any award must have been a fix!

  10. IAmDigitap says:

    [snip, this is a rambling over the top diatribe that violates site policy, even though it is directed at AGW propoenents - WUWT is not your personal soapbox, clean it up, shorten it up - Anthony]

  11. Mark T says:

    One has to wonder how people like Cook (and his minions) can look themselves in the mirror in the morning.

    Cognitive dissonance. He has some justification in his own mind, nothing else matters. This is a pretty good indication that he is harboring his own doubts… he is afraid of those doubts and is trying with increasing zeal to fill the holes. I have not read about CD deeply enough to understand whether the ultimate result is a realization that the truth must out, or simply a psychotic break.

    Mark

  12. RockyRoad says:

    Revisionist science? Do they really think re-writing history will leave them in a rosier place? Apparently so–too bad they failed so miserably!

  13. Autochthony says:

    Looks very sad.
    I’ll echo [most of] the comment from – “DickF says:
    September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    I’ve found that if someone is willing to lie to you about something that doesn’t matter very much (such as a minor embarrassment), they’ll usually lie to you about the kinds of things that do matter, as well. One has to wonder how people like Cook (and his minions) can look themselves in the mirror in the morning.”

    It makes me wonder about politicians – of all sorts.
    Our trouble – if we should never elect to office those who seek office [above Dog-catcher, certainly] – who do we trust to run our [nation state/country-level] affairs?
    And yet, we see how unsuitable many of the recent “leaders” appear to be . . . .

    [BTW not an intentional reference to Dominic Strauss-Kahn, or Silvio Berlusconi.]

  14. vboring says:

    As for the header image, they are Australian. Australians like brightly colored striking images.

    It is a pretty common theme in graphic design down there. A kind of technicolor 1980′s theme.

    In any case, this image is so obviously and intentionally fake that it is in a different league from images that could pass for real.

  15. James Sexton says:

    I’d join in laughing at and mocking these history revisionists wannabees, but I’m filled with a bit of sadness. I had held out hope that Mr. Cook would have begin to see the truth, and perhaps he has. I think its been a bit too much for him to bear. There seems to have been a distinct personality change in the way skeptics are dealt with over there. I understand he has help “moderating” these days, but a couple of years ago I would not have believed he would have allowed such actions. Sadly, today I see where he has. Much to the pity.

    Ok, now that said…….. OMG!!!! What kind of insecure personality feels the need to go back 6 months to hide a minor error in such a manner?

    John!!!! SEEK HELP!!!

  16. George says:

    Expect the next great announcement. Polar bears no longer threatened, but penguins are threatened due to polar bear predation. And there will be pictures to prove it.

  17. Mark S says:

    Sceptical Science ‘Argument’ articles are regularly updated, mainly in response to reader feedback or new research.

  18. KR says:

    So – the article got updated over a several year span with greatly expanded content, articles, data, etc.. There was a considerable revision of most articles around 09-10 where many were expanded into basic/intermediate/advanced content.

    The land ice statements (land ice in decline) are in the original, sea ice (which was brought up in the comments) discussion was added later to the header article. Given the comment thread, with multiple posters discussing sea ice instead, that’s apparently necessary. But the relevant comments in the thread were not inserted post-facto – they’re in the WayBack machine in sequence.

    I’m not seeing any revisionist history here – just ongoing updates to an article to include recent data. And hence accusations of Soviet style revisionism are really unwarranted.

    REPLY: I don’t think you followed through in looking at both past and present side by side. He’s referring to the inline comment changes by moderators which were in fact revised, wholesale. – Anthony

  19. spangled drongo says:

    Did SkS ever mention “Happy Feet” reversing that logo?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/5639840/Happy-Feet-discoverer-writes-book

  20. Fred says:

    “One has to wonder how people like Cook (and his minions) can look themselves in the mirror in the morning.”

    I don’t think he does. Haven’t you seen his photo ;-)

    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg

    Anthony – Sorry for getting personal wrt JC. Just couldn’t resist.

    REPLY: Einstein had crazy bed head too, it means nothing. – Anthony

  21. percy says:

    Mark S

    but is it always obvious what the edits and changes have been?

  22. R. de Haan says:

    From Lubos Motl’s reference Frame about John Cook:
    My prediction came true, John Cook won a big prize….
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/trf-prediction-came-true-john-cook-won.html

    our corrupt establishment encourages lies and manipulation of climate science and rewards hacks like Cook with big money prizes.

    Just like the Nobel Prize Committee.

    Screw them all.

  23. James Sexton says:

    KR says:
    September 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    So – the article got updated over a several year span with greatly expanded content, articles, data, etc.. There was a considerable revision of most articles around 09-10 where many were expanded into basic/intermediate/advanced content.

    The land ice statements (land ice in decline) are in the original,………
    =================================================================
    KR, either you haven’t looked and are talking out of your behind or you are intentionally trying to deceive people.
    Compare……. this is what it looks like today…. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

    This is what it looked like…….. http://web.archive.org/web/20090203184153/http:/www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

    Do you notice the two different responses to AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008? Notice how in wayback it was comment #5 and now comment #3? Yes, they altered comments and responses to the comments. And, they altered the content of the thread. But you say they didn’t attempt to revise history………. please follow the same advice I gave John Cook.

  24. Paul says:

    You just can’t hide anything anymore, with the resources of the internet it’s just to easy to find records, witnesses and cronies to keep anything buried, it’s far easier to avoid spouting bilge water than to clean it up afterwards.

  25. ZT says:

    Was the SkS award the one that Johann Hari returned?

  26. Chilli says:

    This is incredible. So Cook re-wrote the article using ideas from the comments – then he went back to those same comments and added smart-arse inline replies accusing the commenters of not reading the article. BUSTED!!! Great catch. Cook’s SS credibility just dropped even further. Hope ya’ll got plenty of screen grabs cos that page is sure to disappear any minute now.

  27. IAmDigitap says:

    [snip: to repeat what Anthony said on a prior submission of yours: this is a rambling over the top diatribe that violates site policy, even though it is directed at AGW propoenents - WUWT is not your personal soapbox, clean it up, shorten it up

    Apologies to anyone who may have already responded to this comment. It is not suitable for WUWT and similar diatribes, even though directed toward alarmists, WILL be deleted. -REP, mod]

  28. IAmDigitap says:

    Looking back at my post I see it’s evident I wrote it over lunch at Round Table where my wife and I had lunch; sorry for spelling and less-than-optimum grammar.

    Walt

  29. Kaboom says:

    I am surprised they were able to resist the temptation to put a polar bear next to a penguin (and maybe a budding hemp plant) on that header – it would be quite perfectly symbolizing the factual content of their publication.

  30. wes george says:

    I, too, was once a frequent visitor to Cook’s site, but was dismayed by retrospective changes and manipulations in both the posts and the comment sections that I couldn’t prove because I only had my memory to go by. At first I thought I was losing my mind. Eventually, I realised that no one is allowed to win an argument on his blog and that the end (saving the planet?) justifies any means…. His unscrupulous style of twisting facts and arguments–and even other people’s comments–to fit whatever minor point his side was making confirmed to me that the disingenuous streak in the way CAGW is promoted was endemic to the cause…For that’s what CAGW has become, a political cause wholly divorced from science even as it falsely derives its moral authority from science…. From Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, to James Hansen’s partisan protests, to Climategate, to Atlasgate. And a thousand lies, little and big in between, the whole CAGW meme has been one never-ending field day for skeptics, the lie that keep on coming and giving.

    John Cook is just one more brick in the wall.

  31. KR says:

    James Sexton

    OK, let’s look at the content:

    7-19-08, original article text: “While East Antarctica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antarctica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antarctic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.”

    7-19-08, #5
    AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008
    OK smarties. If Antarctica is overall losing ice, then how do you explain the data?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

    The Arctic doesn’t seem to be doing so bad anymore, also:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
    [ Response: Funny you should ask, the last few weeks, I've been preparing a series of posts on Antarctica and the Arctic. First one next week. Stay tuned... ]

    Current content:

    9-20-11, #3
    AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008
    OK smarties. If Antarctica is overall losing ice, then how do you explain the data?

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

    The Arctic doesn’t seem to be doing so bad anymore, also:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
    Response: It’s somewhat discouraging that the first point I make is that people often fail to distinguish between sea ice and land ice. They are two separate phenomena. And yet you repeat the error. To clarify, Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.

    So – in the meantime two comments (one snarky, one off-topic) were deleted, and the moderator comment was updated to reflect new content. Content of the posting you point to is unchanged.

    Methinks you protest far too much, James.

  32. kalsel3294 says:

    I think John Cook started out with good intentions, but his naivety, both of the workings of the physical world, but in particular of human nature, led to him allowing certain moderators to hijack control of his site and thus impose their own narrow agenda on the content and to allow their hypocrisy to be reflected in the anything but transparent moderation process.

    REPLY: I think the same, when he first started, I could carry on a reasonable dialog with him – Anthony

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Dear Anthony,
    I suggest your blogroll should have a new category, “Climate Propaganda”. It’d be useful to separate out the sites that are at least trying to be scientific from those throwing around “science” as a propaganda tool. This won’t be just for the “Pro AGW Views” either, “skeptical” sites can be listed there as well.

    Besides, it’ll be a nice place to list SkepSci to help out people who might otherwise wander there expecting a real examination of real science. ☺

  34. John Whitman says:

    John Cook,

    I hope you respond at WUWT.

    Although I am not a supporter of your SS (Skeptical Science) nor do I plan on doing so in the future, I would appreciate an answer to a question.

    A SS strategy is to promote its scientific skepticism of climate science skepticism. Do you think actual skeptical scientific discourse requires an open and non-manipulated venue to actually achieve the significant benefits to science that always result from vigorous scientific skepticism? If so then why does your SS simply censor/manipulate/mock the skeptical scientific position on the basis of the IPCC’s so-called consensus with its so-called settled climate science?

    On the other hand, if you don’t think scientific skepticism requires a venue with openness and non-manipulation, then why the constant justifications for censoring/manipulating scientifically skeptical comments/content on SS? It seems you wouldn’t need justifications at all. The fact of the SS justifications implies you know the non-scientific nature of your SS.

    Please advise.

    John

  35. Dr K.A. Rodgers says:

    It is not suprising that John Cook was awarded the Australian Museum’s Eureka Prize for 2011. The current Chair of the Museum Trust, Sam Mostyn, also serves on the Minister for Climate Change’s Coasts and Climate Change Council.

    And, of course Robyn Williams, a fomer Trust Chair at the time the Eureka awards were introduced in the 1990s, is a prominent ABC cheer leader in all matters warming, via his Science Show.

  36. HankH says:

    KR (September 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm), cut with the indefensible excuses. I can understand changing the article content using the standard method of strikethroughs and [Edit: ] blocks. It is a commonly accepted and ethical editorial practice that every reputable blog uses.

    There remains several very problematic issues at hand. First, whether you wish to accept it or not, the article was published. Any changes to it post publication wise should have followed proper editing practices. If SkS is to be an authoritative and reliable source of information then they must follow accepted standards to reasonably inform the reader that elements of the information presented was changed and why. It is a courtesy you extend to the reader, not a liberty you take at the reader’s expense.

    Second, the comment section is a conversation that follows a timeline and an exchange of intellectual understanding that is based on the information they are responding to. To go back and make any changes to comments or replies to make them align with undisclosed changes in the information is disingenuous by any standard. It is paramount to putting words in peoples mouths and rewriting history.

    Methinks you dismiss glaringly unconscionable behavior as being acceptable to a site that purports to hold to high academic and journalistic standards. There is a disconnect at all levels.

  37. Sun Spot says:

    The first lie is in the skeptical science name. What do you expect after that ?

  38. Darren Parker says:

    Someone should send this in to Media Watch (and confirm the ABC’s bias when they don’t run it). Yet they’ve gone at my website twice before – so there’s no excuse.

  39. KingOchaos says:

    I used to be a regular at SkS (under the name Joe Blog).. But it very quickly became evident that with the introduction o dana, things took a turn for the worst. And i couldnt stomach the rubbish they started to post(im pedantic, and lousy analogies, and broad generalizations coming to firm conclusions dont cut it )… end of the day, there are a lot better sites for the science(science of doom, Isaac held etc), And better ones for having a debate if the mood takes you(climate etc, here)

    I have no issues with radiative physics, and find climatology a fascinating subject… but the tone at that place has become nauseating. The condescending tone they have adopted will win them no friends or “converts” in any area other than those who share the same ideological beliefs(not scientific/ ideological)

  40. jorgekafkazar says:

    IAmDigitap says: September 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm [yatta-yatta]

    Don’t worry about the spelling & grammar; I don’t read comments that are (a) over two screens long and (b) full of upper case words. Sorry.

  41. James Sexton says:

    KR says:
    September 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    James Sexton

    ………rationalization…..more rationalizations……. over rationalization

    Methinks you protest far too much, James.
    ===============================================

    Yes, let’s look at the content.

    The edited response……. “Response: It’s somewhat discouraging that the first point I make is that people often fail to distinguish between sea ice and land ice.”

    But, in the original, that wasn’t the first point he made. In fact, the first sentence in the revised thread, “Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.”……….. wasn’t even alluded to.

    So, from that we can tell, he edited his post, and then went back and edited his response to AnthonySG1 to make AnthonySG1 look like an idiot.

    And, no, I don’t protest too much, I protest constant aberrant behavior by people that present themselves as moral superiors to skeptics. They are obviously not and don’t have the even the compunction to suffer from “noble cause” corruption, they simply suffer from moral corruption. After years of witnessing the lies, obfuscations, misrepresentation, and a myriad of other signs of lack of character, its time to call a spade a spade. Your rationalization for such behavior isn’t warranted.

    James

  42. Brian H says:

    John Whitman says:
    September 20, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Excellent questions. Since skepticism is taboo, how can he rationally be skeptical of it? The bind moggles.

  43. manicbeancounter says:

    There are increasing examples of shutting any form of dissention.
    A moderate CAGW blog ThinkorSwim.ie allowed a thoughtful skeptical article to be re-posted in its site in February. Following complaints this posting was removed.
    See http://zone5.org/2011/09/thinkorswim-censor-zone5/
    The original article is at http://zone5.org/2011/02/climate-change-will-the-real-skeptics-please-stand-up/

  44. John Whitman says:

    Brian H says:
    September 20, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    ” [ . . ] Since skepticism is taboo, how can he rationally be skeptical of it? The bind moggles.”

    ——————–

    Brian H,

    Indeed.

    Now for a little parody – It is as if Cook is a weak minded King of a castle: Castle SS. The scurrilous court jesters (Dana et al) have taken over the castle and are manipulating the weak minded King into accepting their misdeeds. Question: Will the weak king’s fairy godmother save him from the malevolent lead court jester Dana?

    [imagine Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" playing in the background ]

    John

  45. _Jim says:

    Mark S says characteristically on September 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    Sceptical Science ‘Argument’ articles are regularly updated, mainly in response to reader feedback or new research.

    Mark S., defense attorney by day, defense attorney by night …

    (Somebody must defend scum, such that due process is rendered I suppose.)

    .

  46. RichyRoo2011 says:

    I’d like to note that SS are indeed Skeptical, of any science that contradicts any of their claims. One of their Top Ten is ‘It hasnt warmed since 1998′ … which completely denies the Kauffman and Trenberth papers discussed here.
    I have made comments to that effect, but strangely they dont make it past the moderators… how curious ;)

  47. John Whitman says:

    To: All SS regulars who might be lurking here to see what we are saying about SS.

    For your use at SS here is the short annotated history of the IPCC’s working definition of ‘climate science’ follows:

    Climate science is defined by the IPCC as the process of selecting evidence that makes the upcoming SAR TAR AR4 AR5 even more alarming about AGW by CO2 than its predecessor the FAR SAR TAR AR4 was.

    John

  48. _Jim says:

    Hmmm … John Cook responded on BH’s site:

    BH, no, I don’t cook any books. How SkS works is that the rebuttals to climate myths are organized as an encyclopedic reference, as opposed to blog posts which are more like snapshots in time. This means I regularly update old rebuttals when new data is released or when new papers are published. In this case, I updated my original rebuttal of the “Antarctica is gaining ice” myth with the latest GRACE data from Velicogna 2009 and while I was at it, also incorporated references to a number of other papers, trying to give a broad overview of what the peer-reviewed science had to say about what was happening in Antarctica.

    When I posted the responses to those particular comments, I mistakenly thought they were comments to the updated post (SkS is a big site so I don’t keep track of all the comments as they come in). So in responding to the commenters, thinking they hadn’t read the updated article, I was unfair to them. It was an honest mistake but I’m a little annoyed with myself for making it because the focus on the timing of comments and responses distracts attention from the science discussed: Antarctic land ice is shrinking at an accelerating rate but Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the fact that the Southern Ocean is warming faster than the rest of the world’s oceans. This information is accurate, derived from peer-reviewed research, as SkS’s main commitment is to maintain fidelity to the peer-reviewed literature.

    Sep 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM | John Cook

    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

    .

  49. JohnWho says:

    Chilli says:

    September 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    This is incredible. So Cook re-wrote the article using ideas from the comments – then he went back to those same comments and added smart-arse inline replies accusing the commenters of not reading the article. BUSTED!!! Great catch. Cook’s SS credibility just dropped even further. Hope ya’ll got plenty of screen grabs cos that page is sure to disappear any minute now.

    Ah, so you can smell what the Cook

    is rocking.

  50. Ric Werme says:

    IAmDigitap says:
    September 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Looking back at my post I see it’s evident I wrote it over lunch at Round Table where my wife and I had lunch; sorry for spelling and less-than-optimum grammar.

    And abuse of uppercase and silly effects like “B.O.T.H. are H E A V I L Y” and that infrared causes stars to twinkle. It’s really small convection cells, the IR emitted in the atmosphere or radiated from Earth has very little to do with it.

  51. rstritmatter says:

    gobsmacked. The need to find out where they guys went to school and institute some accountability.

  52. ZT says:

    I believe that Cook is a graduate of the UEA/Penn State/CRU/Hari school of advanced climatological ethics and accountability…

    By the way is it significant that Johann Hari’s fake identity ‘David Rose’ was, according to Hari – “a starred first from a degree specialising in environmental science at Cambridge”, with “extensive work in Antarctica observing the effects of global warming”.

    Did Hari somehow discern the fact that ‘climatology’ automatically confers an assailable right to make things up?

  53. John Blake says:

    We simply have no use for Cook’s shenanigans or his air-brushed SS whatsoever. Learning is key to progress… since Warmist sites are thoroughly predictable, expounding in bad faith under false pretenses, why waste your time?

  54. bob says:

    From the box quotes, ‘One must also be careful how you interpret…’
    Sorry, what?
    They lost me right there. Sound like pretentious idiots, using formal ‘One must’ then garbling it incoherently.

    Either ‘You must be careful how you interpret’ or ‘One must be careful how one interprets…’

    We are doomed as this hodgepodge mixmash language takes over. Another example, ‘Is it just me or are you incoherent?’ No it is just you.

  55. Steve C says:

    - “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.”

    Amazing, Bish? But … surely it’s precisely this sort of dishonesty that’s required to perform “services to climate science”, at least in the post-normal sense of the word “science”?

  56. Leo Norekens says:

    Here it is: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2672314-global-warming.php
    They’ve only made the iStockphoto (i.e. photoshop composition) look a little greener.
    :-)

  57. Leo Norekens says:

    Apparently the response to the sceptic commenters has yet again been altered:

    “Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.”

  58. John Marshall says:

    Then there was the Emperor penguin found miles from home in New Zealand. Nursed back to full health tagged with a GPS tag and released.

    Eaten by a great white shark or similar predator a week later.

  59. Ron Cram says:

    I see Skeptical Science has rewritten their response in comments again. How embarrassing!

  60. John Whitman says:

    The following is one way to look at SS, but for me it does not fully capture SS’s broad and deep disrespect for the open and uncensored scientific spirit; so the below only gives a partial treatment of the SS phenomena.

    ——————–

    In one sense, John Cook’s SS can be considered selectively skeptical. SS could be perceived as practicing a myopic form of skepticism developed especially for use by the seriously biased supporters of the IPCC’s so-called consensus on their so-called settled science of CAGW by CO2. SS may be viewed as having selective skepticism because it is focused solely on all critics of the IPCC’s products. SS’s selective skepticism seems not focused on anyone/anything that supports the science endorsed by the IPCC.

    SS seems to be a textbook example of confirmation bias . . . . not subconscious confirmation bias . . . conscious intentional confirmation bias.

    In order to improve our skeptical precision, all skeptics and independent thinkers on open venues would do well to study the problematic shown by the so-called skepticism of SS.

    John

  61. Graeme says:

    pwoodsvt says:
    September 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    ….. I would love to see more of these arguments of theirs debunked.

    Lubos Motls rebuttals of John Cooks Sceptical Science can be found at

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    Cheers G

  62. Graeme says:

    Leo Norekens says:
    September 21, 2011 at 1:59 am
    Apparently the response to the sceptic commenters has yet again been altered:

    So now we can compare 2x wayback machine pages plus the current version.

    That’s three alternative “realities”…

  63. kalsel3294 says:

    Whilst the wayback machine has allowed this current examination of shonky SS practices, it’s only by following SS in real time that the extent of some of the more corrupt aspects of the SS moderation can be appreciated.
    The SS moderators who not only participate in threads but act as moderators of the same thread, seemingly acting unilaterally, often allowing their own personal prejudices and grudges to determine what stays and what goes.
    Regularly the contributions of skeptic posters who have often put a lot of original thought, as well as time and effort into a convincing argument, will see their post “disappeared” without trace, often within minutes, at the whim of a moderator.
    It is most evident that some of the more enlightening and original thinking skeptic contributors who pose difficult questions find life hard at SS, not only having solid arguments disappear without explanation, but having to endure scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by the moderators mates, often in concert with the moderator, clearly in breach of the comments policy, yet their responses in defence are subjected to the most pedantic interpretations of that same policy.
    It is no wonder that sooner or later, generally sooner, all the more enlightened skeptic posters move on leaving the rather mediocre regulars to continue to defend their position using the only knowledge they appear to have, that being how to selectively cut and paste rebuttals from peer reviewed literature.

  64. Bill Illis says:

    “Integrity” is easy to earn by being honest while “Credibility” takes longer, having to show integrity on a consistent basis.

    John Cook and Skeptical Science are now just like the famous Japanese world war II planes (Zeros).

  65. John B says:

    All of you, read John Cook’s response above. To summarise:

    1. SkS is not a blog, it is an encyclopedic resource, hence it is updated in the light of new information.
    2. John Cook accepts he made the mistake of thinking the commenters were commenting on the updated article.

    So, what’s the big deal?

Comments are closed.