An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmmm … I guess this rules out any chance of a cartoon by Josh appearing in Skeptical Science.
There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/.
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
Josh is sharp and very insightful love your toons Josh.
Friday Bonus Anthony — WUWT just made Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/23/how-many-people-watched-al-goresclimate-cast/
Following your link to Lucia I found there is much support from fairly sharp people for the Skeptical Science web page and their supposed refutation of denier myths. Now I used to read skeptical science all of the time and the refutations were extraordinairily unconvincing. What it all makes me wonder is just how bad has science education become? We have people who are supposedly scientists treating models as if the were well established theories. Arguing as if a set of computer games using made up assumptions were actual reality. All while pretending that the data they were comparing the computer games to wasn’t of both doubtful quality and wild uncertainty.
laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm
There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/.
………….
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
========================================================
That specific thread? No. But one doesn’t have to have been there to know it is true. That has been happening since the start. Its why I don’t venture to those threads anymore. I’ve even had my comments edited to take out the rationale of my point and then the rest posted, only not to be given the opportunity to explain. I don’t understand why this is such a hubbub. There isn’t an alarmist blog that doesn’t rely on censorship in one form or another.
I used to try, and, if someone else wants, I can give them tips on how to be allowed to post and cryptically make some points in hopes that someone would read them and understand the thought you wish to express. But, its a lot of work, unforceful, and silly. Worse, if you are successful, and productive conversation gets generated, it will disappear.
On this particular point though, I’d like to emphasize that Josh’s approach is the only appropriate one at this point. Point it out, to be sure, but don’t take is seriously and don’t expect it to change. It won’t. But, mostly, understand that in the blog forums, the skeptics have won, and the public knows this. We don’t erase embarrassing moments. We don’t intentionally mischaracterize others statements. If some misunderstanding occurs, it is posted. We don’t delete comments. We give our antagonists a voice. Contrast this to the alarmists blogs. In many ways, it was their aberrant behavior and their treatment of McIntyre that gave a huge lift to the skeptical blogosphere. Prior to Steve Mac, John Daly was the only one I was aware of. RC, Deltoid(which intentionally misrepresented a post of Willis’ here.) SkS, and a whole host of wannbees, ……. My point is, we’ve won. All we have to do is continue to do what we’ve always done from the beginning. But, its time to quit taking these people seriously. For years we tried to have an open dialogue with those people. They’ll have nothing of the sort. Just take this, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 , look at the numbers the blogs generate, especially this one, look at the content, enjoy Josh’s cartoon and laugh at the marginal fringe that purports to be mainstream. They are not, we are!
Sorry for the length,
James
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/
Though at this point, I doubt your house has any intact panes remaining.
[REPLY: Gee, Dana, you must like walking on broken glass. You’ll note that your comment is appearing, and Anthony admits where he may have erred. Since you arrived at SkS the blog attempts to re-write history. You got caught. When you’ve developed some integrity, come back and take your best shot. This attempt was just pathetic. -REP, mod]
Nicely put, James S. – my sentiments entirely.
Re Wondering Aloud and education. Deep down, I have hope because there are still people with the wit to pull examples like these. When you see such material no more, you’ll then have cause to worry. Source unknown – turned up in my emails.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Fal%20with%20dignity.jpg
I like a whole bunch of those Geoff.
I think memoryvaults experience has been widely documented elsewhere. Skeptical Science is very poorly named as no attempt is made to actually answer serious questions. they are vigorously arm waved away.
JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.
From http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true
dana1981 says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“…. …. ”
That’s hilarious!! I was going to include that as an example of the differences that distinguish skeptical sites from alarmists!
Question: what does this show you?…..“UPDATE: Some people in comments including Dr. Roy Spencer, (and as I was writing this, Dr. Richard Allan) suggest that the paper isn’t about feedback …….
I’ll answer the question, it shows a willingness to show alternate views. It shows an understanding that none of us can be correct 100% of the time. And, it shows a markedly different form for handling dissent than what the alarmists sites show on a daily basis.
Dana, these mean people at WUWT want you to develop some integrity before you post back here, I’d invite you to post on my blog before you do! Uncensored (no swearing) and unedited. We need someone to laugh at.
James
laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.
====================================================
Nonsense such as that was quit disturbing for me, too……… several years ago. I’ve learned to live with it, and understand that not all people are instilled with scruples. We’re all aware John Cook received that award. But, you must remember, even before the suggestion we get put in a re-education camp, even before the suggestion we should be tattooed, even before the comedy skit of blowing up skeptics was aired, we were silenced and marginalized. We were belittled, berated, and cast as if we were bereft of science. Our integrity was questioned at every point and continues today. So, one must ask themselves, who engages in such behavior? Who shrieks so loud when questioned?
As far as the award while it being widely known? Al Gore received a Nobel while including court documented falsehoods. It says more to the awarders then to the recipients.
James
A true work of art. The subtle ears in the walls. the reflection of the wet paint. Well crafted. Well done.
Recall that Tamino deleted (purged?) entire threads.
I just finished posting this on the “overcooked” thread, then I read James Sexton’s comment above and thought this thread was more appropriate:
The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, has been handed an award by the establishment just means they are trying to protect the status quo, which is crumbling due to grass roots pressure and the pesky facts that debunk CAGW.
The truth is known by most educated scientists and engineers: CO2 is harmless and beneficial – as is testified by over 31,000 professionals working in the hard sciences, who co-signed this statement:
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.
People may be reluctant to take the brave stand that the 31,000 co-signers did. But it’s much easier to just decline to sign alarmist petitions by simply saying, “Thanks, but I don’t want to get involved.” The fact is that the great majority of those in the hard sciences know damn well that the CO2 scare is fed by $billions in annual grant money. Take away the grant payola, and people will literally laugh at the peddlers of tha CAGW scare. Because it’s not about science. It’s about the money.
•
More thorough debunking of Skeptical Pseudo-Science:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
I see Dana1981 dropped by to learn a little about climate. About time. Of course, when someone displays the obvious lack of integrity displayed by him, one can just smile and know that karma has a way of dealing with them.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!” Gandhi
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
For example, why if sea levels are rising so dramatically, are the dryng rocks so carefully plotted on the British Admiralty charts of 250 years ago, which were made to a level of precison rarely seen since, why are those same drying rocks still drying rocks today?
These areas have not been resurveyed. They were charted by Bligh and Vancouver when they sailed with Cook. If sea level is actually rising, then these rocks should all be underwater, but they are not.
So, when you point this out on RC and other alarmist sites, you are deleted. Folks like Hansen and Jones, they can adjust the climate records all they want. What they haven’t been able to adjust are the BA charts drawn 250 years ago.
This is what RC desparately doesn’t want anyone to know. That there are records that show the truth, that were made with a much higher degree of accuracy than any climate records. The BA charts were made by men that knew that their lives and ships depended on getting it right, backed up by corporal punishment if they got it wrong.
Smokey says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm
“…………….The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, ……………….
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.”
=================================================
Telling, isn’t it? Their consensus. Their overwhelming majority can’t convince the majority of scientists. The few dozen misanthropists who call themselves scientists have been rejected by the working scientists. And so, it is only fitting that they become caricatures in Josh’s cartoons.
We should note, though, Cook isn’t a scientist any more than I am. My degree is in computer science as is Cook’s.
ferd berple says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
=============================================================
Thanks Ferd! But, I can’t take credit for the original question……… laterite @ur momisugly September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm posed the original question. But, you did confirm my response to laterite. RC, SkS, Deep whatever, Deltoid,…… they’re all the same……echo chambers which allow no dissent or alternate views.
I stated this on an earlier thread, some read Orwell and took his writings as warnings, others read Orwell and took them to be diagrams for success. In the end, humanity’s future won’t be determined by scientific discovery, it will be determined by morality.
James
[SNIP: People who fling the term “denier” around are not tolerated here. Nor are those who attempt to demean their host with puerile name-calling. As for your opinion, well, like they say, everyone has one of those, too. -REP,mod]
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Yet I like to think that in the end, humanity’s future will be determined by the moral application of scientific discovery.
That’s why what the Warmistas do is so abhorrent!
Some of us (and by “some of us” I mean “me”) are less than fully conversant with all the details of this controversy, however, it seems that dana1981 has made corrections to her post, including a note of thanks to those who pointed out the problem:
Has this been properly acknowledged here, and does it significantly affect anything? We’re justifiably proud of our ability to err, and correct the error here. If it’s been done elsewhere, we should give credit where it’s due.
Anthony,
Thanks for giving [dana1981] a chance to make his case on your blog.
The real problem for the Hockey Team and their supporters is that truth is not on their side. If it were they would not need to behave like Muslim fundamentalists threatening dire consequences against anyone who dares to voice dissent.
In contrast, people like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are big enough to admit when they are wrong and make corrections if appropriate. Even though you are not a scientist you are a seeker after truth who quickly acknowledges mistakes such as in the link [dana1981] cited. Furthermore you do not erase your mistakes as SkS would, you simply put a line through them so we can see what the mistake was.
Contrast that with the false confidence of the Warmists. With the honorable exception of George Monbiot they saw nothing wrong with any of the antics exposed in Climategate. Can you imagine Michael Mann and his cohorts admitting that Bristlecone pines are unreliable temperature proxies, especially given their shameless cherry picking of trees in the Yamal peninsula?
[dana1981] demonstrated his lack of maturity by his refusal to acknowledge that “Charlie A” was right and he was wrong. Take a look at the exchange that is going on right now at SkS and tell me who needs to grow up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments.php?p=3&t=57202&
The down side of this discussion of the failings of SkS is that it is generating a spike in the comments at the site. My recommendation is to ignore SkS altogether; let it wither on the vine or stew in its own juice. Maybe someone can suggest a better metaphor.