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
The link to The Bish’s palace needs some pruning. The html includes an extra sentence.
REPLY: Fixed, thanks -Anthony
Anthony
Your link is is incorrect, it’s pointing to a non existent WUWT page
[Reply: Already Fixed. Thanks. -REP, mod]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.)
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.
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!
[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]
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
Revisionist science? Do they really think re-writing history will leave them in a rosier place? Apparently so–too bad they failed so miserably!
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.]
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.
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!!!
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.
Sceptical Science ‘Argument’ articles are regularly updated, mainly in response to reader feedback or new research.
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
Did SkS ever mention “Happy Feet” reversing that logo?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/5639840/Happy-Feet-discoverer-writes-book
“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
Mark S
but is it always obvious what the edits and changes have been?
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.
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.
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.
Was the SkS award the one that Johann Hari returned?