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
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.
[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]
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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. ☺
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
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.
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.
The first lie is in the skeptical science name. What do you expect after that ?
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.
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)
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.
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
Excellent questions. Since skepticism is taboo, how can he rationally be skeptical of it? The bind moggles.
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/
——————–
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
Mark S., defense attorney by day, defense attorney by night …
(Somebody must defend scum, such that due process is rendered I suppose.)
.
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 😉
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:
John
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
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
.
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.
IAmDigitap says:
September 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm
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.