At Shub Niggurath Climate blog, he’s done a follow up to his first essay on the ongoing issues with integrity that the oxymoronically named blog “skepticalscience” has. Excerpts are posted below. I’ll point out the John Cook has not responded to my modest proposal yet, and even today, he allows the denigrating word to be used. It appears he has no scruples in the use of language people see as offensive, nor any scruples when it comes to the keeping the integrity of invited commentary intact.
Here’s Shub’s findings:
“…resist the temptation to reply to [trolls].
Instead, do what the troll hates most — simply remove the comment.”
The recent censorship episode at the skepticalscience.com brings an often overlooked aspect to the forefront. The target of deletion Prof Roger Pielke Sr, runs a blog. The actions of Skepticalscience were revealed because he posted them there.
What if a scientist or a lay person, interacted with websites like Skepticalscience and did not have a blog?
Consider what Skepticalscience did in reader Paul and AnthonySG1′s cases. In 2007, the website had an article explaining Antarctica’s cooling —a thorn in the pitch for a clean story about global warming— as an “uniquely” regional phenomenon. It talked of how ‘Antarctica was overall losing ice’, citing a peer-reviewed paper Velicogna et al 2003 for support.
The response in the comments section from Cook’s readers was simple: ‘Antarctic ice is increasing. You cannot take a paper that has three years worth of data and conclude that the continent was losing ice’. They cited references that Skepticalscience neglected – which showed an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice.
The rewriting that John Cook undertook is now recounted at Bishop Hill.
In the first step Cook changed the entire article, taking off from the criticisms. Next, he deleted his original ‘responses’, and added new ones that made it appear as though these commenters did not know what they were talking about.
The rewriting of Skepticalscience history
After this was openly revealed, John Cook offered explanations for his actions. It went something like this: ‘I accidentally mistook my readers to have responded to my updated article. Thinking that was indeed the case, their comments sounded silly to me. So I ended up adding responses to guide new readers’
A closer examination of the threads on Skepticalscience, reveals a different picture. Let us begin by examining a few examples to get a sense of what these might be.
Let us start with the thread “Climate models are unreliable”. As is known, the website portrays skeptical arguments as such simple statements and offers rebuttals. The article was published sometime late 2007.
In July 2008, ’poptech’ left a comment which questioned assertions made in the article. He quoted scientists at the Realclimate consensus blog:
Comment from reader ‘poptech’ – deleted in 2011From mid-2008, Poptech’s comment remained intact on the thread till as recently as Feb 2011 . At some point afterward, the comment was deleted. Another of poptech’s comments upthread, to which three commenters responded (example) was deleted, leaving the responses hanging mid-air.
…
Take the exchange between ‘Adamski’ and ‘chris’ (comments 36, 37, 38, 39 originally):
Comments from ‘Adamski’ and ‘chris’ as they appeared in Sept 2009
Nov 2009 – the Adamski-chris conversation moves up due to bulk deletions! Comment #37 from chris goes missing
Feb 2010 – Comment #37 makes a comeback but chris has lost his name.
Sept 2011 – the comments as they are, in their final positionWhat is more: as can be seen from the screen captures above, Cook goes into the comments and deletes commenters’ references to each others’ posts. This is no computer glitch and it demonstrates he knew what he was doing. Nor does this square with the explanations Cook provided at Bishop Hill. . Again, as before, parts of a conversation are deleted and altered in such a way, the end result looks like something that never happened.
…
Why does John Cook do this?
The deletions carried out by Cook don’t make sense as an exercise in moderation. They seem driven by an ardent need to present a clean and neat view of global warming. Of a need to reassure that no intelligent discussions exist, and all possible questions have (long) been answered.
The structure of Cook’s website appears to push things in his direction. In the beginning, pages are born as undemanding and easy arguments. Cook then seems to realize that the skeptical arguments are more involved and complex than the simplistic picture he presents. He updates the same pages with more detail. But messy comments have accumulated below the line, sticking out like sore thumbs. The ‘broad picture’ that Cook so wants to convey is sullied.
In the meantime fresh readers, oblivious to the confusing mish-mash of claim and counter-claim, arrive in greater numbers on the shores of the global warming debate. Journalists, policy-makers and other influential opinion-makers land up everyday at skepticalscience, looking for a quick grasp on the consensus position in climate issues. How does one protect these newcomers?
Cook’s solution: the inconvenient comments go flying out the window.
One clearly sees that the mission of the website underwent a change ~end of 2009. In the earlier years, Cook seems welcoming to comments. His interest it seemed was to point out findings from scientific papers, that he thought contradicted climate skeptics’ claims. By November 2009, Cook had arrived at a dramatically different viewpoint. He saw ‘global warming skepticism’ as a sort of a mental illness or a psychiatric condition, with the afflicted being beyond any hope. Psychologic diagnoses permeates his thinking from that point on.
Cook voices his thoughts on the shift in a post in November 2009. It is hard to fathom, why, anybody who ran a website and worked hard at attracting and nurturing an online community, would commit the most fundamental of indiscretions with his readers’ comments – deleting and moulding them at his own whim.
As seen in his response above, Cook viewed the comments section of his website topics as a resource, to be used for ‘educating’ the public.
From there on, editing, deleting and moulding the historical record probably did not seem any wrong to Cook.
More here: Skepticalscience – Rewriting History
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chocolate rations will not be reduced from the current 300 gm per week.
Good news! Chocolate rations going up to 250 gm per week this week!
Hmmm…
fredb says:
October 11, 2011 at 1:11 am
…..And so, by the same token, I would note that I find WUWT offends my sensibilities far more often than does skepticalscience … but so what? It is the choice of the blog owners and managers to express within their sense of values, and to operate in their chosen reference frame. And that should be that.
__________________________________________
Anthony shows: “…Again, as before, parts of a conversation are deleted and altered in such a way, the end result looks like something that never happened….”
A blog who alter the comments and change the meaning of what a commenter said has crossed the line. For a supposed SCIENCE blog to do this is execrable, it is not science it is nothing more that the worst kind of propaganda.
The damage skepticalscience is doing to the reputation of science should have every ethical scientist up in arms. That this is not happening says much about the low to which scientific ethics has now sunk. No wonder 69% of the people in the USA “Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research
Kelvin Vaughan says:
October 11, 2011 at 2:15 am
As “people never change” it makes one wonder how much of History is accurate.
_________________________________________
Very little, think Richard the Third.
The winner write history not the loser.
Jim says:
October 11, 2011 at 7:25 am
Can’t see much response to all this clattering racket over at Skeptical Science, why do you suppose that is?
Guess what! All those who could bring this up there were chased away a long time ago. I know it for a fact as I am one of them. The method is simple: moderate half the posts of an inconvenient guy out right away, so his thread would hardly make sense, while letting domestic hounds bark their ad hominem gurgles unimpeded (while recycling the d word as much as possible). Simple as a wood wedge. And, as you see, he can always deal with the other half later on, including any traces of an odd job.
John Cook claims to have studied solar physics, but his preoccupation with the “big picture” is telling. Apparently he does not even know, that science is never about “pictures”, but about propositions and truth-values attached to them.
Wade says:
October 11, 2011 at 5:55 am
“Actually, that is wrong. What trolls hate the most is to be ignored. Censoring them does nothing because they achieved the desired result of getting a response out of you.”
———————–
Wade,
I agree with you that John Cook got it wrong.
And, I agree with you that the most effective approach to trolls is to ignore them. But, who can resist playing with them . . . . like who can resist scratching poison ivy rash?
John
Who cares what Cook cooks up at his irrelevant site? There are plenty of propaganda sites out there, on the www. [snip – ugly comparison -thanks to Robert for pointing it out -Anthony] I, for one, will not go there or link them in any way. No more than I would link to a porn site.
Historical revisionism is a great threat to civilization’s well being, but not from climatic porn sites. GK
David says:
October 11, 2011 at 6:51 am
Readers might be interested in the current SkS topic ‘Pielke Sr. and SkS Warming Estimates’ where Pielke Sr is engaging in a largely cordial scientific discussion with the regulars. I can’t help but feel it could all fall apart in the blink of an eye.
___________________________________
I have the nasty suspicion that the “cordial scientific discussion ” is because skepticalscience got blasted not only by WUWT but by Bishop Hill and Shub Niggurath Climate blog.
“As Bishop Hill and WUWT readers know, there’s been a lot of condemnation of the way John Cook’s Skeptical Science website treated Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. recently when he attempted to engage the website. …” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/
I think Cook does not dare pull his unethical stunts at this time under the glaring light of criticism from these other blogs.
I have given up posting at Skeptical Science as just about everything I post gets deleted. The deletion of the peer-reviewed papers I listed against the Hockey Stick is even more ironic as Cook himself suggested I add them to his database.
I’m not sure what you’re purpose is, except perhaps to provide comic relief.
G. Karst says:
October 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
“…There are plenty of propaganda sites out there, on the www. [snip]
Anthony this is ridiculous. Plain and simple. How you allow such defamatory comments is beyond me. You rightly hate being called a denier and yet you let comments like that get through about your opposites?
REPLY: I agree. Thanks for pointing that out. Moderation, like all human endeavors is imperfect, fixed now. The downside of running such a large site with hundreds of thousands of comments is that sometimes we miss some that should not be allowed per policy. – Anthony
Such censorship is implicit acknowledgement that
they are losing the Argument.
“One clearly sees that the mission of the website underwent a change ~end of 2009.”
Just speculation…
Prior to that time, he was a “True Believer”, and thought there could be no rational dissent, so there was no need to hide the “ignorance” of the others. Then he discovered his “belief” was misplaced, and maybe there were rational counter-argument. He simply can’t accept his “new reality”. I often wonder if that’s what happened to Hansen and others.
Reminds me of one of the lines from one of the “Dune” books, “To know something is true is to close your mind to the possibilities.” (or something like that). Its something all scientists should guard well against.
[snip – let’s leave that alone, your previous comment was snipped due to it not meeting policy – Anthony]
“Anthony this is ridiculous. Plain and simple. How you allow such defamatory comments is beyond me. You rightly hate being called a denier and yet you let comments like that get through about your opposites?”
Very true, Robert, but not as bad as another comment above, i.e.
Why to waste time with someone who is and also looks like a tw*t.
Apparently, no-one knows or cares WUWT…
REPLY: See the inline comments above. – Anthony
Agnostic, from the links you provided I see no evidence of you responding to the answers given to your claims, or of you providing the evidence that was asked for.
Perhaps you just didn’t like the way you were treated, especially being called a “concern troll” ? Do you think such things do not occur on this site ?
Wow, the ‘Beria technique’, ‘pleonasm’, ‘concern troll’, and the lengths to which AGW propagandists will go to suppress questioning of their self reinforcing orthodoxy. Maybe Cook should the first recipient of the Johann Hari award for journalistic integrity? I’ve learned a lot from this blog today, thanks Shub, Myrhh, MarkW, Lucy Skywalker and Agnostic!
Sure, I guess rewriting history is not unique! GK
For the record – The problems at SKS are his moderators as Mr. Cook appears to be more reasonable. This would explain why my comments were recently deleted as Mr Cook did most of the moderating when the site first started. He now employs absolute lunatics who regularly engage with commentators and censor anyone who bests them in a debate. SKS moderators are like scared little girls who cannot debate with the big boys. They hide at SKS and never venture out as it is too easy to hand them their ass where their opponent is able to respond.
This is in stark contrast to the professionalism by the moderators here at WUWT.
Some commentators here (& at BishopHill) have drawn parallels with Winston Smith’s job of editing history in George Orwell’s 1984. The relevant chapter is online at http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/3.html. Smith has 4 edits in the day. The one is on re-writing forecasts. Another is on deleting a reference to an unperson.
times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify
times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
One of the problems I have is that Orwell wrote 1984 as a cautionary tale, and too many people out there lately seem to view it as a “how to” manual…
Keith says:
October 11, 2011 at 2:16 am
….This is very much akin to the literal dumping of 4500 anti submissions to the Carbon Tax inquiry in Australia – just ignoring them will certainly not make them go away…
________________________
This seems to be the new government method for dealing with dissenters.
Something similar is happening in the USA.
From Mary Zanoni, a lawyer:
….The real point is the one you made from the start — APHIS’s messing around with the comment links completely impedes the public’s ability to have the legally required input on the rule. I just included a bit about this in an Oct Milkweed article and I suggested folks should submit comments such as the following:
USDA first gave an inoperable link for comments. Then, after some farmers found and publicized an alternate link, USDA apparently disabled the alternate link. Now USDA’s original link has been fixed. All this has resulted in much confusion and has prevented many members of the public from commenting. This violates the basic requirements of an adequate opportunity for public comment. At this point, the only way USDA can fix this defective rulemaking is to completely withdraw the proposed rule…… “ http://nonais.org/2011/10/07/more-usda-link-games-act-now-submit-new-comments-on-traceability/
I really hate the money grubbing politicians and their dishonesty. Thank goodness for the internet and blogs like Anthony’s.
I am impressed with the number of AGW supporters who have shown up today to cast snark and pith upon the regulars. I take it that this discussion of Cook’s manipulations cannot take place at other popular sites for the single reasons that the pro-AGW sites simply will not allow an open discussion. There are numerous reports from contributors about personal mistreatment and manipulation of their posts which confirm this.
It is both amazing and stupid for someone to attempt to shape ‘the message’ in that maner. Does Cook think that his intended readership will never discover WUWT? Boggling, not just amazing! Has he not heard of Google??
To the pro-AGW’ers still reading this most popular science blog in the world, your comments are not just weak, they are written as if we are supposed to be hearing them for the first time. We regular readers of WUWT are so used to the lame excuses and misdirectives that dribble over from SkS and RC theyare spotted immediately. Do you seriously think we are unaware of the MWP’s global temperatures? Can some catchy phrase or pointed innuendo mask the ghastly behaviour at SkS? Are you supportive of Cook’s behaviour? You as a group do not seem bothered at all but rather take time out to whack away at skeptics simply for existing.
We are not beholding to your priestly pretences. We read the originals for ourselves and have a debate about the relevance, quality and meaning of the contents. Best you do the same, preferably here, with us. You don’t have to be skeptical. You can be as credulous as you like, but stick to the topic.
The thing to do is attack the mainstream outlets who use John Cook as their water-carrier.
Particularly the ABC, BBC, PBS, government funded drones.
Why? Because those outlets hold a large store in pretending to sell fairness. Equality of thought is often mandated in their charters, if ignored in practice. Pounding them on it, pointing at their eco-page blog roll,( which invariably include Desmog, RC, SS, Treehugger, Grist, while excluding WUWT, CA, TRF, or any truly skeptical blog link). It will make a dent.
For the record – SkS’s problem is that John Cook employs absolute lunatics. That’s rot from the head.
Besides that, Cook exhibited this same deceitful behavior from the inception of his website. It was well established before Cook hired the lunatics. I know from experience.
Those who see the SkS moderators as being, if not the whole problem, at least the greater part of it, are on the right track, with the problems becoming more evident when the likes of Daniel Bailey became moderators. I found that by going direct to John Cook, he, John Cook, would try and correct any perceived injustices against me, and others, whilst lamenting the fact that he had little choice but to accept whoever volunteered to act as a moderator once the workload became too much for him alone.
However once such zealots got their foot in the door, the tail began wagging the dog, effectively taking control away from John Cook and setting not only the tone, but the agenda.
Early on, when Daniel Bailey posted a purely political contribution, there were cries of protest from many of the faithful readers about allowing politics to contaminate what was considered a site devoted to the science only. Daniel Bailey countered with there being method in his madness, which is borne out today with some days consisting only of political type postings. That posting also set the scene where a single person became the author, a contributor to the thread, and the moderator of the thread, a slippery slide of conflict of interest that John Cook tried, unsuccessfully, to eliminate to restore some respect for the moderation process.
The only hope I see is that whilst all the posters that were able to post worthwhile contributions offering an alternate perspective always end up being driven out, Berényi Péter being one such valuable contributor, there seems to be an education process in place with subtle changes occurring in how the zealots respond to posts that challenge the consensus, subtle enough that they, the zealots are not even aware of how much their limited knowledge is being enhanced with a gradual change in their understanding and the stance they had previously adopted, but I fear that a twit will always remain a twit.
Reply: We vet every moderator who has volunteered and occasionally lay a smackdown on a moderator who oversteps their bounds. A moderator who consistently violated commenters’ rights without a valid reason, (and disagreeing is not a valid reason), would not last long here before moderation privileges would be revoked. For Cook to blame his moderation team on a site which has a fraction of the traffic here is either disingenuous, or simply lame. I have been running message boards and this site for going on ten years, and have never once engaged in the type of activity exposed by the above post. I cannot appropriately voice my disgust without violating the policies we are tasked to enforce. I will say that after seeing the behavior noted in Shub’s post above, I wouldn’t &^*(^*(% on that &)^&^) if that (&(&(&& were on fire. ~ ctm