Reposted from Popular Technology with permission
Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm
In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science was found to be even too inaccurate for fellow alarmist Joe Romm of Climate Progress,
“Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting. More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like me wary of using them.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
This was met with both admission and denial,
“…I somewhat agree with Romm. There does seem to be a perpensity of us towards producing masss volumes of articles when I feel sometimes we should be spending more time critiquing.” – Robert [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011
“I am pretty much done reading Romm. His knee-jerk attacks on anything remotely contradictory to his own narrative as “flawed” are irksome in the extreme.” – thingsbreak [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
“I don’t care for Romm either, […] For the sake of accuracy, we can afford to wait until the heavy hitters have weighed in, we don’t have to pretend to an authority we don’t have.” – neal [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
“Romm is waspish and curt, […] but I have noticed that SkS tends to run into trouble when we do our own analysis.” – Albatross [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
“I think our own analysis needs to be vetted externally or by those absolutely qualified on the subject matter prior to being put out there.” – Robert [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
“Romm was the one to rubbish the Schmittner study. He got burnt. Tough titties.” – Rob [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
“Maybe Romm is getting a touch jealous of SkS’s rising fame.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
References:
From the Skeptical Science “leak”: Interesting stuff about generating and marketing “The Consensus Project” (Tom Nelson, March 23, 2012)
Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online (Skeptical Science, March 25, 2011)
Alarmism or Not? Joe Romm and the ‘Crying Wolf’ Dilemma (Watts Up With That?, May 1, 2012)
The real problem is S(k)S has way too many Robs.
/sarc
They are all living in “la-la land”.
The Albatross guy doesn’t want his name out.
What, you mean science articles written by ageing hippie douches aren’t always right?
(credit South Park)
Isn’t that just so Establishment? “This guy’s criticism of us is right, therefore he’s some sort of extremist.”
What’s a perpensity?
Mark
OMG….the SkS brats booted from the Romm Romper Room ? ? ?
Nice to know that the Truth does not face a unified opposition…..
Miaoww!
“Maybe Romm is getting a touch jealous of SkS’s rising fame.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], December 3, 2011
LOL
[snip]
The real problem is that they’re neither “skeptical” nor “scientific”. If they would only live up to their name, their problems would disappear.
Well, except for one: then warmists would call them the D-word. But I consider that a badge of honor.
Maybe Romm will now know how the SS crew truly feels about him.
Two key individuals from SkS admitting that they get into trouble when they discuss the science themselves. Oddly, they remain certain as to which science is correct and which not, despite admitting that they don’t understand it so badly that they look like fools when they try and explain it.
Can you imagine a judge standing up in a court of law, announcing that he doesn’t understand the evidence, and then rendering a judgment? (Happens every day except the admission part).
The Albatross guy doesn’t want his name out.
I agree with, Shub. If you’re going to quote from tree-hut docs (the secret SkS forum), then only forum names ought to be used. It is up to SkS’s albatros to decide when, where and how to ‘come out’, so to speak.
Mark T says:
September 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm
It is an admission of affection. Example; He walked up to our table and reading from his notepad said ” I am your perpensity.”
Further to my earlier comment about ‘the albatross guy’, see how SteveMc handled a similar case just recently.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/20/conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky-tries-to-manufacture-doubt/#comment-356590
REPLY: Based on that example, I’ll follow suit. But these guys really do need to learn that words and actions have consequences. – Anthony
So, just to be clear: hacking Heritage is a horrible crime and nobody should report on what was illicitly revealed, but hacking CRU or SkS is good clean fun?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
They are catfighting among themselves! Riioowwr! fssssk,! fsssk! John Cook and co wanting to scratch Joe Romm’s eyes out! LOL
Good news indeed and passingly amusing.
There is something about these guys that brings this skit to mind.
When did the Heritage Foundation get hacked?
numerobis says:
September 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm
So, just to be clear: hacking Heritage is a horrible crime and nobody should report on what was illicitly revealed, but hacking CRU or SkS is good clean fun?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just to be clear, nobody outright lied to get the SkS documents and, more importantly, nobody falsified documents and attempted to attribute it to them. The comparison to Heritage is fallacious. There was nothing embarrasing in the legitimate Heritage documents (hence the forgery) while the SkS documents are littered with tacit admissions of guilt.
As for comparison to the CRU, the guilty party or parties remains unknown. That being the case, we cannot determine if it was a hack or a whistle blower. The preponderance of evidence suggests a whistle blower. Again, there was much to be embarrased about, and nothing forged.
Nice try mumerobis, but the moral equivalence just isn’t comparable.
Shub Niggurath says:
September 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm
The Albatross guy doesn’t want his name out.
And as pointless as it may be, “Rob” will like to be redacted as well.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/sks-behind-the-scenes-on-deaf-ears/
The post should be renamed “Small Kindness from The Air Vent”. Apparently, you did not get the minutes at our last “Big Oil Meeting” where we handed out the blog bonuses 😉
IMHO,
sHx & Shub have it right. Take the names out.
My 2 cents.
i’m sceptical:
26 Sept: SMH: Reuters: 100m to die by 2030 if climate action fails: report
More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.
As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA…
The full report is available at: http://daraint.org/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/100m-to-die-by-2030-if-climate-action-fails-report-20120926-26k4d.html
25 Sept: New Scientist: Climate change already harming the global economy
According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor – a report by Spanish non-profit organisation DARA – in 2010 climate change shaved 1.6 per cent off global gross domestic product…
If the claims stand up, it boosts the case for urgent action, says Cameron Hepburn of the London School of Economics. “Caps on emissions should be much tighter, and carbon prices much higher, than they are now.”…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22300-climate-change-already-harming-the-global-economy.html
24 Sept: RespondingToClimateChange: John Parnell: All eyes on New York as climate change debate moves to the Big Apple
New York is the stage for a week of climate change debate starting at the United Nations General Assembly on Monday…
Later on Wednesday DARA, together with the Government of Bangladesh – the chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum – will launch the second edition of the Climate Vulnerability Monitor…
The Clinton Global Initiative will also host its annual meeting with energy and sustainable development on the agenda, with events taking place on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
Finally, the Climate Group has organised Climate Week NYC to coincide with the UN meet-up. Events covering food, energy, economics, policy and culminating in the Cleanweb Hackathon that will see teams given 28 hours to design and develop working apps that address resource use…
http://www.rtcc.org/policy/all-eyes-on-new-york-as-climate-change-debate-moves-to-the-big-apple/
“numerobis says:
September 25, 2012 at 8:23 pm
So, just to be clear: hacking Heritage is a horrible crime and nobody should report on what was illicitly revealed, but hacking CRU or SkS is good clean fun?”
You should really be aiming that question at Peter H. Gleick, I heard he was or is the expert.