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)
Romm is correct that there are a large number of errors in most SkS articles (some that don’t look so innocent) and then editing people’s comments after the fact, after the original article has been corrected, that is just very unethical.
And many of these errors get re-distributed around the internet so it is not just confined to the SkS website. They are now everywhere, adding to the myth-database.
Oddly enough, I came to the conclusion that Romm’s site is completely unreliable and not worth the time spent to visit a long time ago.
John Cook,
SkS was dumped by its idiot owner into the public square.
Maroon.
Admitting that their science stinks is the real thing to take from this. When all they have is their appeal to authority, mistakes and shoddy science will be what knocks down their house of cards.
“‘I have noticed that SkS tends to run into trouble when we do our own analysis.’ – Albatross”
I think the topic here is not the science itself, but how the rather uncertain primary literature gets translated into an alarmist narrative rooted in certainty. There is a very powerful meme among AGW proponents that one should neither read nor interpret the primary literature, since only bona fide climate scientists are qualified to do that. Needless to say, there was no cognitive module capable of accepting the facts in the Gergis et al debacle, in which Jean S. at Climate Audit did nothing more than attempt to replicate some arithmetic and in doing so managed to squash a paper that was being groomed for landmark status.
John Cook says:
September 26, 2012 at 2:15 am
It wasn’t just the Skeptical Science forum that was stolen and published on the web – it was the entire user database (minus a few select users whose private details the hacker didn’t want exposed).
==================================================
John, if it makes you feel any better, I didn’t look at the ip addresses and whatnot. I’m actually sympathetic to you about having people with admin privileges who don’t have a clue about security. And, I don’t care if you guys have a secret club were you can plot in private. I think it’s funny. I think it shows the weakness of the alarmist argument, but, I really don’t care.
And, as a demonstration of cordial intentions, I’ll give you some advice on how to handle the criticism from Romm. He should be told that everyone is capable of errors and that he should vet the information himself before parroting. I know that’s a tricky concept for alarmists, but it really does work. When employing such strategy, one comes off much less like a tool and more like a real thinker.
No mention of “ethics” here,
The spin is important though. Guess who?
No mention of ethics here,
The spin is important though. Guess who?
John Cook;
You established a web site called Skeptical Science, that is in no way skeptical.
You published an iPhone app that could be debunked simply by pointing out the cherry picking.
You delete comments that ask tough questions about science that you have no answer for that supports the CAGW theory.
You dare to complain about ethics?
FWIW, there’s a possibility which you seem to have failed to consider, which is that you have a whistle blower in your midst. All signs point to the same at CRU. Someone on the inside became disenchanted with the manipulation and obfuscation and took it upon themselves to expose it to the rest of the world. The evidence that a whistle blower is the culprit in your instance is not as strong, but it is a possibility that should not be dismissed out of hand.
As a final comment, I find the admission of your inside group that they get the science wrong when they venture out on their own rather amusing. So, by the admission of your own insiders, you don’t understand the science well enough to explain it to others, but you know that it is right. Are there any other things in this world that you claim not to understand by know are right?
Anthony in reply at 10:44:
REPLY: Lessons on integrity from a person with a fake name – gotta love it. -Anthony
——————-
Yes, he should try some perpensity and reconsider his propensity to judge incorrectly.
Sounds like “FOI” might be out working his black magic again.
Is it possible it’s the same guy (or guys)?
If it weren’t important for democracy, good government and the useful direction of public resources, all this Romm-SkS-WUWT ad hominem words would be so much Junior High, Jersey Shore nonsense.
All grow old. Not everyone grows up.
Amended? Oh please the forum view is a typical moderator, admin level view that can be enabled to everyone if you f-ed up the security permissions on the forums. Which users private details were protected? There are a very select number of users who even submitted “private details” (full names) – all computer illiterate members of your “team”. I did not see any email or IP addresses redacted in the database.
Your hypocrissy cracks my up,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html
You lie about and smear others and then cry when your BS gets exposed. Looks like I have a lot more posts to do.
RogerRamjet says:
September 26, 2012 at 7:26 am
[…]
[quoting] “It’s important that we maintain the SkS brand in how we post about this which means it needs to be about science or the protection of the integrity of science.” [endquote]
[…]
What is the “protection of the integrity of science” ? Is it an urn somewhere containing the combined ashes of all of the great philosophers and scientific minds of the last 10,000 years? Is it a dusty old tome residing in an old abbey, guarded by a secret society with mystical powers and obscure origins? Is it a rare and exquisite bottle of seeds handed to Mankind by some interstellar power, to be planted periodically to advance man’s wisdom?
“Protection of the integrity of science”. Here, in six words, lies the entire false premise upon which warmists like, Joe Romm, John Cook, Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, the NewYork Timee, the Guardian, and all the rest cannot appear to fathom.
The “integrity of science” is intrinsic to science. It is self-actuating, self-affirming. The presumed knowledge evoked by science either withstands scrutiny or it does not. Scrutiny is the embodiment of what science is. There is no separate thing called “integrity” in science to protect. Unless, of course, the short-list above is really talking about the “Integrity of Science”, which is to say, that of the purveyors, profiteers, advocates, naysayers and promoters. But that’s not about the integrity of science. Its about men (and women).
John Cook: Remove the word skeptical from your blog site and I will begin to sympathize with your victimization. It is a blatant attempt to intercept people looking for alternate explanations for observed climate change. Until such unprofessional tactics are abandoned and this abuse of innocent seekers of truth halted… I regard your site’s demise with inward glee. There is a certain justice in “you reap what you sow”.
You have much work to do, cleaning up your site. My advice is to get cracking and not waste time whining to sites, that have a real and proper skeptic view, of consensus. No one makes a notable career through conformism and consensus, in an emerging field. Test data, instead of just blowing it out your a$$. GK
Poptech, while you are here:
Regarding a question I posted upthread. Anthony has merely copied and pasted your stuff over to here. Therefore, it is likely that either you edited the hacked SkS forum posts or someone you know did. Why?
The Duke asks
‘Sounds like “FOI” might be out working his black magic again.
Is it possible it’s the same guy (or guys)?’
From what I can see :-
ClimateGate was a leak
GleikGate was an impersonation
Joanne is a DOS attack
SkS was an admin blunder
none of them is actually a ‘Hack’
“Therefore, it is likely that either you edited the hacked SkS forum posts or someone you know did. Why?” – John Mason
Edited? You mean quoted, nothing was edited.
If I leave the keys in the ignition it is still stealing if you take my car. It was easy is not a legal defence to theft. It is a mitigating circumstance as you were tempted more than usual. Publishing the Heartland emails was wrong because they did nothing wrong. The fact it was easly to steal the emails does not make it right. One mail was faked up. So the pubic interest defense based on a faked was also false. Just talking about the real mails. Hearland did nothing wrong so they and thier donors are thoses submitting funding requests were entitled to privacy.
Imagine you got your neighbors mail.by error Would it be OK to open it and read it out load to the rest of the street? It is real easy to do.
It was right to publish climategate because clearly the public interest defence applies. They were up to no good, and this was the proof.
Poptech, the elipses in the quotes clearly indicate they were edited.
Bluebottle says: “its not fair when the shoe is on the other foot so now I will be righteously indignant and condemn you for the same offense that I earlier defended when our side did it”.
Paraphrasing Anthony’s reply to him, what a hypocrite.
No that just means only part of what was said was quoted in those instances. In these cases the key parts I wanted highlighted.
Such as you comment,
Poptech, as a SkS team-member it was perfectly natural for me to download what had been grabbed and look and see what had occurred. I can compare your posts against the originals. In some cases sentences have been removed and paragraphs spliced together. Context is absent or has been changed by this action. Why? Answer the question.
Stacyglen, you could do with spellchecking kit – pubic interest????
John Mason,
Poptech has commented here for years, and I have never seen him post something dishonest.
However, there is no doubt that John Cook is thoroughly mendacious. Cook changes the language in comments, which entirely changes their meaning. He arbitrarily deletes comments that make pertinent points, which he is unable to answer without being proven wrong.
Therefore, given the total lack of credibility coming from SS, I will take your comment as an assertion, not as a fact.