Monday
Nov172014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill They all lived together in a little crooked house
Nov 17, 2014 Greens Brandon Shollenberger's latest piece about the Skeptical Science crew is simply astonishing. If true, he has uncovered dishonesty on an industrial scale.
John Cook’s tendency to use made up quotes seems to have been a constant problem for Skeptical Science. At one point, people in their forum had to go through over a hundred web pages to check quotes he posted because so many of his “quotes” weren’t real.
Reader Comments (37)
'dishonesty on an industrial scale', so normal pratice for climate sceince then ?
knr, be fair, climate science can do precision dishonesty too.
The boy isn't intelligent enough to be culpable of dishonesty
"And stitching together different quotes into a single quote? What the hell was I thinking?!?!" - John Cook
"How crazy the situation is that this is the kind of thing that the denialosphere will use to ignore the science presented at SkS." - John Cook
"Also keep in mind that while it's fodder for deniers, it should have a negligible impact on the people we actually want to reach." - John Cook
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2012-01-20-Source%20of%20claims%20about%20mis-quoting%20Michaels_.html
Cooking the books?
I would say that this blog gets funnier and funnier, if it weren't for the fact that it's all so depressingly nasty, and single-mindedly stupid.
Quentin Wallace, and we love you too... whoever you are.
"Also keep in mind that while it's fodder for deniers, it should have a negligible impact on the people we actually want to reach." - John Cook
How true, Cook is soo clever.
Valuing, as I do, intellectual integrity above all else, I am obliged to view "Sceptical Science" and its ilk with unrestrained contempt.
I get that there's a ton of history here but I really don't think calling anyone a "filthy liar" does anyone's cause a great deal of good.
Nick - if it is true that somebody is a filthy liar, why would you see it as damaging to call them out as such? In courts of law, evidence is actively and carefully used to demonstrate when somebody is lying. Brandon is doing that with John Cook, so I don't see the problem. Is it the adjective "filthy" that you object to?
Amongst extreme environmentalists, making-it-up-as-you-along has been de rigueur for decades.
I think many of them really don't believe they are lying. Just like Lord Deben, they have great difficulty in separating what they think is true, what they wish to be true, and what is true.
Cook is untouchable, it seems. junk paper. 97%.. now the president is claiming it was his tweet.. (ref dangerous)
SkS Highlights
http://skepticalscience.com/2014-SkS-Weekly-Digest_46.html
Speaking at the University of Queensland, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, reminded his audience of college and high school students that he had tweeted about The Consensus Project (TCP) last year. Here are the President's words:
This university is recognized as one of the world’s great institutions of science and teaching. Your research led to the vaccine that protects women and girls around the world from cervical cancer. Your innovations have transformed how we treat disease and how we unlock new discoveries. Your studies have warned the world about the urgent threat of climate change. In fact, last year I even tweeted one of your studies to my 31 million followers on Twitter. (Laughter.) Just bragging a little bit. (Applause.) I don’t think that’s quite as much as Lady Gaga, but it’s pretty good. (Laughter.) That’s still not bad.
Remarks by President Obama at the University of Queensland, White House Briefing Room, Nov 15, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=52ZPlDSmEj4#t=110
The pejorative "filthy" really doesn't help, especially when the essence of the story is that John Cook has taken earlier criticism on board and actually changed the offending wording.
Yeah. See, the important word is "liar". The pejorative "filthy" merely denotes the contemptuous nature of the important word "liar".
Nick - The essence of the story is that John Cook is an unreliable source.
Move along- nothing to see here.
Normal (dishonest Climate Psience) service has been resumed.
You will glean more climate common sense and truthfulness from the green party manifesto and if you like it with laughs, then read the graun'.
I think most here would understand if perhaps not like noble cause corruption - Skeptical Science passed that some time ago.
It is what it is ->
mendacious,
mischievous,
malign
and so on.
What this infers about the organisations and institutions that disseminate / broadcast the toxic witterings of this lot of amateur cyber demagogue wannabes is that they are tainted by association - and that their messages must be looked at with similar skepticism....
They have unfortunately been quite successful in their enterprise if the number of times"97%" has been spluttered at me personally is anything to go by.
I do not wish them well and look forward to seeing some considerable humiliation heaped on their heads.
John Cook is a truly pathetic creature and a perfect icon for the public face of climate science.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2010/8/25/1282731360649/Byline-John-Cook-006.jpg
This is an article that shows how low the Groaniad is prepared to stoop to promote carbon trading. Written by a man even more ridiculous than Cook, Graham Wayne. Another cool dude too stupid to realise he is promoting extreme eco fascist views.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/25/solar-physicist-religion
Skepticalscience went digging to verify their quotes after this:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/.
IIRC, this story was posted on WUWT as well at the time.
There's more. I'll try to post some time later.
I think Cook is an irresponsible young man over-excited from being on a powerful bandwagon. Like so many others there, he could do with calming down a lot so that he might begin to think more for himself about the issues and the evidence rather than rush along all of a giggle to add to the propaganda. See the links on this post at Climate Audit and this one at WUWT for some glimpses of bizarre behaviour by Cook.
Nick Milner:
Except he hasn't. Nothing was changed. Cook has happily left the offending wording exactly where it's been for the last year or so. The only thing which has "changed" is now, in an entirely new location, Cook is not repeating the same error.
The "essence of the story" is not that Cook has decided to stop repeating a lie. The "essence of the story" is Cook proves he knows what he said is a lie by not repeating it in other locations but continues to let the lie stand on his website.
Also, really? You're bothered by the word "filthy," not "liar"?
O/T, but while we're on the topic of deceitful, lying cretins Michael Mann is copping for it big time over at WUWT. Lord Monckton has launched a scathing, blistering attack that is so intense in its central allegations that it can only be described as astonishing.
It's the top story and a must-see.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/
I find that the 97% paper is a very useful metric. Anyone who comes out with this nonsense reveals themselves as being at best a fool who believes an obviously nonsensical paper through ignorance, lack of research or receiving bad advice, or a scoundrel who knows this figure is nonsense but repeats it in order to browbeat anyone who dares to get in his way.
If Cook's only problem was misquoting on a blog... heck, if Cook's problems were at least on a scale proportional to misquoting on a blog.
I have for many years (and continue to) come across opportunistic and awful papers in past academic literature that one can only guess seemed a good idea at the time for the authors, reviewers, and editors involved in their incredible journey from sewer to publication.
These manuscripts tell now a very different story, at times a very cruel one, regarding the real capacity and intent of the actors behind them.
Credit to Mr Obama - he is good with a crowd. (see link given by Barry Wood above)
What a pity that he hung his hat on the type of nonsense spouted by skeptical science, Cook et al. and used that again in 2014 to show solidarity with Australia and the University of Queensland
Skepticalscience's latest piece?
An article claiming a linear relationship between blood pH and atmopsheric CO2 concentration at the parts per million concentration level. This is the level of the pseudoscientific drivel of their material. Just incredible.
There is no climate scientist who can see through this stuff?
Most of Obama’s Twitter followers were exposed as fake:
http://www.progressivestoday.com/liar-in-chief-obama-brags-about-his-31-million-twitter-followers-flashback-19-million-are-fake/
shub, if I can help it, I don't dignify that site by mentioning it in a way that a search engine can recognise.
Roll up, roll up! A not to be missed chance to earn a highly sought after academic qualification. Sign up for the University of Queensland's Climate Denialism Course.
Presented by a distinguished lecturer. Get in early, positions are going like hot cakes.
Satan wept.
GrantB: Member of the Denialism Course, Scott Mandia has some of the worst reviews on RateMyProfessors.com, calling him an arrogant and heartless narcissist who treats his little Long Island college like it was Yale in order to punish the kids.
John Cook's latest "University" (lol) course
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/study-namecalling-at-queensland-university/#comments
Seriously?? Why is UQ trying to rapidly degrade what little reputation that might have once had !!
As Cook apparently likes to portray himself.
@NikFromNYC misleading, as other professors at the same college have lower ratings, but one of the commenters alludes to Mandia deleting unfavourable comments
- Are the listings censored anyway ? None of the top skeptics like Judith Curry etc are listed ..have they excluded themselves or have they been excluded ?
- I note that there is a website denierlist.wordpress.com which purports to list deniers "the 3% consensus". Yet it has pages and pages listing experts including Andrew Montford
However the guy can't bring himself to list Judith Curry (or Pielke Sr or Lomborg etc. etc.) on it's "denier scientists" listing ..and "accidentally" spells her name Currie, curries throughout other peoples mentions of her.
I am really gutted. I am an engineering graduate from U of Q (1965); from the days when it was a good school. Since I retired I was pestered by the University to contribute to this bunch of "scholars". Not while my bum points to the ground. I have worked with competent engineers/managers in the mining industry all over the world. For a successful career, on the whole. But I am embarrassed now; their Climate institute, and the university executives, have undone the good work of a hundred years.