Bishop Hill The Cook timeline
Sep 21, 2011 Climate: other John Cook says:
... 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.
Fine. I see that. The original article was written in December 2007, but attracted no comments until March 2008, including the one from AnthonySG1, which first appears in the page capture in July 2008. A non-committal ("stay tuned") response from Skeptical Science was already in place. PaulM's comment came some months later at the start of September 2008 and was captured at the end of that month. However, there was no reply at this point.
Six months later, the article was rewritten, with its new focus on a distinct treatment for land and sea ice. Although no date appears to have been given for the rewrite, it was captured on 14 April 2009. At this point AnthonySG1's comment still had the original noncommittal response and PaulM was unanswered. This meant that Skeptical Science had an article that said that land ice was falling and sea ice was growing, but had two old comments that disputed an entirely different claim - that Antarctica was losing ice overall. The result was confusion: a comment in June 2009 told PaulM to chill out:
Chill, amigo (no pun intended).
The article makes the distinction right off the bat between land ice and sea ice. Your two links discuss SEA ICE. We know there's been an increase in sea ice.
It wasn't until January 2010 that the comment thread was adjusted. Here's John Cook's take on what happened.
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.
I see two problems with this explanation. Firstly, not only were the comments not new, but the article was not new either. The comments were a year and a half old, and the article itself had been revised nearly a year earlier. I have cast my eye over the April 2008 2009 version of the article and the one at January 2010 and they don't appear to be materially different to me. Perhaps someone with more time than me can check this out in more detail.
The second problem is the suggestion that Cook erroneously thought the commenters hadn't read the article, forgetting he had rewritten it several months before. However, he did know that he had responded before - he could read what he had said to AnthonySG1 back in 2008. His explanation doesn't cover the question of what he was thinking about his earlier response. We are presumably asked to believe that he deleted it without thinking and inserted the new "erroneous" ones, ridiculing AnthonySG1 and PaulM.
It's a stretch, in my opinion.
Reader Comments (128)
Sep 22, 2011 at 2:33 PM | rkim
Que?
"the people on this website are offensive"
You've not been to RC, then?
Or Deltoid, the Alarmist coven that wanted to feed asbestos to Monckton.
I mean, those people are downright creepy.....
"the people on this website are offensive"
Actually I'm personally attracted to this site because it's so civilised and hosts genuine debate - I can't be bothered with RC et al. because of the sickening condescension and endless suppression of discussion - presumably it's this lack of suppression that's offensive to those whose ideology deludes them that there's no debate to be had.
Trofim Lysenko would be proud of his acolytes.
I admit, I wasn't nice to dana1981.... and I'm fine with that. However, to categorize my snide as "non-stop personal attacks" is a bit of a stretch. You are correct, dana1981, to dislike how I asked for a better explanation for re-writing history, but you cannot categorize a request for integrity as a personal attack.... unless you have none.
"Every single comment on that site"
That must have been quite a long read. What's the total here now, Bish?
ZBD, if this website or the people on this website are offensive don't visit it. I find the moderators and people at RC offensive and that is why I generally avoid going or commenting there. Its like watching a TV channel you find offensive - switch over or go and read a book. Why subject yourself to offensive behaviour when you don't have to?
I wonder what Dana "Heinrich" Nuccitelli would make of what passes as "civil discussion" in blogs such as Greenfyre's?
Oh wait...he'll report that at SS as if I wrote the insults myself against defenceless Protection Squadron members...
I have a question for the Bish - have you ever gone back and edited a thread, other than during active moderation?
It seems to me that the proper way to deal with an article that needs updating where the original thread contains comments is to place a link at the top indicating that the article has been updated and point to a new thread, the opening part of which might actually credit commenters on the previous thread with raising issues that need addressing. This would give great credibility to the site.
However editing a thread which contained comments is an incredible own goal - if SkS want to do that, well that's up to them, its their site. But they don't appear to be thinking very much about their credibility and reputation in going about it the way they have. Reputations are hard won and easily lost.
If the thread was closed or just an article, then it seems entriely reasonable to just update the page ie rewrite it.
MM
Oh come on. You were sprinkling the Nazi allusions around on the other thread and I bit my tongue but no more.
Godwin.
That link is Greenfyre's site? It looks very different than I remember, his old blog (http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/) hasn't been updated since May. Maybe he's finally realized how misplaced his efforts were. I honestly can't think of anyone in the CAGW movement side who is a bigger brick-wall than Greenfyre. His comment exchanges on Digg should be studied by psychologists interested in understanding closed-minded activism.
BBD - Godwin's Law does not apply, as I explain here
Jeremy - The page I linked to is at my site, and it lists all the nice and calm words that have saluted me when I made a couple of comments at Greenfyre's blog.
This may fall into the OT category but it may prove beneficial to any denizen of this blog who resides in the Truro area.
Truro Fencing Club is open 4 nights per week and has an excellent reputation in Sabre.
A weapon made for swipers and slashers.
Slashing at people on piste is a fantastic way to release all that bottled-up pressure, anger and waspish behaviour.
You may even make friends!
MM
I agree with BBD here about N word references.
Roy - Same two-letter abbreviation. Same contempt for non-believers. Same "we're the protectors" masquerade. Same fake "scholarly" work. Same obsession with propaganda and "the message". Same desire (need) to rewrite history. Even the old anthem's first line would apply verbatim.
Isn't that enough, for a bit of satire? Especially given the antics of dana1981 on Yahoo Answers for example.
Maurizio
If you don't see that Nazi references make you look stupid and vile, then there is no helping you.
Thank you BBD - I feel better already.
I have been guilty of trying to engage with the the Truro Troll despite people wiser than me saying do not even answer her! Once again she has succeeded in disrupting a post but, there we go...Stop even answering her..It worked over at the Daily Mail...hence she comes here.. Can anyone copy and paste one post from her that quotes some serious science? There are people on here that tried to ask her over at the D.M. that have declared science credentials but to no avail!
This was about Cook and Dana but it has slipped off subject..which is what she intended to do. Even BBD did the same thing on the previous post (Shame on you BBD,) I did have some respect for you BBD but the only thing missing from your and ZBD's posts are the strike outs! Off subject and trolling!
I posted a comment on SS. I identified myself as a skeptic and then made a very benign comment that would be hard for many to disagree with. My comment got edited by the moderator and I was lectured about their blog policy. They held me to an entirely different standard than they held pro-AWG comments.
Ironically, it was a thread concerning Pielke Sr.'s work in which Dr. Pielke was kind enough to participate. The SS crowd was actually criticizing Dr. Pielke for citing his own work. Apparently they want to talk about peer review papers -- but only those papers that agree with their belief system.
All in all, my experience there convinced me that SS is just a propaganda site for true believers.
So, referring to Skeptical Science as "SS" is going too far? I reject this notion wholeheartedly. In fact, I reject the misapplication of Godwins law. That law originated from usenet discussions diverging from topic into bald-faced mis-labeling of another person as hitler. It became so common they made it one of the first internet memes. No one here openly referred to facism or nazi's. Oh the other hand, the direct re-writing of history at a blog purporting to be a source of valid information and the censoring of a scientist at that same site are clear examples of a group that desires to control a message and all who would question it.
The question is when is it ok to label someone a historical paraiah?
My answer? When they themselves act like that person. Simply disagreeing on a subject is not enough, but when disagreement turns into re-writing history, or censoring valid debate, well you get what you asked for.
I came to the same conclusion last time Dana popped his head up here and he got very defensive about it.
I noted that John Cook metamorphosed overnight from a struggling ex grad-student cartoonist with a hobby climate blog - to the proprietor of a highly professionally designed site with multilingual translations, multiple smartphone apps, a book, lecture tours, guest articles in the Guardian etc etc.
That's a far quicker "market penetration" than Steve McIntyre, Bish or even Anthony Watts have achieved (despite the latter's huge traffic numbers).
That sort of blanket media penetration costs big money and we've seen it before in climate science with the "rapid response" team inn the US and a similar professionally produced site, whose name eludes me, in the UK.
There's no shortage of "big green" money available to prop up the rapidly detumescing scam - Dana works for one of the biggest US environmental consulting groups, appeared on the scene at the time of SS's sudden rise to prominence - and appears to be able to spend a good portion of his working hours fighting blog wars.
If it was "big oil" the greenies wouldn't hesitate to join up the dots.
Go figure - as they say in Dana's part of the world.
Jeremy
Please read the comments properly: MM at Sep 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM, as quoted by yourself at 3:44pm.
Don't treat me like an idiot Jeremy. It doesn't work. And all the smart people on the thread see exactly what you are up to and mark you down for it.
Could anybody please point me to a thread where BBD didn't try to hijack the thread?
Climatology rarely has to deal with facts.
Here there is evident fraudulent history construction by John Cook and naturally climatology enthusiasts will do their level best to avoid dealing with that fact.
The argument will be obscured in any number of different ways to distract from the history rewriter's actions.
So, the smart people reading this thread are supposed to go: "Oh wait! I'm smart. That means I should be 'seeing' this the way BBD is seeing it, no"?
In fact, I would advise MM to let us down gently on the Nazi comparision more because someone as you would make the connections that you did.
From "Oh No. He is a Nazi!!" to "Oh Noes!! He compared me to a Nazi"
This is quite different than:
Conflation of threads was your mistake, not mine.
Jeremy
I am not going to repeat what Maurizio said above on this thread, as quoted by yourself, however much you try to get me to. I have conflated nothing. By defending the indefensible, you have placed yourself beyond the pale. No further responses.
Maurizio
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, I am trying to get you to stop your Nazi nonsense because is is repellent. The hijack meme is your way of trying to divert attention from how offensive you are being.
Shub
Your defence of the indefensible is noted.
I noticed the comment count was at 77 and I figured the predictable was happening. I looked at the last comment page and the predictable was happening. Again. Sigh.
Andrew
RE RayFOMR and BBD, I agree too that any N references should be avoided. Anything that could be construed as N word related should also be avoided. I don't like reduction of the skeptical science name to "SS". Doing so makes it far too easy for others to take offence, whether any was intended or not. Stick to something non-offensive and it won't act as bait to others. Use SkS, or spell it in full.
Grow up and be polite over things that just don't matter.
You were referring to the other thread, my post which you responded to was referring to the other thread. Your introduction of this thread and behavior in this thread is a new line of reasoning which I was not addressing in my post, if you read it. What I quoted in a previous post in this thread has nothing to do with the other thread, as referred to by you and replied to by me.
As trolls go, you haven't done too badly, I mean I'm counting a dozen posts or so in response to your feigned disgust. What you haven't done is demonstrate that anything in THE OTHER THREAD was a nazi reference. This means you are a troll as your response was to simply point at behavior in this thread as if it were the other thread, rather than directly address my reply.
The Godwin thing is so passé, I think that being called guilty of the practices in Orwells 1984 hurts more.
RE: Andrew
"I noticed the comment count was at 77 and I figured the predictable was happening. I looked at the last comment page and the predictable was happening. Again. Sigh."
I agree.
Bish - there is too much thread hijacking going on. I posted on topic 3:38 pm but the whole topic has been by-passed by the crap about the N word - grow up people, stop baiting. That goes to all posting here. Its boring.
Foxgoose:
In all fairness to Dana, a tracking of ten of his recent comments at SkS indicates that he comments outside of regular PT business hours. I assume SkS logs comments at local Brisbane time.
In addition, I take John Cook at his word - "There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love."
ZBD:
As to your charge of schoolyard debating tactics, perhaps. But I think it is as legitimate as pointing out that someone works for a FF company. The fact that Dana works for a firm that relies heavily on government funding of environmental projects says nothing as to the accuracy or appropriateness of his comments per se, just as Steve McIntyre's role in mining says nothing about the accuracy or appropriateness of his comments. However, the background does help contextualize their comments in general, i.e., Steve's emphasis on robust and fully documented methodologies. Comments should be judged on their accuracy and appropriateness..
I tend to agree. In fact I think the existence of Godwin's Law actually prevents the mistakes made in that era from being openly discussed and corrected in the present day. Because people are discouraged from calling other people as they behave, it reduces consequences in behaving that way. It's like a gigantic elephant in the room like child abuse in a family, no one discusses it, it's not allowed, so it is then easier for the problem to continue or re-manifest. The first thing psychologists try to get the abused to do is to confront the abuse/abuser.
ThinkingScientist - for years, SS had no trouble to be abbreviated as SS. I think it's still abbreviated SS in some of its comments (unless history has been rewritten once more).
We have no way of knowing if the site is called SS exactly to insult the "skeptical scientists" - after all why is SS called SS? As I said in my blog, what Tibet liberation support blog would ever call itself "List of the Chinese Government’s Human Rights Defence Efforts"?
I know that some people can't fathom how to make a joke out of the Nazis. I don't understand that, yet I am restraining myself. But then is it really my fault if that anthem starts with "If all become untrue, true we remain"? Or if the Ahnenerbe was in the business of rewriting history? Or if the translation of SS is "Protection Squadron"?
There's too much irony in there to be left untouched, and if I'll ever have a change of mind all I have to do is read again the way dana1981 treats on the internet whoever doesn't share his belief (and paycheck provenance, I suspect). Somebody else smelled traces of Pol Pot in that...
C'mon guys, BBD, Roy and TS are correct. I have no time for SkS and it's particular form of propaganda, but to link the mods there to Nazism only serves to debase us, not them. The revisionism there that is the subject of this thread stands on it's own as an example of the dishonesty of the site. It needs no further embellishment.
Jeremy @ 6:16. I agree. Invoking Godwin is use of tabu. We are lesser for it.
==============
If you are not allowed to draw parallels between present day behavior and behavior from the past that ended in horror regardless of how similar it might be, what technique do you propose to illustrate the repetition of humanity's greatest mistakes? You yourself say they espouse propaganda, and yet this is not a parallel to be addressed? Where did propaganda (on both sides of the Atlantic, btw, our (the U.S.) propaganda dept was not immune from bigotry) get us before?
Off-topic and even deletion I'll accept (that's what Godwins law was intended to do btw, determine when a thread was *over*, not what discussion was allowed). The idea that we debase ourselves by illustrating where single-minded behavior leads is simply a clever misinterpretation of Godwin's law by those who would control language and open discussion.
Avoid referencing "The N Word" (Fairly Orwellian to self-restrict your own speech, btw) if it makes you uncomfortable, but don't tell other people how they can express themselves.
Jeremy, and others - remember that threads are read by many people who do not comment, either because they don't have anything to say on that thread, or because they don't want to comment on a given blog, full stop. The impression you give to these lurkers is as important as the impression you give to the active commenters. As someone who reads quite a few blogs, but does not comment much, I'd say that people who bring up Nazi parallels on climate topics (or indeed many others) instantly make me wonder about the strength of their arguments, even if I am sympathetic to the latter. For opponents, it just makes it too easy to disengage from the arguments. "Single-minded behavior" and "propaganda" have a long history in human debate, and their occurrence - as in the SkS website - simply does not require analogies with the Nazis. Up to you to disagree, of course, but that's my view.
It would appear that Tetra Tech are getting into the rebuttal business.
"Informational Resources to Address and Rebut Adversarial Claims about Wind Projects"
http://www.tetratech.com/Download-document/263-Informational-Resources-to-Address-and-Rebut-Adversarial-Claims-about-Wind-Projects.html
"Tetra Tech Awarded $20 Million USAID Climate Change Program"
If you wonder why Tetra Tech are taking such an interest in such behaviour, this may explain why.
http://www.tetratech.com/index.php?option=com_pressrelease&Itemid=154
So for a Tetra Tech employee, dana1981, to take an interest in the operations of SkS could be far more than a 'hobby'.
Someone brought up a reference instantly? I agree, question the strength of argument of someone who would do such a thing. In fact, question in general. I'd rather my comments be questioned than BBD's at this point.
My point was never that any subject "require" analogies with anything, simply that such an analogy did not exist on the thread in question (the original cook-the-books thread), and that use of such an analogy is not a valid reason for taking a non-existent moral high ground (you are not ethically better for not speaking of a specific subject, to say otherwise is to infer that free speech does not exist) while trying to shut down debate (as BBD does).
Further implications by others that any use of specific analogies was forbidden strikes me quite plainly as enforced human ignorance of present-day parallels to the baby-steps that led to human horror in the past.
First of all it's apparent that some people can't even write the word (Hitler=Voldemort?). Fine. Other people automatically (and unthinkingly) react by shutting down their minds. Fine with that too.
Am not fine with the idea of going into full censorship mode in case innocent readers get shocked. Also please do read me if read me. I've nowhere linked SS the websites to the Nazis. I've just noticed out loud how ironic it is that the parallels go beyond a curious and obviously inappropriate abbreviation they freely chose for themselves.
If this site were called Bishop Science there'd be tons of comments all over the web about the apparent BS. :-)
Jeremy: “If you are not allowed to draw parallels between present day behavior and behavior from the past that ended in horror regardless of how similar it might be, what technique do you propose to illustrate the repetition of humanity's greatest mistakes?”
Well, I wouldn’t call Nazism a mistake so much as a consciously designed, if poorly executed, plan to impose a master race on Europe through the subjugation of the “non-Aryan” population.
That aside, a blog post is necessarily limited in word count and within the space constraints any drawing of parallels can only be done using very broad brush strokes.
So, for example, we can describe massed, stage-managed rallies and impassioned speeches designed to fire up the audience as a feature of Nazi Germany. But they were also a feature of the civil rights movement.
And note such terms as “stage-managed”, with its sinister undertones. But all mass rallies are by definition and need stage-managed.
The fact is that within the space constraints of the blog we are often compelled to speak in generalities, using simple analogies and broad-brush, black and white categories that appeal to the emotions of the reader. Much like, well, let’s not go there.
So, Mac, @ 6:57, is that USAID sending my taxes beyond the pale or into the mists of madness? That's not international development, that's intergalactic stuff.
================
Many people are succumbing to PC here... even Anthony Watts has banned the term SS...
However just a simple google of "(SS)" and Skeptical Science will see it used almost exclusively by supporters of that site.
A site lives and dies by its name. You read what you want to read into it. SS has consistently been used without recourse to history. If it sometimes does then that is their fault.
They chose a deliberatively misleading domain name - a trap for the unwary. BH has snipped me in the past for legitimately raising WWII history. However, there are parallels with an entry point saying one thing and meaning another. Again they leave me with little sympathy if the abbreviation is used in a negative way.
They entered the political area with a propaganda site... they have to live with whatever falls their way.
The often positively used and grammatically correct abbreviation for the Skeptical Science is SS. Their problem not mine. PC be damned.
You could be right, of course - but since we're all sceptics here by association, I'll reserve the right to be a bit more sceptical.
Here's an excerpt from a Tetra Tech recruitment ad:-
The company doesn't seem to be a complete stranger to "opinion forming" - does it?
Ladies and gentlemen
Again, no more discussion of Nazis please.
I think we've all been beaten over the head enough with "Godwin's Law".
SS is clearly an unacceptable abbreviation for Cook's site.
I propose we should henceforth only use golf charlie's alternative of "Skunk Science".
As well as being more accurately alliterative, it evokes the environmental spirit of a cute little woodland creature living free and wild in its own unpolluted world - and only creating a foul stench when challenged.
Foxgoose! Your suggestion is offensive to all Skunk Works group that have fueled innovation for a long time.
!!!
How about A.S.S., where A stands for Astoundingly of course.
It looks like our friend Dana has got himself into a pickle - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-ar4.html. It will be interesting to see what, if any, updates or changes in the post and comments take place.