Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cooking the books
#1
Bishop Hill

September 20,2011

EXCERPT:

Skeptical Science and its host, John Cook, have been much commented upon recently, the site's grubby treatment of Roger Pielke Snr having caused considerable disquiet. I'm grateful to reader PaulM for pointing me to another example of the way things are done on John Cook's watch.

Take a look at this page on the site. It's an older article, dating back to 2008, and it covers the vexed question of whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice.

LINK
========================================================================================================
John Cook made a post HERE nearly 3 months ago.

There he made an absurd statement.That quickly destroys his claim on what he stated about.I doubt he realizes it.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
Here is the shabby treatment John Cook and his merry Mods did to Dr. Pielke:

The below is from Shub Niggurath Climate

Roger Pielke Sr at the SS.com: A dark day in the climate science debate

Selected Excerpt:

The propaganda website ‘SkepticalScience.com’, or SS.com in short, strives to serve as a ‘one-stop shop for all consensus communication needs’ kind of an outlet. Emerging ideas based on published papers or opinions, that run counter to a perceived consensus are monitored for, and various authors who work for the website churn out superficially plausible, scientific-sounding ‘rebuttals’ to these positions.

One of the main selling points of the website, is a falsetto neutral demeanour in design and tone.

LINK
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
I agree - that site poses as a "skeptical, but somewhat neutral" site

while it distorts and misrepresents science to portray a CAGW position.

It is relatively easy to smell what the Cook is rocking.

Smile
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#4
I wonder whether cook really believes what he puts on his site or is paid to be deceitful. Hence calling the site "Skeptical" science. The first time I read his site I was confused as it claimed to be a "skeptical" site and yet was clearly more global warming propaganda.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)