I am tired of his bull****.
The first post on my blog was about John Cook (the propietor of Skeptical Science) lying about evidence. He fabricated a quote in an article he wrote, and to this day, he has made no effort to correct it.
He hides behind the excuse he has no editorial control at the site the article was published at, but that's bogus. Even without editorial control, he could make an effort. He could contact the people who do have editorial control. He could publicly request a correction. He could show he actually cares about accurately reporting facts.
But whatever. The past is the past. Only, a month later I found out Cook had fabricated another quote. Cook never did anything to address that issue. It was discussed at the most popular climate science blog in the world, but maybe he just didn't hear about it.
That's what I assumed when I checked Skeptical Science and saw a new post including the same fabricated quote I had criticized a month ago. Then I looked further. I happened to find a blog post discussing my criticism of this fabricated quote. The post was critical of me, but it did accept the quote I referred to was a fabrication. That wouldn't have meant much except one person who commented on that post was Rob Honeycutt, a core member of the Skeptical Science team.
Not long after, I found Honeycutt had sent a link to that post to another person (Richard Tol). Naturally, I was curious. If a member of the Skeptical Science team knew they were using a fabricated quote, even directing others to an article acknowledging it, why hadn't he told his team? And if he had told them, why hadn't they done anything?
I decided the best option was to directly ask them:
The comment disappeared. No moderation note was posted. No explanation was given. No answer to my questions was offered. A comment with nothing but direct, relevant questions about why a fabricated quote was used in an article was deleted.
So that settles it. When someone starts deleting comments to censor people who point out they're using fabricated quotes, there is no charitable interpreation. All there is is the conclusion John Cook is a filthy liar.
As a side note, the last time I discussed this fabricated quote, I pointed out John Cook also used a figure which has no evidenciary support. I'll repeat what I said about it before. The figure is described thus:
Public perception (55%) comes from a survey conducted by John Cook on a representative USA sample, asking the question “How many climate experts agree that the global warming we are witnessing is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans?” Participants were requested through professional survey firm Qualtrics.
That’s it. No publication information. No link or reference. No data or supporting documentation. Nothing at all other than John Cook’s word.
I can’t imagine a world in which that should that be enough from anyone. I certainly can’t imagine why anyone should be expected to trust Cook’s description when he makes **** up time and time again.
February 5th update: It was brought to my attention it can be undesirable to have to use links to see the evidence of the fabricated quote I'm discussing. For convenience, I'm adding the image used by Skeptical Science and the actual quote below:
The quote "reposition fact as theory" is a strange bastardization of the widely reported quote which said "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." The two are dramatically different. If one does not believe global warming is a fact, repositioning it as a theory is perfectly reasonable. However, repositioning something one accepts as fact as merely a theory is not reasonable. It's dishonest.