Skeptical Science

A FakeScience site created to misinform the gullible, created by not-a-scientists John Cook. A FakeScience site created to misinform the gullible, created by not-a-scientists John Cook. (I feel like his name is a missing an 'r' in it). The whole purpose is to lie by omission and comission, and attack or omit scientists or data that is inconvenient to his agenda. Having an advocacy site isn't bad. Pretending it's a science site is the problem. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2019-01-29

If you want to know the basics of Cook's integrity, just read the details of the "study" he got published:

Skeptical Science Studies

           Main article: Skeptical Science Studies

Psychology Student and Climate Activist behind the fraudulently named and often discredited Skeptical Science blog, John Cook, did a couple of "Studies" to try to prove the 97% consensus.

• 2013 Cook selected 11,944 abstracts of papers, from pro-AGW journals, then cherry picked 64 papers for their use of sensationalist terms (like "Global Warming"), and found that 63 of those 64 agreed that "most" of the warming was from man: that's where his 97% number came from.
• No credible author, scientist or statistician could look at the methodology and not scoff. Quickly Director of the Center for Climatic Research at University of Delaware, David Legates, did a peer reviewed rejoinder that detailed many of the errors in Cook's methodology, including showing that 23 of the 63 paper’s authors disagreed with Cook’s conclusions that they supported Climate Consensus. Resulting in 41 of 11,944 abstracts agreeing with Global Warming (a 0.3% consensus, not 97%). Thousands of FakeNews sites cite Cook and 97% anyway, without mentioning Legates rebuttal.
• 2016 Cook decided to double-down on his fraud by doing a synthesis study, of adding up the totals of his, Oreskes, Doran, Anderegg studies together: ignoring all of those studies were discredited for the same methodological flaws of his 2013 Study. But now FakeNews outlets could more easily cite his 2016 "study" without mentioning Legates refutation, and only the truly curious would discover that all the studies that made up the 2016 Cook study had been discredited.

---

🔗 More

Organizations Organizations that I felt the need to comment on (more often on the negs than the positives). But there's good/bad in all.

Media Organizations News, Newspapers, Websites, Radio, TV, and organizations that convey information the public.

TBD List all the articles that have work to be done on them.

Tags: Organizations  Media  TBD