Climate Models And Other Global Warming Shenanigans

Check out these two graphs which compare and contrast climate model predictions with reality.

Here's another interesting comparison- the infamously inaccurate Greenland map in the new Times Atlas and a strikingly similar map in Wikipedia.

The blog Skeptical Science, which isn't much of either, has been recommended to me before as a go-to source for 'accurate' climate information.  This is how they do things there.  Using the Way Back Machine, the good Bishop Hill demonstrates that:

Astonishingly, more than six months after having their errors pointed out to them, the denizens of Skeptical Science rewrote the article and then inserted comments suggesting that their commenters hadn't read the article properly.
I'm simply flabbergasted.
And it's even more amazing when one recalls that Skeptical Science was recently the recipient of an award from the Australian Museum for services to climate science.

A few commenters suggest this is just an innocent update, but:

Respectable blogs use a strikeout of the old text so that the reader can see the edit. Such a change informs the reader. They do not add a comment suggesting that the edited version was "the first point I make". Such changes are intended to disinform the reader.

 If a revision is more significant than a typo, it's customary to leave a note on the post saying that it's been revised.  Not at SS:

Having rewritten the "argument", SS could have removed the old comments; or leave them with a note saying they had become out-of-date; or a different note specifying that the new version of the page addressed the issue highlighted by the commenter, eg AnthonySG1's.
Instead, the SS team decided to rewrite history (the Ahnenerbe would have been proud). SS opted for tampering with the contribution of commenters such as AnthonySG1 and PaulM (members of us skeptical and therefore inferior race), transforming them into total trolls in a way that that shows not a jot of attempt of respecting fellow human beings.
Why would the SS do that? Total disregard for skeptical visitors of course means SS is completely focused on indoctrinating the believing masses, and especially the scientifically-illiterate journalists visiting the site. Therefore the SS "narrative" has to be linear, clean to the point of being spotless, with not a single error or omission, and not a meaningful point by any skeptic in a million years.

Cook defends himself here:

How SkS works is that the rebuttals to climate myths are organized as an encyclopedic reference, as opposed to blog posts which are more like snapshots in time. This means 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.
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.

Except, since he knows he's changed the post, wouldn't you think a fairminded person would check the dates of the responses?  And:

When you update your old rebuttals, how is it that you wrote responses to commenters that makes it appear as though they don't know what they are talking about,and you do?

Curiouser and curioiuser:

How did John Cook manage to mistake those comments as new when one of them already had a response attached to it? And who deleted the original response?

In other words, his explanation is merely a second foul and lacks credibility:

1) The comments are DATED, so it is quite clear when the comments were made, and quite clear that they are/were not commenting on any updated article but on the original article, before SS decided to re-write it.
2) The comment from "AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008 " was replied to by Cook (or someone at SS) the reply stated:

[ Response: Funny you should ask, the last few weeks, I've been preparing a series of posts on Antarctica and the Arctic. First one next week. Stay tuned... ]

Which was a perfectly reasonable, if completely uninformative, reply - one which actually failed to address the commentators point entirely.
In order for Mr Cook to post the 'revised' replies he subsequently much later posted, which make the sceptics out to be bumbling trolls, he would have had to DELETE the original reasonable, if uninformative, reply and insert the new reply.
It is clear that in doing so he could NOT have been unaware that the comment from AnthonySG1 was in reply to the original article.

Like this commenter:

I really do find it very hard to swallow [Cook's] claim that:
1) knowing that you (or someone at SS) had already 'revised/rewitten' the article,on at least one or more occasions, and
2) that seeing that there was already an 'official SS-response (undated) to the commentators posted comment,
3) that you somehow completely neglected to check the date of the comment despite the fact that you would have had to actually delete the original SS-response in order to insert the newer 'revised' and much more caustic SS-response.
The fact that the 'revised' SS-response, to what were completely reasonable criticisms of the original article, all had the same dismissive and caustic tone, gives some insight into your own personal attitude to people that would dare to point out errors in your argument.
Personally if I myself were to engage in such behaviour, to write such caustic replies knowing full well that the original article had been SUBSTANTIALLY re-written since it original publication, I would have made certain that the replies I was responding to were in fact replies to the rewritten version and NOT, as in both of these cases, responses to the original, and incorrect, article.
I note, and commend, that after I pointed out that you still had not corrected your 'mistake' at your website, you have now put some sort of 'correction' (such as it is) HOWEVER, I also note that instead of leaving your 'erroneous' revised-responses intact (with a strikethrough so that readers might see your 'revised' response) you decided to delete them entirely - thus removing from the casual visitors eye, evidence of your own errors and subsequently removing evidence of your own personal attitude to people that would dare to point out errors in your argument.
What we get instead is the revised revised response.

Cook continues to insist that he just forgot or 'didn't bother' to check the dates of the comments in his revisions.  But revising an article to substantially change the argument within it in a way that answers the rebuttals in the comments without acknowledging the revision is itself a strange procedure for one professing to love truth.  If you are taking the time to revise and update a post, it is simply good, sound protocol, and fair to your readers to say something simple like, "Note: this post was revised and the arguments and references updates on this date."

It should be second nature for an intellectually honest person to check the dates on comments to a revised post before replying.  But then, this isn't the first time the SS folks have shown their dark side.  As Lucy Skywalker notes, they are a crooked court.