JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky (Part II) PLUS all 40 questions

There were only ten positive responses.

There are many questions to be answered about this paper in Psychological Science.“ Questions worth asking at all kinds of levels.

The authors,   Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E., drew conclusions about skeptics by largely surveying alarmist sites. They got hardly any positive responses, some of which may have been faked (who can tell?). Then with a tiny ten positive responses out of 1147, the authors drew inferences about a group of people which must number between one hundred thousand to one million or more individuals. Worse, of the ten who thought the moon landing was faked, only three or four were skeptics. In the UPDATE below note that there appear to be three different forms of the survey, a point that surely needs some explanation.

The headline of the study “NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science” is drawn from only those ten responses.  Do I need to say it’s a sample size too small to draw any conclusions? I shouldn’t. But this point alone should have been enough for the paper in its current form to fail review, yet it didn’t.

Furthermore, the questions and the aim of the survey was so transparent (see below) that commenters on the sites where it was hosted openly discussed whether “deniers” (the obvious targets) would be fooled by them.

Graham from OnlineOpinion was so struck by the study he’s written a post titled: Fish rot from the head Part 1.

He uses this paper to ask questions about falling standards of Australian university academics. “If credentialled, well-funded and tenured tertiary institution staff are capable of dishing-up research which should fail an undergraduate, what chance have lower echelons.”

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky’s… latest project is a study entitled MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE and sub-titled “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”.

It could have been sub-titled “The man who polled his prejudices and mistook them for the facts”. Prof Lewandowsky’s paper is certainly motivated, but it is not scientific or competent.

Visit Online opinion to read his Part I analysis with graphs. It also includes links to the full screenshots of the survey — Graham was so astonished at the survey back in 2010, he kept the images. I’ve transcribed them below.

Graham and I both wonder why there were 40 42 questions in the original survey, but only 32 in the data tables of results. What happened to the demographics data and the other missing questions? It may mean nothing, but sometimes what is left out tells a story all of it’s own.

Questions 28 to 32 have also been removed. It was a mystery to me why they were in there in the first place as they ask how I feel about my life. That they play no part in the paper suggests that whatever theory was being investigated using them failed to pan out. If this is the case it is bad practice… not to report the failure.

Graham points out that there were two substantial findings in the paper: one on people who believe in free markets, and one for people who believe in conspiracies. There were between 80 – 244 respondents who felt strongly about a free market, and, depending on the conspiracy, there were between 3 and 289 who ticked “yes”. Graham adds up the numbers of people who agreed with the conspiracies mentioned in the press release: AIDS (9), Moon landing (10), Princess Diana (25), SARS (42) and Climate Change (134).

He will be publishing more on this, as will I.

Thanks to Australian Climate Madness, ManicBeanCounter (who has pivot tables), Lucia, and Anthony Watts

UPDATE Are there two or three different forms of the survey?

Geoff Chambers tells me that Leopard on the Bishop Hill thread has noted that Steve McIntyre is asking Lewandowsky why there are two or even three different forms of the survey? Why indeed?

Paul follows them up:

The Deltoid, Tamino, Mandia and Hot-Topic blogs were sent the survey number surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415 on about August 29th. That survey is on the archive, and starts with 6 questions about free markets.

Bickmore and Few Things had the survey number surveyID=HKMKNG_ee191483 also about Aug 29, but this one doesn’t seem to be on the archive.

Steve Mc was sent survey number surveyID=HKMKNI_9a13984 on Sept 6th. This survey is on the archive, and it starts with 5 completely different questions! About how happy you are with life.

(Junk Science was sent survey number http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HKMKNI_9a13984&UID=3313891469)

Junkscience hosted a link — so one skeptic did host it – though with a warning

JunkScience discovered a link posted to the survey, so contrary to the claim, it was hosted on one skeptical site. Having said that, I don’t know that there would have been many responses as Steve wrote at the time that it was *Not recommended or endorsed in any way by JunkScience.com, and “Basically it seems to be fishing for conspiracy theorists in an effort to associate them with CAGW skepticism. I suspect Hanich & HREC are likely to get a lot of complaints about this framing.”

He also listed the official complaints department:  (please be polite!)

If you have any questions or comments about this research you may address them to the experimenter, Charles Hanich. The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009

Bishop Hill has hosted the link to the data: Lewandowsky data

The surveys were held at Kwiksurvey which unfortunately was hacked in June with everything lost. h/t to A scott on Lucia’s site.

Hat tip to Barry Woods, Foxgoose, Lionell, Graham, Geoff Chambers and another reader from afar.

The Full Survey Questions:

These are transcribed from the screenshots, and may contain typos or errors. Apologies from me. For simplicity’s sake I’ve only written in the answer system when it changes (so for example, questions 1 – 6 all used the same format).

—————————————————————
1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs.

1 S Agree  2  Agree  3  Disagree  4 S Disagree

2. I support the free-market system but not at the expense of environmental quality

3. The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice

4. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns

5. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development

6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption

7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq

1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True  3 Probably False  4 Absolutely False

8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments

9. SARS was produced under laboratory conditions as a biological weapon

10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War.

11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s

12. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the results of an organized conspiracy by US government agencies such as the CIA and FBI

13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio

14. Area 51 in Nevada US is a secretive military base that contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies

15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President

16. The US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (eh wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (eg attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks

17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact

18. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her

19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols did not act alone but rather received assistance from Neo Nazi groups

20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”.

21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formular with the intent of driving up demand for their classic product, later reintroducing it for their financial gain.

22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree

   1 Strongly Agree  2  Agree 3 Disagree  4 Strongly Disagree

23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree

24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is a substantial switch to non-CO2 emitting energy sources

25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years  has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate

26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone layer
27. The problem of acid rain is no longer a serious threat to the global ecosystem

28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal

29. The conditions of my life are excellent

30. I am satisfied with my life

31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life

32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing

33. The HIV virus causes AIDS

     1 Absolutely True  2 Probably True   3 Probably False   4 Absolutely False

34. Smoking causes lung cancer

35. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change

36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS

37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer?

38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that  human CO2 emissions cause climate change?

39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do?

40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do?

41. What is your age?

42. What is your gender (M/F)

UPDATE: Bolded numbers indicate questions for which data was not made available.

 

REFERENCE:

(If you could call it that)

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.

 

 

———————————

PART I  Lewandowsky – Shows “skeptics” are nutters by asking alarmists to fill out survey

PART II  10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky (Part II) PLUS all 40 questions

PART III here Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean  “Incompetence”

PART IV  Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science”

PART V Lewandowsky does “science” by taunts and attempted parody instead of answering questions

——————————————

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (59 votes cast)
10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky (Part II) PLUS all 40 questions, 9.1 out of 10 based on 59 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9cjh38l

215 comments to 10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky (Part II) PLUS all 40 questions

  • #
    Manfred

    Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac in my jaundiced view, appear to demonstrate an startling absence of insight. How do they not see this exercise as a self-indulgent career damaging and vacuous self-projection ? One can only assume that the journal ‘Psychological Science’ must be more than passingly desperate for articles to publish.

    00

  • #

    When I think of the time and effort put in, to get Psychology at least recognised as a first cut at a science, and contrast that with the damage a clown like Stephan Lewandowsky can do to its credibility, I’m appalled. On every conceivable front, the Lewandowsky paper fails massively. Who on Earth were the referees?

    All those erudite people and their studies, research and papers, lent a spurious legitimacy and authority to the whole thing and having laid that essential groundwork, facilitated what inevitably followed.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/

    Pointman

    00

    • #

      Sorry about the “it’s” …(fixed -Jo)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDh1x38osHs

      Pointman

      00

    • #

      I don’t think that Stephan Lewandowsky is a clown. He is using psychology as a weapon to silence the opposition. By his standards, we skeptics are inferior being as we have being exposed to false opinions. It is shown by our gullibly accepting conspiracy theories.
      Only, even his biased opinion poll failed to turn up the data. Only a small minority of respondents in any way gave credence to the non-climate conspiracy theories – whether skeptic or alarmist. His hypothesis was contradicted by the data. So he publishes the hypothesis as fact.
      Have a look at “The Debunking Handbook” at skepticalscience to understand where he is coming from.

      00

  • #
    Athlete

    I propose a couple of alternatives for the title of Lewandowsky’s schlock.

    1) My pants are on fire: An anatomy of Stephan Lewandowsky

    2) My nose is a foot long and getting longer by the day: An anatomy of Stephan Lewandowsky

    00

  • #
    Otter

    1 S Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 S Disagree

    1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. S Agree

    2. I support the free-market system but not at the expense of environmental quality SLIGHTLY Agree

    3. The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice DisAgree

    4. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns SOMEWHAT Agree

    5. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development DisAgree

    6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption Strongly Disagree

    7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq Strongly Disagree

    1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

    8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments POSSIBLY true

    9. SARS was produced under laboratory conditions as a biological weapon BULLSHIT

    10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War. FALSE!

    11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s BULLSHIT

    12. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the results of an organized conspiracy by US government agencies such as the CIA and FBI Probably False

    13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio BULLSHIT!

    14. Area 51 in Nevada US is a secretive military base that contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies Wouldn’t mind if it were true

    15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President False

    16. The US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (eh wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (eg attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks BULLSHIT

    17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact POSSIBLY true

    18. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her absolutely False

    19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols did not act alone but rather received assistance from Neo Nazi groups POSSIBLY true

    20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”. ABSOLUTELY.

    21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formular with the intent of driving up demand for their classic product, later reintroducing it for their financial gain. BULLSHIT. Besides, they never went BACK to the old recipe.

    22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree POSSIBLY true

    1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree

    23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree DISAGREE

    24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is a substantial switch to non-CO2 emitting energy sources BULLSHIT

    25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate BULLSHIT

    26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone layer THEY NEVER WERE TO BEGIN WITH

    27. The problem of acid rain is no longer a serious threat to the global ecosystem WHEN WAS IT EVER?

    28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    29. The conditions of my life are excellent WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    30. I am satisfied with my life WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    33. The HIV virus causes AIDS Aboslutely True

    1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

    34. Smoking causes lung cancer Of course!

    35. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change BULLSHIT!

    36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change? LESS THAN 1% OF THE 10,257 SURVEYED, OF WHOM LESS THAN 3700 ANSWERED, FROM WHOM ONLY 77 WERE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE PLANET.

    39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    41. What is your age? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    42. What is your gender (M/F) WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE?

    There ya go, lewanDULLsky. How did I do?

    10

    • #
      Jesus saves

      I suspect that questions 41& 2 have a lot to do with climate change. If your white, male & over 55 (or thereabouts) then climate science is a hoax. How could it not be? Have a look at the regular bloggers here, they appear to very much fit that profile.

      00

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart and if you are not conservative at thirty, you have no brain.”

        Attributed to Winston Churchill.

        Also (unknown author), various variations of;
        “If you grow older without getting grumpy, then you haven’t been paying attention.”

        00

      • #
        Sonny

        ALARMIST COMMENT ALERT

        1) commentor unable to provide evidence of CAGW.
        2) commentor unwilling to change ideological bias.

        00

      • #
        Schitzree

        I guess it isn’t sexist, raceist, or ageist as long as you only target old white men.

        00

      • #
        Debbie

        Well JS,
        Considering the most regular blogger here is actually Jonova, that sort of makes a mess of your hypothesis straight up.
        Also….do you have a dossier of the age, race and gender of bloggers here?
        Which category would you fit into?
        Opposite?
        Young, non white female?
        Or… some other irrelevant and irrational homogenisation of demographic?
        And…seriously…what on earth does that have to do with ‘climate science’?
        Or any other science for that matter?

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Jesus Saves takes another free swipe at the regulars here. No proof, no truth.

        When is the umpire going to throw him out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct?

        00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Jesus enslaves, you accuse others of making irrelevant comments over a person’s weight (previous thread) and now you make irrelevant comments about people’s age, gender and skin colour.

        Hypocrit.

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          @ TS,

          No, he doesn’t know enough to be a hypocrit.

          A moron is not a hypocrit, just a moron.

          00

        • #
          Joe V.

          Jesus slaves, while the pollies & bureaucrats vote themselves another season of free lunches at our expense.
          Is the United Nations becoming the undoing of the planet ?

          00

        • #
          Joe V.

          Ooohhhh ….. How to Spend It !
          The first meeting of the new UN Climate Fund took place at the end of August.
          Green Climate Fund.
          I’m soon envious!

          00

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            The letterhead says The World Bank Group, Green Climate Fund, Trust Fund.

            I’m struggling to read the financial report. But it looks like they’ve given themselves 440 thousand as operational expenses (usually this is wages + office space). Given Australia 513 thousand, and given the Netherlands 286 thousand US dollars.

            The documents are difficult to read. It’s as though they are trying to explain a complex thing without ever mentioning the things they do. All very suspicious.

            And seriously, Green Climate? what the?

            00

      • #
        Otter

        Your handle is an Insult. Do us all a favor, leave it elsewhere.

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Anyway, why would we care about his financial preferences?

          Jesus obviously is no relation the current Lab/Green mess.. more the opposite

          00

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        If your white, male & over 55 (or thereabouts) then climate science is a hoax.

        Should I point out to Jesus that Tim Flannery was born on Jan 28, 1956…. which makes him

        (a) white;
        (b) male; and
        (c) over 55 (56 in fact).

        Well whattya know! Flim-Flam is “one of us”…..

        00

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Brian,

          Re: Flim-Flam

          (c) over 55 (56 in fact).

          Did you mean kilos or years?
          You may have added the C to FACT!

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          I just about spewed.. !!

          Same demographic.. totally different morality.

          00

        • #
          Debbie

          OMG!
          BRIAN!
          That’s correct!
          TF is an older white male.
          So what about Lewandowsky? What demographic does he fit in to?
          I googled him and only found references to this ridiculous survey.

          00

      • #
        Shevva

        I suspect Limited education, living in mother’s basement.

        I suspect minimum hygiene and tooth care regime.

        I suspect superman y-fronts with a hole in them.

        00

    • #
      George Daddis

      Questions 36 and 37 were intended to set up a “cadence”, a transparent way to bias an answer. If qualified medical people think smoking causes cancer and HIV causes AIDS, then of course climate scientists should be correct in their assertion.

      00

    • #
      old44

      8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order United Nations are planning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments

      10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War. Take into account the saying “When faced with the choice of a conspiracy or a stuff-up, go with the stuff-up every time)

      20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is an opportunity perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”.

      The following 5 questions are for divorced women only
      28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal
      29. The conditions of my life are excellent
      30. I am satisfied with my life
      31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life
      32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing

      The following 5 questions are for people who know 100 medical students
      36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS
      37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer?
      38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change?
      39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do?
      40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do?

      00

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Just my opinion, but it jut appears that a particular group of alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate and impatient to prove that they are on the right side of the argument. Data doesn’t matter as much as being right. Perhaps they could be described as foot-stompers. Oh well…another scientist clambering for a shortcut to fame has hobbled his reputation and career through impatience, hubris and mild self-flaggelation.

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You are right, Fred

      We have noticed a strong tendancy for those in the “non-exerimental” sciences to shift from “questioning” and “analysing”, to “proposing” and “debating”, and then to “asserting” and “arguing”.

      I think it has a lot to do with having administrative and funding processes that are “outcome based”.

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Lewandweebsky is just a rather extreme example leftist bias gone feral in our academic system.

      Below copied from the article Zombies: How the Left Captured Academia, the Media, and Other Organizations:

      “Recent studies have confirmed that American universities have become bigoted and biased against the expression of conservative views. One new study documents bias against the expression of conservative views among social and personality psychologists, including those at universities:”

      We find that respondents significantly underestimate the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. … that conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, we find that conservatives are right to do so. In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.

      A quote from Professor David Gelernter author of America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats)

      Among intellectuals, the left-liberal religious faithful are often not merely pious but zealous, even fanatic. To conservatives, they seem irrational and intellectually unserious, unable to hold their own in political argument, often unwilling even to try — all too apt, when pressed, to slouch off in a sulk or flare up like a burnt-out lightbulb with no more watts to spare on you. There is a frazzled flash, a silence, then “let’s talk about something else.” Many conservatives have had the experience.

      Prof Gelernter recounts perfectly the experience all of us have had many, many times. It’s a real cultural phenomena that deserves more scrutiny.

      The paragraph above also describes the gestalt animating the work of recent apologists for the climate millenarian movement, such as Robert Manne’s Denialist Victory, and child-star Anna Rose’s 375 page rant, Madlands. Irrational and intellectually unserious, indeed.

      I’m glad Lewandorksky decided to open the conversation to a discussion about political bias and conspiracy theory in the climate debate. His paper will undoubtably make a valuable contribution to psycho-, sociological and economic basis that motivates the climate millenarians, often unconsciously.

      Now that the climate millenarians refuse to debate the evidentiary scientific merits of their faith, their psychological state is about all that’s left to talk about, save for how to reverse the political damage the Greens have already visited upon our nation.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.

        Say what?

        00

      • #
        wes george

        A book review of The Victim’s Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind” by Bruce Bawer

        The Grievance Brigades

        “The most traditional branches of Western learning have been replaced by disciplines designed to serve radical political ends.”

        “The Victims’ Revolution” is concerned with the explosion of politically correct attitudes within the humanities. These most traditional branches of Western learning have been largely supplanted by the various forms of “identity studies,” including Women’s Studies, Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Gay and Lesbian Studies, along with newer fields such as White Studies, Disability Studies and—yes—Fat Studies.

        What all these “studies” have in common, Mr. Bawer argues, is a “tendency to reduce the rich drama of the human story to a series of dreary, repetitious lessons about groups, power, and oppression,” with “little or no intrinsic connection” to the arts or the wider cultural experience that the study of humanities has traditionally illuminated. All of them assume “that our thoughts about human behavior, our statements about the nature of man, and in fact all ideas of whatever kind are nothing more or less than assertions of power.”

        In some of the book’s most hilarious passages, the author tours identity-studies conferences, where young professors and graduate students present cutting-edge “research.” “Environmental racism is the disrespect of our Mother Earth” was the theme of one presentation at a Chicano Studies conference. “When you [non-Chicanos] started your Industrial Revolution, you started poisoning our Mother Earth, our air and our water. We took care of them for centuries.” (The presentation, Mr. Bawer points out, was aided by PowerPoint.)

        The rejection of rational logic and scientific evidence as an empirical path to knowledge animates the work of Naomi Oreskes and Anna Rose. Is this the rational premise for their embrace of irrationality?:

        Much of contemporary Women Studies, for example, is devoted to denouncing objective knowledge and rationality as so much “masculinist” oppression. One Women’s Studies textbook quoted by Mr. Bawer warns scholars and students away from men’s “separate knowing,” with its pesky insistence on “mastery of relevant knowledge and methodology.”

        The inability to write clearly is a symptom of the inability to think clearly:

        The labyrinthine, illiterate prose so popular among the professors, Mr. Bawer says, masks the fact that most of them don’t have very much to say beyond regurgitating catechisms about race, gender and class. The author provides numerous examples of such writing. My own personal favorite is from an article by Ian Barnard, a Queer Theory scholar at California State University, Northridge: “The queer in queer race is thus doubly queer both insofar as it queers queer and destabilizes the (dis)connection between queer and race.”

        00

      • #
        cohenite

        The egg-heads have shown the right/left dichotomy is genetic.

        The study doesn’t deal with age deviation from this young phenomenon but the amygdala, which is what right-wingers have, is an old, part of the brain associated with emotion, particularly fear, while left-wingers had thicker anterior cingulates which helps resolve conflict unless it is confused by higher order abilities such as being very literate.

        What I take from this, is that most lefties are over-educated and have lost the ability to perceive real dangers, even ones which they may be creating or exacerbating; hence the apparent self-destructiveness of the Greens who are overwhelmingly urbanised but who want to destroy that urban cocoon to satisfy the higher order morality and egoes they have.

        00

        • #
          wes george

          Cohenite, that’s a fascinating idea, who’d thunk it:

          …our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty [1, 10]. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing [11]. Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear [12], which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust [13, 14], and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust [15]. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty [16, 17] and conflicts [18]. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views. Such speculations provide a basis for theorizing about the psychological constructs (and their neural substrates) underlying political attitudes.

          So what the eggheads are saying is that conservatism is based upon fear and sensations of disgust, since Conservative have thick amygdalas, the so-called “fear processing” unit of the brain and their fat insula “is involved in the feeling of disgust.”

          And, surprise, surprise, liberalism is based upon tolerance of uncertainty, because they have big anterior cingulate cortex volume, the home of tolerance.

          Sounds like phrenology to me.

          But even if the correlation is true, the politics seems arsebackwards at least in the climate debate, which everyone seems to agree is divided down the left versus right political line.

          After all aren’t the “conservative” skeptics the party which is most tolerant of uncertainty? The ridiculous “precautionary principle” is a Green invention based upon fear of uncertainty.

          The Greens are the ones running around shouting the sky is falling, not the conservatives who seem positively tolerant of nonlinear complex systems like the Earth’s climate and have no wish to try to control-freak it from the UN or Canberra. It’s the conservatives who are fearless in the face of Green prophecies of doom and death.

          It’s the conservatives who want to let the economy work freely powered by the tolerance of uncertainty. It’s the Left who fear freedom and want to command control every aspect of existence.

          Likewise, all the disgust seems to be coming from the left. Skeptics have been constantly held in high disgust for a decade now. How can you get more disgusted than your typical lefty? Bob Brown certainly was totally disgusted with the “hate media,” so disgusted he rather we all lived in a police state where free speech is regulated so that it is illegal to offend him and his side of politics. What is Bob afraid of? Why can’t Bob tolerate the uncertainty of a free press?

          I just don’t get it. Every Green pronouncement is based upon irrational fear straight out of their shrunken amygdalas. Yet, we conservatives are supposedly driven by fear when we say there is nothing to worry about, beside the climate is so complex and uncertain we couldn’t do anything about it anyway? Better to just adapt (tolerate, hello?) to a bit of warming than trade our civilisation for life in a Green socialist utopia based on fear and intolerance.

          Maybe conservatives are fearful too, you know, like Tony Abbott’s fear campaign on the fear campaign to get the Carbon Tax pushed through. Yeah, I guess conservatives are fearful that fear-based Green policy is screwing the economy. But does fear of fear-driven economic policy count?

          I’m not sure, but I can live with that.

          00

          • #
            cohenite

            Very amusing wes; it’s a pity the left also have no funny bone, wherever that is located in the old noggin.

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Wes (thumbs up x 2),

            They (Greens/ALP) live in fear – of us ordinary folk who may not have the understanding of topics discussed here! But we are learning daily! Also they fear the retaliation that will come if they win their current adgenda (21)- but surviving is something they cannot do in an equal world – they require power and money for their protection – which will fail them, and they will eventually lose everything. So their main aim is to build a force of the Media, government, free speech, parasites, hanger ons, unions etc to protect them – but it won’t work! Their guards are the most untrustworthy and greedy! (Gutless, stupid, zombie etc)

            The real force of their impending doom is themselves! Look at the gravy trainers like JB, MB, JS, CT et al. The greed exhibited by this MOB (I think its called a nest of GREENS) is disgusting! And more, and more, and more “everyday” people are coming on board! They are DISLIKED for their arrogance!

            Pointman is right – the real battle is already here! Their fear is building like never before! And they are scared like never before! EVER!

            They would be in the plant & animal world, exist as leechs, parasites etc – AND they are the Green Human Misteltoe of the Main stream Gum Tree Population!

            Goodbye Greens/ALP & LIB/NP that don’t get rid of the CO2 Tax & the RET publically!
            I will only vote for my local member if I get a signed letter to confirm the above – full stop! (Thanks MV) Family First, Bob Katter, Independents could be in government!
            :)

            00

          • #
            Winston

            The “amygdala theory” may well be true in terms of development size of the relevant organ, but equating that to the function of fear is a pseudoscientific conclusion based on biased colouring of the facts to suit a predetermined narrative not supported by facts, since the Amygdala is also involved in far more than fear reactions and is actually a fairly vital component in creativity, long term memory retention and is also involved in sensory integration. It is therefore an important linking mechanism in making connections in various higher brain functions and in emotions.

            More likely, conservatives are more “conservative” because they are more attuned to consequences of their actions, rather than “fear” of them, and have longer memories to apply appropriate contextualisation to them. That would also explain why conservatism tends to supervene more prominently as one gets older and more experienced (remembering Churchill’s quote about the young at heart not having much of a head for politics), by making greater connections with consequences which guide a more reserved approach to sweeping change without first undertaking a thorough assessment of risk to benefit ratios. I would suggest those Amygdala deficient people such as some of our resident trolls may thus be forgiven for their lack of anatomical prowess in this area which leaves them at a decided disadvantage in processing the information and placing it in an historical and broader context. Good news, though, is that, if properly fostered, this is still a capability one may attain later in life if one works at it long and hard enough.

            00

        • #
          Wayne, s. Job

          It has also been genetically proved that left wing people have two genes missing that have bearing on logic and original thought. I can not give a link but it was a large study of genetics that linked the left to the herding instinct and the others to Gillards rat bags which I would call individualists free to form an opinion or idea.

          00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    ref the WMD question, this is not in the paper..? Perhaps to many of the so-called ‘pro-science’ blogs, agreed strongly !!

    though personally, wmd and a lot of unfinished business with Sadam, seems quite possible, hardly a conspiracy!!

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I Like Question 15,

    15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President

    Lewadonsky – what exactly is a Long Gunman – is he well hung or something?

    HA HA HA

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Madjak

      People at Universities at or above Tutor level are no longer required to proof read their work.

      KK :)

      00

    • #

      Maybe it was the Long Ranger behind the grassy knoll?

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The shooter was obviously as tall as he was. I guess that may count as “Long”. That’s standard reasoning for these folks.

        Actually it was a conspiracy by the inhabitants of Tuvalu and Atlantis to stop sea level rise before it could ever get started. We now know this for certain from absolutely no evidence at all. Which makes it by far the most likely explanation for the assassination of President Kennedy. It certainly works for me.

        00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Long rifle?

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am surprised that question was there at all, unless he knows something that the rest of us don’t know. There are at least two unanswered questions, confused by conflicting evidence, and may be more. The findings of the inquiry said, “probably, a lone gunman, based on the evidence …”. So a sceptic would have to answer, “No” to the first part of the statement, because some doubt remains.

      But by doing so, the question implies that there was an organised conspiricy, which they may also not agree with.

      It has been observed that the site of the shooting was a technically ideal site for an ambush, for a number of reasons, and there could have been two independent assasination attempts on that day. That would account for the apparent two hits to the head, and the improbable flight of the bullet. So a sceptic would have to answer, “No” to the second part of the statement as well.

      But the way the question is worded, does not allow for this possibility.

      Is this the standard expected of a Professor at an Australian University? Is this the standard of review expected at a higher institute of learning in Australia? Shame.

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Long Gunman + Psych Professor = Freudian slip?

      00

  • #
    kramer

    10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War.

    After reading the book ‘Day of Deceit’ I’m not so sure this is false. The author of the book spent something like 17 years obtaining FOI records related to this issue and makes a pretty good case in his book that the US did have foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor.

    According to an Editorial review from Publishers Weekly listed on Amazon.com, it says:
    Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan’s December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack./em>

    http://www.amazon.com/Day-Of-Deceit-Truth-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346876004&sr=8-1&keywords=day+of+deceit

    The author of the book says that he thinks FDR did the right thing because of American isolationism and the need to defend freedom. Another reason could have been the communists in FDR’s admin wanted to protect the motherland. And what better way than to use American lives.

    00

    • #

      Sounds about right to me. What the comments at Amazon seem to miss is that Germany had already tried to defeat England and failed, England on its own was no threat to Germany and the Germans were already in Russia and by Pearl Harbour were in trouble there.
      Roosevelt’s machinations won the war in Europe though. Eastern Europe and Russia were freed from tyranny…..oh, wait!

      This was brought home to me by reading Goodson’s “Tumult in the clouds” where after the war he visits one of his dead Polish squadron mates’s girlfriend who is looking glum “but we won the war he said”, “you did” she said, “we’ve got the Russians”.

      Now I’d like somebody to explain Rudolph Hess’s defection in May 1941.

      00

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      The USA successfully tried to starve the Japs of oil. The Japs had gone militaristic and invaded Korea, Manchuria then China.
      There’s no way you can blame the Jap policy of expansionism on the US’s response to it.

      As far as deliberately allowing the US Pacific fleet to be destroyed for political purposes: too stupid for words.

      Never subscribe to conspiracy theories when simple incompetence is the better explanation.

      10

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        There is also the possibility the US wanted to use the Japanese as an excuse to enter the war. They simply weren’t expecting such a successful surprise attack by the Japanese. And to add insult to injury, the declaration of war after the attack.

        00

        • #
          Vince Whirlwind

          The US wasn’t looking for “excuses”.
          Roosevelt was fighting against very strong anti-war popular opinion.
          He and his government were also doing their best to contain the Japs and assist to Europe to some extent.
          The primary consensus goal however, was the destruction of the British Empire and the bleeding of its coffers, something that was getting on very well indeed until the Japs interfered by launching the attack on Pearl Harbour.

          10

      • #
        kramer

        Craig Thomas said:
        The USA successfully tried to starve the Japs of oil. The Japs had gone militaristic and invaded Korea, Manchuria then China.
        There’s no way you can blame the Jap policy of expansionism on the US’s response to it.

        As far as deliberately allowing the US Pacific fleet to be destroyed for political purposes: too stupid for words.

        Never subscribe to conspiracy theories when simple incompetence is the better explanation.

        Well, if you buy the book, you’ll read the actual document that lays out an eight point plan designed to provoke the Japaness into a war and one of the points was to starve Japan of oil.

        “As far as deliberately allowing the US Pacific fleet to be destroyed for political purposes: too stupid for words.”

        Read the book. It presents many of the documents from the FOI requests. You might come away with a different point of view.

        00

    • #
      wes george

      The idea that FDR allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories around. There are many reasons why it would have been impossible for FDR to simply allow the attack to go ahead. I’ll mention just the most obvious.

      If FDR had known the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet a week or even just a day ahead, he would have sent the US aircraft carriers and battleships out to surprise them. It’s that simple.

      Of course, FDR knew that the US was going to have to get involved in the war in Europe, the sooner the better, but it was hardly necessary to lose the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to get Americans involved. Simply the sight of a Japanese fleet engaging US warships within a a few hundred miles of Honolulu would have been sufficient get Americans totally hyped for a declaration of war.

      Even if you seriously believe FDR was cynically machiavellian enough to allow Pearl Harbour to be destroyed, it’s a simple matter of history, culture, logic and battle strategy that he would not have allowed Dec 7 to pan out as it did.

      It simply would have been culturally impossible for FDR, and the military officers who would have given him the information, to even imagine such an alien concept to American and Christian values of the day. If they had known where the Japanese fleet was they would have rather been courtmartialed than allow Dec 7 to happen on their watch.

      Furthermore, it is logistically impossible that FDR knew the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet and allowed the attack to go ahead without scores of military officers from admirals and generals on down also knowing. It’s also likely that others would have known about it too, from state department officials to FDR’s cabinet, to high ranking members of the senate intelligence committee. It’s highly unlike scores of American patriots in 1940 would all concur and keep secret to the grave such a dastardly and strategically numbskull plot.

      The problem with most crypto-conspiracies is usually the same, an oversimplification of the facts into a caricature that caters to biases caused by historical ignorance, as well as some kind of psychological willingness to believe the absolute worse about an ethnic or political group.

      Deranged conspiracy theories all have in common the fact that the conspiracy imagined would be far more difficult to pull off then the actual events as they occurred.

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        In their book, “Silent Warfare”, Abram N. Shulsky, and Gary J. Schmitt, have an interesting backstory to Pearl Harbour.

        It seems that a British double agent (codename “Tricycle”), was sent to the United States in early to mid-1941. On arrival, he was given some collection instructions by his German “handler”, that contained, among other things, a list of questions designed to provide detailed information about American military installations in Hawaii. The list was passed on to the FBI by the double agent, but appears to have been ignored. As far as the Germans were concerned, it was a pending matter.

        Germany and Japan were both members in the Axis, so it is reasonable to assume that, had the Germans learnt anything of interest, it would have been passed on to the Japanese. Also the timing is too close to the attack to have had any real relevance to the attack taking place.

        The only reason I mention this is that it would not have been an isolated incident. It would have been one of several attempts to get the information by various means.

        It is however proof that questions were being asked by Axis members, and that plans were afoot, concerning Hawaii. It seems that the FBI failed to appreciate the importance of this intelligence, and so did not include it in the the regular briefings to the President.

        00

  • #
    MadJak

    1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Slightly Agree

    2. I support the free-market system but not at the expense of environmental quality. Slightly agree

    3. The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Slightly Agree

    4. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Slightly agree

    5. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Slightly agree

    6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Strongly Disagreee

    7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq. Probably True

    8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments. Strongly Disagree

    9. SARS was produced under laboratory conditions as a biological weapon. Strongly disagree

    10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War.Disagree

    11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s.Strongly Disagree

    12. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the results of an organized conspiracy by US government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Disagree

    13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio. Strongly Disagree

    14. Area 51 in Nevada US is a secretive military base that contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies. Strongly Disagree

    15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President. Unknown – I don’t see how a well hung gunman makes any difference?

    16. The US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (eh wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (eg attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Strongly Disagree

    17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact. Disagree

    18. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Disagree

    19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols did not act alone but rather received assistance from Neo Nazi groups. Don’t know

    20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”. Disagree. Loaded question. Some scientists aren’t corrupt.

    21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formular with the intent of driving up demand for their classic product, later reintroducing it for their financial gain. Neutral

    22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree. Strongly Disagree – Science is not a belief system numnuts.

    23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree. Strongly Disagree – Science is not a belief system numnuts.

    24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is a substantial switch to non-CO2 emitting energy sources. Strongly Disagree – Science is not a belief system numnuts.

    25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate.Strongly Disagree – Science is not a belief system numnuts.

    26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone layer. Neutral
    27. The problem of acid rain is no longer a serious threat to the global ecosystem. Neutral

    28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal. Agree

    29. The conditions of my life are excellent. Agree

    30. I am satisfied with my life. Agree

    31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. Agree

    32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing. Disagree

    33. The HIV virus causes AIDS. Agree

    34. Smoking causes lung cancer. Not always

    35. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Strongly disagree – loaded question

    36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS. Neutral

    37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer? Neutral

    38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change? Neutral

    39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do? 5

    40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do? 10

    41. What is your age? Old enough to do a grammer check

    42. What is your gender (M/F) What a sexist question.

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Having gone through these questions, I am hereby concluding that this survey suffers from extremely poor internal validity to the point where I would say that anyone passing this for peer review should be reprimanded for negligence.

      There are more than 7 of these questions which are impossible to answer correctly without you response being twisted by the asuthor of the survey.

      As an example, the author makes the completely invalid assumption that lung cancer is allways caused by smoking and vice versa. This is patently untrue. There are many unfortunate people who suffer from lung cancer where smoking could not have been the cause. These people often suffer a stigma associated with lung cancer which is wholly unjustified.

      Many other questions are written in a way that makes it clear that the author refuses to accept that the climate is not only influenced by anthropogenic factors but also by natural variables. For a participant to disagree with many of these questions the author is clearly forcing them to accept the authors invalid assumptions.

      In short Dr lewandonsky, for anyone including yourself to base any conclusions based on this survey would constitute gross negligence, IMO

      00

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Madjak (the not-so-mad) you have put your finger square on a major issue.

        1. Illogical question.
        17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact. If the fact was covered up, how can a respondent know if the fact happened? Is the respondent to give an answer that depends on a subjective asessment of how well the cover up was done, if at all? No meaning is given to alien. Did it come from Canada without a passport? The event is already described as a fact, so how can the respondent say it was not a fact, given the range of allowed responses?

        2. Ill-posed question. In this case it hinges on the precise definition of ‘secretive’.
        8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are (sic) p[l]anning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments. Refer to the paper “A New Growth Path for Europe” http://www.globalclimateforum.org/fileadmin/ecf-documents/Press/A_New_Growth_Path_for_Europe__Synthesis_Report.pdf Authors Carlo Jaeger and 15 others, involves Potsdam Institute Germany, Oxford University England, Universite Paris Sorbonne and more. Dated 2011, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation & Nuclear Safety. Two quotes:
        “Josef Ackermann: “Make no mistake: a new world order is emerging. The race for
        leadership has already begun. For the winners, the rewards are clear: Innovation
        and investment in clean energy technology will stimulate green growth; it will create
        jobs; it will bring greater energy independence and national security.”
        “After the global crisis of 1929, such a surge of investment in
        Europe as elsewhere was initiated by the perspective of military armament. Nowadays, this
        is obviously not an option. However, after the financial crisis of 2007–08, the perspective
        of sustainable development can mobilize investment in a similar way for a worthier purpose.” (That is, last time we felt this way, we started arming up for WWII.)
        Logically, one can tick this as a “yes”, because there is a new world order forming, or fail it with a “no” because we know about it and it is therefore not secretive.

        Impossible to answer question
        6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption.
        To promote means loosely to increase, while unsustainable means loosely that it cannot be increased. Oxymoron feeling?

        Irrelevant question.
        32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing. Fairyland question. You can’t live your life over. Even if you could, in a metaphysical sense, if you changed something it would no longer be defined as ‘your life’; it would then a be a different life.

        All factors put together, ther questions are soo poorly designed that the main findings of the survey would ned to include at least -
        1. Those who answered were fools
        2. I am a fool for asking such poor questions

        leading to

        3. The authors humbly apologise for being fools and return the grant monies in full for a more humanistic purpose like funding a hospital for sick children, a group to whom we can relate.

        00

        • #
          MadJak

          Well written Geoff. A Thoroughly enjoyable read.

          I would argue that your critique is much more interesting than the made for media Drivel the Doctor received grant money for.

          00

        • #
          wes george

          Good spotting Geoff!

          It is possible that Lewandumbsky might be a CIA mole planted by Dick Cheney to total discredit the Warmists as an insane clown circus. Why? Read Robert Manne’s Denialist Victory. He claims it’s all part of the global conspiracy led by former mad tobacco scientists to destroy civilisation, because what could possible be better for corporate profits?

          32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing. Well, yes, yes I would change a few things.

          For instance, on the day of the Mircosoft IPO back in ~1979 I would have mortgaged my mother and put every cent I could beg, borrow or steal into MFST. Much later, say about 2002, I would have transferred about a couple billion of my riches to APPL. I would have also invented Google and Facebook, but I would have dumped all my Facebook shares the day before the IPO.

          Other than being a multi-billionaire globe-trotting playboy skeptic with a fleet of A380 air-mansions, I wouldn’t change a thing about my life.

          00

    • #
      Crakar24

      10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War.Disagree

      Lewandowsky does not know the difference between fact and fiction

      “[Your information is] too precise, too complete to be believed. The questionnaire plus the other information you brought spell out in detail exactly where, when, how, and by whom we are to be attacked. If anything, it sounds like a trap.”

      FBI response to the top British spy, Dusko Popov (code named “Tricycle”) on August 10, 1941, dismissing Popov’s report of the complete Japanese plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

      Pearl Harbor: The Verdict Of History by Gordon Prange, appendix 7 published in 1986. Based on records from the JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Nov 15, 1945 to May 31, 1946.

      ——————————————————————————–

      00

    • #
      Winston

      If you all don’t mind, I’ll have a crack

      1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Slightly Disagree, depending on definition of “markets” obviously, and to whom the regulations apply and for what purpose. Some markets need to be highly regulated while others require minimal government involvement- the question assumes that there is some universal mythic “market”, a concept with no specific point of reference. Some sensible government regulation in some well defined areas would seem eminently justified, provided government is acting solely in the interests of its citizens and not merely its own self-perpetuation (fat chance and there’s the rub). Particularly thinking here of financial systems, banking and other speculative markets trading in intangibles, which are fraught with profiteering with no benefit accruing to society at large and require the tightest regulation. Derivatives trading should be regulated to the hilt or banned outright, since gambling on failure breeds failure by accident or design, and is the province of thieves and bounders.

      2. I support the free-market system but not at the expense of environmental quality. Slightly agree only. Environmental considerations are certainly worthy of consideration in any development, but not to enmesh businesses in an environmental regulatory nightmare designed to completely derail investment and development, which unfortunately is what is happening now. “Quality” of the environment is not again some absolute, rather it is a case of minimising negative impact on the natural landscape while maximising exploitation of resources- it is not hard, why deal with fantasy ideals of “pristine nature”, “noble savages” and other such pseudo-intellectual concepts which have no realistic grounding. Again, by example look at windmill monstrosities which would never fly in a free market, whose environmental damage and blot upon the landscape is simply ignored by the regulators because it doesn’t suit government to go against its chosen narrative.

      3. The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Strongly Disagree. Looking at any examples in the last century where free markets were not pursued in favour of centralist government control- social justice (even when used as proxy justification) not only suffered by comparison, but society as a whole often disintegrated, civil liberties were heavily curtailed and the most egregious social inequity was the norm. In many cases, internal and external conflicts led to open warfare, persecutions and “disappearances” of dissenters and in the worst cases mass murder and genocide. In those countries where free markets were apart of the fabric- these were the societies where social justice was even contemplated let alone acted upon, and then enforced with rule of law.

      4. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Agree, for the reasons in 3. By the same token, they are not mutually exclusive, and that is where the question itself is disingenuous.

      5. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Agree – “Sustainable development” is a misnomer at best- nothing is truly sustainable- in fact fossil fuels as products of the earth’s mantle are probably the most sustainable of all fuel sources. Insofar as “sustainable development” is code for de-industrialisation, and free markets actually encourage industrialisation, then they would seem to be contrary ideologies. perhaps a more sensible idea would be “sensible development”, but that would be too sensible for most eco-nuts to work out!

      6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. Strongly Disagree entirely, since free market economies are the only ones that can provide goods in sufficient quantity to even approach sustainable consumption. Any other system promotes ever diminishing consumption, societal atrophy and eventually death, not necessarily in that order.

      7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq. Probably True, but part of the issue only. America interferes in the region for many reasons. One is to secure oil, two is to protect Israel, three is to diffuse the perceived threat of radical and/or fundamentalist Islam, and four is the US desire to propogate the myth that it is the Wyatt Earp of global politics through it’s moral superiority as it sees it that allows it to be the global sheriff. Add to that the disinformation from Iraqi opposition who fed the Yanks what they wanted to hear for their own agenda, plus the desire to redress a father’s failure on the part of Bush Jnr, and you have a recipe for war. To try to ascribe one reason to an action as large as warfare is simplistic in the extreme.

      8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments. Disagree, there is no such group, IMO. However there is a collusion of like minded individuals to assert control, promote globalisation as a concept, to dissolve sovereignty and to impose a supranational framework upon all human activity- it’s called the UN. Anyone who believes that particular organisation doesn’t have designs on controlling the world is not paying attention. Many other powerful individuals happily feed into that desire for their own advancement financially, politically and in terms of influence in concentrating as much wealth and power away from those immediately below them on the social ladder (the upper middle classes), whom they percieve as a threat to their power and influence.

      9. SARS was produced under laboratory conditions as a biological weapon. Strongly disagree

      10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War. Agree, sorry FDR, but it may not have been planned to have been on the scale it was but brinkmanship is not a new concept and it did segue nicely into the US joining the war against entrenched popular opposition.

      11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s. Ridiculous. Whether WHO may have inadvertently spread HIV through Africa with its Smallpox vaccination program is entirely possible, though I doubt that was deliberate.

      12. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the results of an organized conspiracy by US government agencies such as the CIA and FBI. Disagree, evidence is pretty clear that Hoover tried to smear King to discredit him and force his hand to back off, but I think they stopped short of assassinating him. Anything is possible, if you believe the US government would stop short of killing you if you were enough of a problem to them, I think you are kidding yourself.

      13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio. Disagree, though I think the photography and possibly segments of the filming may have been “augmented” for propaganda purposes. It is very strange however that over 40 years has gone by and no further manned space flights of a similar nature have occured, not an insignificant period of time where one would have expected the US to follow through on that promising beginning.

      14. Area 51 in Nevada US is a secretive military base that contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies. Rubbish.

      15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President. I doubt we will ever know, but one thing is certain- the Warren commission did not want to know, no matter who did it! Jack Ruby killing Oswald was bizarre and suspicious that he did not act alone, if he was indeed involved. The Russian smokescreen to attempt to propagate false assassination evidence further muddies the water. I can’t help but think it was a strange window to shoot from (at a car moving away from the alleged shooter), when a direct head shot from the other side window to an oncoming vehicle with no escape appears a more logical point to shoot from.

      16. The US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (eg. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (eg attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Strongly Disagree, however they did use them for that purpose, just the same, whether you agree they were justified or not.

      17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact. Disagree, see no reason to think they would cover up and I don’t think they would be capable of hiding that very well either, because the world is full to the brim with blabber mouths.

      18. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her. Disagree, classic misdirection in the question- notably the Royal family would have had no say, involvement or knowledge if Diana was assassinated, that decision would not have been theirs to make, now would it. Appropo of nothing, 2 weeks before Diana was killed, my brother in law and I had a conversation the upshot of which was that Diana would have to be killed in the very near future because of her outspoken approach to her role and her relationships, and that she would be killed in a seemingly innocent traffic accident.

      19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols did not act alone but rather received assistance from Neo Nazi groups. Don’t know, anything is possible- no one lives hermetically sealed in a vault, no doubt they might have received help from people extending from Quakers at one end to Marilyn Manson fans at the other, or anyone in between.

      20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”. Disagree. It is for far more complex reasons than that.

      21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formular with the intent of driving up demand for their classic product, later reintroducing it for their financial gain. Disagree, not that I care.

      22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree. Strongly Disagree, define some measurable degree.

      23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree. Strongly Disagree – the science actually suggests otherwise.

      24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is a substantial switch to non-CO2 emitting energy sources. Strongly Disagree – The switch to renewables doomed to failure, will only serve to entrench fossil fuels in the long run and delay the transition to cleaner or alternate fuel sources in the time frame that natural progression would have allowed.

      25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate.Strongly Disagree , however if it was you are going the wrong way about fixing it at present.

      26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone layer. Never was.

      27. The problem of acid rain is no longer a serious threat to the global ecosystem. No

      28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal. Disagree, having a disabled child tends to negate that.

      29. The conditions of my life are excellent. Agree, comparatively

      30. I am satisfied with my life. Never, and I hope I never am!

      31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. Disagree entirely, I don’t want anything for myself, but I want much for my children, including my autistic child whom I will hope to improve for the rest of his life, even beyond mine. It must be a narrow world one lives in to answer yes to that one- is this a questionairre for narcissists?

      32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing. Disagree, you must lack a lot of imagination to agree with that!!

      33. The HIV virus causes AIDS. Agree

      34. Smoking causes lung cancer. Not always, increased incidence but many lung cancers are not smoking related and many smokers do not get cancer- the link however is solidly demonstrated.

      35. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Strongly disagree -complete falsehood without any persuasive evidence to support it- the term climate change is tautology and imprecise.

      36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS. All

      37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer? Most, passive smoking is more tenuous though most would agree on the balance of probabilities. Filthy habit anyway.

      38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change? In a secret ballot, I would suggest 50-60%, if not secret, closer to 80%.

      39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do? None off your business

      40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do? Never heard of discretion and privacy?

      41. What is your age? None of your business- under 50.

      42. What is your gender (M/F) Hermaphrodite.

      00

      • #
        MadJak

        But Winston,

        You are an intelligent person with the ability to think for yourself.

        To include you would run the risk of proving his hypothesis wrong, and his funders would get upset at that.

        :)

        00

        • #
          Winston

          I think if you had 50 “true” skeptics do the survey, you would get as many different variations as was conceivably possible. If the alarmists were asked those same questions the unanimity would be far more telling, and might well be the ONLY useful piece of information to be gleaned out of the whole questionnaire exercise. And of course the fact that we skeptics can agree to disagree on any number of these points, whereas the alarmists become petulant or insulted if people hold too many inconveniently varying views from themselves. They feel more secure when flying in formation.

          00

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            A new survey needs to include a “I don’t know or care” answer.

            I don’t like having to answer yes or no and have my vote count as a positive or negative response, when I don’t have a clue about the subject.

            Also, many of the questions were in two parts which could have had a yes and no response to the same question.

            The very first question for example; “1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs.”

            An economic system based on the free market, I think is good. However, unrestrained by laws and morals, will see ponzai schemes and bait & switch marketing rife.

            00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio. Disagree, though I think the photography and possibly segments of the filming may have been “augmented” for propaganda purposes. It is very strange however that over 40 years has gone by and no further manned space flights of a similar nature have occured, not an insignificant period of time where one would have expected the US to follow through on that promising beginning.

        After it was all done what did we actually get from it? To what end would we go on? We proved we could do it but no one is ever going to live on the moon or mine it for anything — those being the two most usual reasons for a continued effort. It was time to give it up.

        I expect even the space station to die the same way. We’re already begging our dear buddies the Russians for transportation and look what they’re flying — completely obsolete Soyuz stuff.

        Space takes a more long-term commitment than I’ve seen the human race show the capacity to maintain.

        But it sure was fun while it lasted.

        00

  • #
    pat

    the lewandowsky plot thickens and thickens.

    amazing stuff from CSIRO. megan unsurprisingly brings up creationism in the US, yet seems utterly unaware how utterly unhinged her own views on science are:

    5 Sept: News.com.au: AAP: Science itself is being questioned: CSIRO
    SCIENTISTS need to communicate with the Australian public to be heard above the voices challenging their research, the head of the national science agency says.
    Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) chief executive Dr Megan Clark says scientists these days are working in a “fundamentally different” environment that makes it difficult for them to properly inform public debate.
    Scientists whose work was subject to peer reviewing and vigorous benchmarks for integrity were being challenged by research posted online that met no such standards, she said…
    “We are in a world where science itself is being questioned,” Dr Clark told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.
    “Scientific evidence is often referred to as a theory, as if a theory is something to be doubted.”…
    Science has faced a formidable opponent in the USA, where the creationism movement is lobbying for theories of evolution to be banned from some school curriculums.
    But in Australia, despite fierce debate around climate science dominating airwaves, there is still a healthy demand for well-informed information about the issues affecting the country…
    She said the CSIRO was taking a step back to ensure it was clearly communicating with the Australian public about the issues “they need to hear about”.
    For example, Dr Clark said every two years the CSIRO in conjunction with the Bureau of Meteorology released its State of the Nation’s Climate report to set an agenda for informed debate…
    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/science-itself-is-being-questioned-csiro/story-e6frfku9-1226465769902

    haven’t watched it yet, but am sure jo will have something to say:

    VIDEO: 5 Sept: ABC: National Press Club: National Press Club: Megan Clark
    Duration: 56min 33sec
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/national-press-club-megan-clark/4244598

    00

    • #
      Fred Allen

      If the quotes reported as being from Dr Clark are true, then she needs to pull her head in. Why is Dr. Clark at the National Press Club anyway? If she is a scientist, her job is to do research and provide possible conclusions based upon the preponderance of data…not appear at a Press Club in a PR and lobbying role.

      Second, Dr. Clark needs to do some research on the creationism movement in the USA instead of relying upon Australian press clippings and popular discussion over a beer around the Friday afternoon Canberra barbie. The USA education system uses school districts generally administered by an elected board. The school districts under pressure from the creationism movement (as I understand it) were (past tense) limited to some areas in Kansas with the occasional bubble occurring in Texas. Some creationists wer elected to the school board and tried to change the textbooks. They were subsequently removed at another election. Common sense won out over religious beliefs. By and large, while a few religious organizations still preach creationism, it is by no means in the forefront of scientific thought in the US and unlikely to ever be so (unless evidence is produced showing otherwise /sarc). For her to refer to creationism in the USA as a “formidable opponent” is pure and utter BS.

      Dr. Clak needs to go back into her office and figure out her role in life. Scientists provide the information for public debate. They should not DO the public debating, otherise they need to wear the hat of a politician or lobbyist. Let’s debate the current funding arrangements of the CSIRO. The organisation has run its course. Put the funding into the universities and encourage them to do the research. The CSIRO, like any government run organisation, will, when push comes to shove, provide any data necessary to support the viewpoint of the organisation providing its funding. Let’s put that on the table at the National Press Club for public discussion.

      00

      • #
        Fred Allen

        “We are in a world where science itself is being questioned,” Dr Clark told the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.

        Someone needs to question it, because she sure isn’t! Too busy making appearances in Press Clubs I guess.

        00

      • #

        No just cut the CSIRO funding. Lewandowsky shows what university research is about. We are borrowing the money anyway and can’t afford it.

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      “Scientific evidence is often referred to as a theory, as if a theory is something to be doubted.”

      Yup! And should be.

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The whole concept of the Lewandowsy paper is flawed in that it examines WHAT we are thinking.

    Modern Psychology cannot concern itself with this level of human existence or it might quickly go insane, however that term may be defined.

    Psychology rightly concerns itself with how we respond to, learn and adapt to and act upon EXTERNAL STIMULI.

    In Lewandowskys paper the main issue is, if I can use the term that has appeared on this site before:

    “arse-backwards” or was it “back-arsewards”.

    What the paper should have been entitled:

    “An Examination of the Response Patterns of Normal People and Taxpayers to Distorted and Deliberately

    Misleading Media Reporting of a United Nations attempt to Defraud Whole Populations of Billions of Dollars

    by Way of a Computer Simulation of Weather while using the Noble Cause of “Saving the Planet” as a substitute

    Guilt Enhancer for Religious Techniques Previously used successfully to Provide a Sensible and Solid Basis

    For Society”.

    KK :)

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Basically what I wanted to say was that this whole mess of distorted public opinion on Global Warming is a

      reflection on the capacity or intention of the media to find and communicate on important issues with honesty

      and integrity.

      Without media integrity it is always going to be the case that a trusting public are confused.

      The fault lies with the media.

      KK

      00

      • #
        Fred Allen

        Media integrity? Is that like military intelligence?

        00

        • #

          Nothing like it. Military intelligence is a collection of data presented in a way relevant to a mission, allowing commanders to make rapid, educated strategic decisions, before and during action.

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Be very careful, there are quite a few sceptics on this site who are ex-intelligence professionals, military and otherwise.

          No threat intended, but then for a thinking person, no threat should be necessary, wouldn’t you agree?

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          almost the opposite.

          00

  • #
    kramer

    7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq

    Possible. We have been assisting or pushing nation-rebuilding in that area for several years now, even on nations that have no oil.

    00

  • #

    It would appear that Peer Review has hit a new low. How could any reputable scientist review this paper and recommend that it be published? It would appear that the criterion for publication is to maintain the status quo and keep the grant money flowing!

    Remember, it is aways about the money! :-)

    00

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      It’s Social “science”. Normal people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

      It is funny to see some people getting so upset about it, though.

      It’s not like Lewandowsky’s telling us anything new – surely we are all well aware of the Crank Magnetism effect?

      Cranks are attracted to “climate change is a hoax” like moths to a flame.

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I agree Craig:

        “Cranks are attracted to the “climate change is Real hoax” like moths to a flame.

        KK

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Normal people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

        Yes Craig and I think that is what Jo has done here. Let the whole world know and have us normal people treat it appropriately.

        Thanks for noticing.

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Jo, Mark is being rational again!

          00

          • #
            Otter

            Tattle-tails are conservatives! Oh, wait…. ;)

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I can be rational can’t I? Just because I have a speech predicament doesn’t mean you have to point it out all the time!

            I do have a ration of rashness, once and a while a rash of irrationality.

            Funny, irrational doesn’t have the same root as irate, even though I become irate when people say I’m irrational and sometimes I’m irrational when I’m irate.

            Sometimes too, ones’ rationality is in the control of the ration holder.

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well put Mark … I think …

            00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Normal people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.”

        ie…. derision !!

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        It’s Social “science”. Normal people treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

        I would give it what it deserves but Jo doesn’t like such rude behavior.

        If you enjoy knowing there are people out there wanting to manipulate you then be my guest. But I do not.

        00

  • #
    kramer

    8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments

    I know of no group called the New World Order but I do know for certain that there are groups and influential people that want a one world government. Even the UN wants this. I know this because I’ve read it countless times from their own sites and books.

    Here’s President Bush 1 on a new world order under a UN:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37x7oWfm_U&feature=related

    00

  • #
    kramer

    11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s

    Extremely doubtful. And if AIDS was created by man (again, extremely doubtful), there is slightly more of a chance it was created by Malthusian’s.

    00

  • #
    kramer

    15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President

    False. So why can’t they open up the records on this murder like they said they were going to do 50 years ago?

    http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/national_archives_no_new_jfk_docs/
    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/31/what_gets_declassified/singleton/

    00

  • #
    kramer

    20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”.

    False. But AGW is being used by policy makers to push NIEO goals that fizzled out under Reagan. These goals are tech transfer, massive redistribution of wealth transfers from the North to the South, reduction of natural resources usage by developed countries so developing countries can use more of them to grow their own economies, and more control of our lives because as Lindzen said (I’m paraphrasing), “if you control carbon, you control life”

    22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree

    Yes. Just not nearly as much as claimed.

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Kramer

      That’s the burning question :

      22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree

      Everyone would be surprised at how little the human component is.

      We are constantly reminded that the Earths temp has increased by 0.6 C deg over the last 150 years.

      Based on the real science the estimate using all IPCC data for the human component of the rise in temp since

      1850 is : 0.0009 Celsius Degrees.

      If any part of our body is sensitive enough to detect or react to that I want to know about it.

      I will write a paper on this natural wonder and submit it to the UWA for peer review.

      KK :)

      00

  • #
    kramer

    26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone layer

    Was it ever a problem? The reason I ask is the following comment by James Lovelock:
    ” We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock/print

    00

  • #
    J Cuttance

    The only comparable self-deluding I’ve sustained in my life were the rear-guard actions of the religiosity in which I was brought up. I clung to the ‘proofs’ until the rational part of my brain kicked in and I still consider getting that monkey off my back a milestone personal achievement.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    What a clown the man is! A misanthropic nut job…

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova has a great summary here, and writes about one Australian investigator who was invited to take the survey questions two [...]

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT:

    What to do with Turnbull?

    Delivering a lecture in Perth last night, Mr Turnbull said it was an inescapable fact that greenhouse gases caused the earth to warm.

    “Politicians and shock jocks, scientists and coal barons, all of them can argue for as long as they like, but they cannot change the physical reality,” he said. “I won’t linger on climate change – the hopeless, confused, hyper-partisan nature of the debate is too well known to rehearse.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/honesty-is-the-best-policy-turnbull-swipes-at-state-of-politics-and-deficit-of-trust-20120905-25ezm.html#ixzz25e38nORE

    00

    • #
      Winston

      “Honesty is the best policy”
      -like Malcolm Turnbull would know honesty if it smacked him in the face. He is self-deceptive in the extreme if he believes his “opinions” are anything more than ruthless ambition and greedy self-interest. His attempt to smear Abbott couldn’t have anything to do with his own thwarted political ambitions -could it? Surely not! Who does he think he is fooling, really?

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Winston

        I see the Australian public’s reaction to Mr Turnbull as a wonderful sign that all is not lost for the human race.

        It gives me hope.

        He was soundly given a kick in the pants over both the Republic issue and the Carbon Theft issue.

        He does not seen to have gained any insight after both these lessons, but presumably he has to be seen to be doing something to maintain the support of Goldman Sachs.

        KK

        00

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    Why doesn’t someone explain to the man that if he keeps it up he’ll go blind?

    00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    So, in summary,
    – it was wrong to say that no sceptic was asked to link to it
    – it was wrong to say that no sceptic linked to it
    – it was wrong to say that McIntyre wasn’t asked to link to it

    But now we are meant to puzzle over whether there was some sort of conspiracy to send different people different versions of the survey?

    Isn’t all this concern about an internet survey all a bit of a waste of time?

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Isn’t all this concern about an internet survey all a bit of a waste of time?

      More than the waste of time reading your spacers?

      00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Lewandowsky has refused to name the skeptic sites he claims were asked to link to the survey. We have found one who linked to it stating it was likely a fishing expedition to link conspiracy theorists with skeptics. If Lewandowsky’s research is above board, why not release the information?

      Lewandowsky is one of the strongest advocates for the so called scientific consensus on CAGW which has relied on the ‘pal review’ system of publishing post modern non-scientifically rigorous papers which have been exposed numerous times at this site.

      Now Lewandowsky has published a paper in ‘Psychological Science’ which has supposedly been peer reviewed by two or three appropriately qualified people who must think that drawing conclusions from 10 respondents out of over 1100 respondents, of which only 6 were ‘conspiracy theorists’, and none of whom can actually be verified as legitimate respondents anyway, is actually rigorous science worthy of publication.

      If you don’t think this draws in to question the scientific credibility of Lewandowsky, the institution which employs him, and the scientific consensus he so fervently supports, then I don’t know what will.

      And that is only addressing one of the major deficiencies in the ‘study’, as Jo’s article points out, there were many more, yet it was published widely and without question by a willing media. It couldn’t be a more appropriate use of this blog-site’s time to expose such sloppy science.

      00

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        The whole point of Psychology/Sociology/etc… is that they are *not* actual sciences – they are a way for people who are not scientifically-inclined to live out a fantasy of participating in an academinally rigorous discipline.

        Their work is mostly useful for providing fodder for crappy AM radio stations and the inside pages of newspapers, like, “Women 23% more likely to cheat on their spouses than men”, and so forth.

        Having said that, you appear to be drawing a lot of conclusions in the face of the information that is available.
        Namely,
        – Lewandowsky has given a very plausible reason for not naming non-responders to his research: ethical rules that he has to abide by.
        – “Pal Review” is part of a dishonest smear against Mann which has not found any factual support despite 6 investigations and is utterly irrelevant to anything the non-climate-scientist Lewandowsky has to say about psychology..
        – Psychology isn’t science, and the merits (if any) of this paper stand until surpassed by a paper that encompasses more data and/or uses better research methods.
        – No, a psychology paper by Lewandowsky doesn’t in any way call into question the scientific facts on which climate science is based.
        – Psychology isn’t science, which is precisely why the dopes in the mass media are so much more interested in it than real science.

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      The point is that the vast majority of responses (if not 100%) he received were from pro-CAGW sites,

      therefore the results can only apply to those who frequent those sites.

      there can be NO LINKAGES to skeptics, only to believers.

      00

  • #

    I’m intrigued with the different sets of off-topic questions. I’m no psychologist, but I performed for a few back in my college days.

    Here are a couple possibilities:

    1) The extra questions are to distract from the main purpose of the survey. This isn’t very likly, as a purpose was fairly clearly described, at least on the one Wayback page I saw.

    2) The questions and answers offered are intended to help set the frame of mind of the taker before the next questions.

    3) Maybe the answers to things like “how happy are you with your life” are indicative of how much time you’ve spent looking for conspiracies behind every object and the researchers are playing around trying to find a set of questions that has the desired effect.

    00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      My initial response was that they were looking for an answer like; conspiracy theorists are angry at the world, and over 30. But they failed to gain any such insight so have ignored that non-result.

      00

  • #
    RandomGuy

    Having just had the pleasure of enduring 6 hours straight of psychological profile testing i can honestly say that this effort is ameturish in the extreme.

    00

    • #
      Otter

      Interview by poitential mother-in-law?

      00

      • #
        Otter

        ‘i’ before ‘o’ except after…. Oh, I never get that one right!

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Potential mother-in-law? Very unlikely. Too short.

        At a mere 6 hours it is more likely to be a Top Secret clearance (TS4) positive vetting interview to decide if you are worthy of being trusted with sensitive information pertaining to the defence of the Commonwealth.

        Mother-in-law interviews are usually more critical and time-consuming, totalling between 32 and 128 hours, depending on applicant’s affluence.

        00

  • #
    pat

    the main concern for me is how such drivel always gets published. in the case of Psychological Science, Lewandowsky was acknowledged as a reviewer for 2009:

    Sage Publications: Psychological Science: Acknowledgment
    The Associate Editors and I wish to acknowledge the invaluable aid provided by guest reviewers of manuscripts submitted to Psychological Science in 2009. We are deeply grateful for their generous, conscientious, knowledgeable, and constructive help. -Robert V. Kail
    (lengthy list includes):
    Stephan Lewandowsky
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1925.full

    Acknowledgements for years prior to and post 2009 do not have the full A-Z list on a single page and you have to be a subscriber to gain access, e.g.

    2010
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/12/1609.extract

    so i can’t say if Lewandowsky has been a regular reviewer

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    A bit of parody goes along way when it comes to Climate Change and surveys.

    http://youtu.be/TmfcJP_0eMc

    _______
    Ross J.

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Tempered, of course, with a little dose of reality – and history.

      http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Yes folks, it’s not just a random anonymous page on the Internet, it’s totally legit [at National Library].
        That’s awesome. Wow. So some people were global warming alarmists “before it was cool”, heheh.
        And due to the cooling in the 60s that’s also literally true.

        Interesting the way it mentions retreating ice uncovering old farmhouses, proving there was a time in the 1100s when the ice was nowhere near the farmhouse and Greenland was… green….

        Historical evidence? bah! Clearly these “ancient” Viking farmhouses are just fakes planted very recently by deniers to test the faith of the warmists…

        00

    • #
      Otter

      How does it feel, going thru life as a parody?

      00

  • #
    Ian

    I think it would be instructive to survey the grants funded by the Australian Research Council over the last 5-10 years and calculate the percentage for each year that have some reference to climate change in the title. This research by Lewandowsky seems a means to get funding (which really adds heaps to one’s chances of promotion if one is an academic) rather than anything else. If as is claimed there were several different questionnaires then UWA complaints department should be notified that Professor Lewandowsky is not adhering to the tenets of good science

    00

  • #
    Betapug

    Interesting that the AMOCO (formerly Standard Oil, now BP) Foundation “award for superior teaching” winner at U.Oklahoma in 1993 sees capitalism as a negative marker. On the other hand his massive 32 page Vita at UWA http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/SLvita.pdf proclaims his $4,400,000 in grants secured with the biggies coming in the last 6 years as his interest seem to veer from understanding how short term memory works into the political arena of how to shape belief.

    2012-2014 $216,000 for: Australian Research Council (Linkage Grant, with Federal Department of
    Climate Change and Energy Efficiency). “Creating a climate for change:From cognition to consensus.”

    2011-2013 $330,000 for: National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. “What about me?
    Factors affecting individual adaptive coping capacity across different
    population groups.”

    He seems to prefer being airborne. Constantly jetting to conferences all over the world, however, is not enough. He has 2000 petroleum fueled launches at the Narrogin Gliding Club.

    00

  • #
    ianl8888

    @Jo Nova

    You wrote:

    “… “deniers” (the obvious targets) “

    If you really think that, then I suggest that for a “meeja” expert, you are being naive

    “Deniers” are not the target. The aim is to have the MSM discredit sceptics with headlines purporting that a peer-reviewed survey found that sceptics are absolute raving nutters. Lewandowsky is simply manipulating the MSM to achieve a propaganda result – which is really easy to do

    Of more interest is why such propaganda is considered necessary. The constant low poll ratings for the ALP/Green alliance, combined with a shortening time to the next election and Abbott’s apparent determination to repeal the CO2 tax in a Double Dissolution are the real drivers here. Lewandowsky thinks (or hopes) that even if the ALP/Greens lose and a Double Dissolution is attempted, manipulated public opinion will prevent any CO2 tax repeal

    He’s setting the stage

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Not at all Ian

      Lewandowsky thinks (or hopes) that even if the ALP/Greens lose and a Double Dissolution is attempted, manipulated public opinion will prevent any CO2 tax repeal

      He’s setting the stage

      Lewandowsky is simply making hay whilst the sun still shines, look at his paper and you will find it is simply a study (i use that word loosely) in the human mind.

      All conspiracies theories at their hearts are anti government theories and nothing more and Lewdanowsky is simply tapping into that and claiming AGW rejection is purely anti government.

      Shortly the AGW theory will crumble but Lewdanowsky’s paper will remain as it does not imply the theory is correct therefore it can stand on its own.

      Look out for a rush in publishing this sort of drivel as the election approaches as scientists (loosely once again) fear for their trough going dry pump out all the garbage they can think of whilst they still can.

      ——————————————————————————-

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Ianl8888 says:

      “Deniers” are not the target. The aim is to have the MSM discredit sceptics with headlines purporting that a peer-reviewed survey found that sceptics are absolute raving nutters. Lewandowsky is simply manipulating the MSM to achieve a propaganda result – which is really easy to do

      Good thinking Ian. Whether that was intentioned or not, that poster child for an apprenticeship at the Yorkshire Post , Readfern, jumps right in to oblige.
      .
      Lewandowsky is confusing suspicion of Conspiracy with suspicion of his devious intent.
      .
      In the absence of evidence, suspicion is absolutely indicated.
      Suspicion is neither proof nor evidence, but now he has provided the evidence to prove the suspicion was indeed correct.

      00

  • #
    pat

    Lewandowsky is scheduled for an event at the Institute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences at University of California at Berkeley in November:

    Seminar: 11/30 – Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Western Australia
    11:00 to 12:30 PM at: 5101 Tolman Hall
    Cognition and climate science
    ….A second, largely independent, variable that determines rejection of science is conspiracist ideation; e.g., the belief that NASA faked the moon landing is associated with rejection of scientific propositions. (d) Acceptance of climate science can be enhanced by underscoring the scientific consensus.
    http://icbs.berkeley.edu/events/event.php?rid=164

    00

  • #
    pat

    who else published the Lewandowsky drivel? one was ScienceAlert, who published the UWA blurb in its entirety, without any additional editorial or criticism:

    24 Aug: ScienceAlert: Why people reject science
    The University of Western Australia
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20122308-23684.html

    ScienceAlert – About Us
    ScienceAlert partners Julian Cribb and Chris Cassella recognized that more and more people get their science news online…
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/about-us.html

    ABC: The Drum: Julian Cribb
    He was national foundation president of the Australian Science Communicators (ASC), president of the National Rural and Resources Press Club, a member of CSIRO advisory committees for agriculture, fisheries and entomology. He has served as a Director of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), the Crawford Fund, the Secretariat for International Landcare, CSIRO Publishing, the Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation, the National Science and Technology Centre (Questacon) and the
    Council of the Academy of technological Sciences & Engineering…
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/julian-cribb-29146.html

    more to come…

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 July: Canberra Times: David Sharaz: Canberra science website more popular than NASA
    More popular than NASA and the CSIRO combined, Canberra-based news service Science Alert has 1.3 million Facebook fans… and counting.
    This compared with NASA’s 952,000+ Facebook fans and the CSIRO – which only has about 14,000.
    By aggregating ‘‘creditable’’ research from Australian universities and institutions, the website presents findings to an international audience…
    Originally a Microsoft programmer, Cassella decided to create Cribb’s dream as part of his master’s thesis at ANU university…
    Thanks to Inspiring Australia, the team behind Science Alert will use a $200,000 grant to further promote their website to young Australians…
    Although a large sum of money manager of Inspiring Australia, Brenton Honeyman believes it to be an investment…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/canberra-science-website-more-popular-than-nasa-20120614-20bx0.html

    Autumn 2011: ANU: ScienceWise: Inspiring Australia
    New government initiative aims to make Australia science savvy
    The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research DIISR, is the government body charged with looking after all things scientific in Australia and is well aware of the need for public awareness and education in the sciences. In collaboration with Australia’s top thinkers in science and innovation, teachers, journalists and other science communicators, DIISR has developed a national strategy for engagement with the sciences known as Inspiring Australia.
    Brenton Honeyman at Questacon, Australia’s well known National Science and Technology Centre, is preparing for the implementation of the Inspiring Australia initiative…
    National Science Week will continue as a flagship program of the new Inspiring Australia initiative. In August 2010, it was estimated that 1.6 million people participated in this nation-wide celebration of science.
    “As in previous years, 2011 National Science Week is offering small grants to support schools in developing and conducting activities during the week,” Brenton says. “The Australian Science Teachers Association will be managing this grant program.”…
    http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/Inspiring%20Australia

    someone might be able to check out just how much taxpayer money has gone into this propaganda exercise.

    00

  • #
    DaveA

    Climate skeptics are funded by Big Oil interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change?

    Alarmist: AGREE!!

    00

  • #
    Pat Kelly

    From the paper

    Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian
    Research Council and an Australian Professorial Fellowship to the rst author. Address
    correspondence to the rst author at the School of Psychology, University of Western
    Australia, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to
    stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au. Personal web page: http://www.cogsciwa.com.

    I suggest that concerned readers avail themselves of the invitation to contact the author. Likewise the generous fundees of this kindergarten level effort.

    00

  • #
    Pat Kelly

    SORRY. correction at 01:48pm “funders.”

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Jesus saves September 6, 2012 at 8:00 am
    If your white, male & over 55 (or thereabouts) then climate science is a hoax. How could it not be?

    Wow..brilliant response to the lewandowsky errors. :)
    And if your white, of any sex..under 55 and are..
    1/scientifically illiterate
    2/Pretend green
    3/are 100% clue less about the strange grip on science many $CAGW$ fans have
    4/Cannot respond to the actual topic in the post
    5/Think that CO2 Taxes and trading is going to make the environment better..
    6/Think lame ad hominems are brilliant..
    7/Think argument from authority is what science is about..
    Then you must be a Green voter..
    Am I right..
    Am I good..
    Yup :)
    Too easy..

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If your white, male & over 55 (or thereabouts)”

      You probably have a better education, and know how to spell “you’re”

      Obviously JS doesn’t. A post-normal education. :-)

      00

  • #
  • #

    There are statistical correlations between views, but they are irrelevant. If someone is pro-choice, they are probably pro-gay marriage, but this does not say
    - either view follows logically from the other
    - if either of them is right or wrong
    People who think ’9/11 was an inside job’ ARE more likely to be climate skeptics. But so what? Joanne’s climate skepticism is based on science. Without even asking, I can tell she’s not a 9/11 truther. Same here.
    There is also a correlation between conservative views and climate skepticism. Again, there’s no logical connection. The late Alexander Cockburn was a lifelong leftie, and a climate skeptic. Same here.
    Nami Klein was even worse than this Lewandowsky idiot. She even brought race into it. She said ‘conservative white men’ are more likely to be ‘climate deniers’ because of their ‘dominance based worldview’.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    People who think ’9/11 was an inside job’ ARE more likely to be climate skeptics.

    Evidence for that? Thought not.

    In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded “yes” to the question, “Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”

    Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, “Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.”, “Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.” and “Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.”[18]

    9/11 truthers are FAR more likely to be leftists who are anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-rational and sometimes also anti-semitic.

    Since it is fairly well established that leftists tend to believe in CAGW, while skeptical minds tend to actually understand science, such as economics and maths….the evidence suggests that 911 Truthers ARE more likely to be warmists than skeptics.

    In fact, if the harebrained conspiracy theories of Naomi Oreskes, Clive Hamilton and Robert Manne are anything to go by, it seems that lefties (therefore warmists) are far more likely to hold moonbat conspiracy theories of all kinds than rational scientific skeptics

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      I am a skeptic and a 9/11 “truther”, in the sense that I don’t find it plausible that three buildings all collapsed at near free fall velocity into their own footprint. I don’t pretend to know who did what and why but I certainly don’t buy the official story. some of the more compelling points of evidence are:

      1. No record of any steel frame sky scraper falling due to fire damage. (the third building to fall, building 7 was not hit by a plane and nevertheless fell!)
      2. Both twin towers fell into their own footprints at near free fall velocity even though the structure underneath the impact zone were not structurally weakened. Force = mass x acceleration. To fall at near gravitational speed g = 9.8m/s indicates that there was little force to resist the collapse which can ONLY be explained by a progressive top down demolition.
      3. Multiple witnesses and casualties of explosions on ground floors of twin towers.
      4. The discovery of thermate residue and molten iron spheres in all dust samples consistent with demolition charges.
      5. Inability of the USA to defend against this very obvious type of threat.
      6. Failure of official investigation to properly investigate steel structure for cause of collapse – steel was shipped to India and china for recycling.
      7. Failure of official investigation to investigate whether there was evidence of explosive residue in dust samples (dismissed on false representation of expected sound levels of demolition)
      8. Inconsistent testimony by owner of WT in relation to a “call he got from the fire chief discussing “pulling” building 7.

      Oh by the way I’m totally being sarcastic! 9/11 was exactly as you all saw on the television. People suggesting things like points 1, 8 including many engineers, architects pilots etc are all just nutty nutters and I tend to ignore them based on the crazy things they think! Those crazy kids!

      3. Large concrete slabs ejected sideways consistent with explosive force.
      4. Concrete pulverized into dust consistent with explosive

      BUILDING 7 FELL EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE.

      00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Sorry Sonny, I had already clicked thumbs down before I had read you were being sarcastic!

        In case anyone actually believes the 9/11 conspiracy theories, just google ’9/11 conspiracy debunked’

        00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Ratio of people acquitting the Republican president to those blaming him…
      Democrat = 1:1 , Agnostics = 3:1 , Republicans = 7:1

      There is a significant difference between results for Republicans and agnostics. Based on those statistics you could also reach the conclusion that people who more strongly self-identify as allied to a political party will be more strongly politically biased in whether they blame the Republican president of 2001 depending on whether they were allied to the Democrats versus Republican.

      But surely all this consensus of lay opinion is quite secondary compared to experimental evidence and expert opinion?

      00

      • #
        wes george

        All I’m saying, is that the polls prove that 911 truthers tend to be of the left. I speculate they are motivated by anti-American and anti-semetic enmity.

        The flip side is that a tiny minority of conservative minds will also be 911 truthers and that some of these will no doubt also be climate skeptics.

        Of course, as we have demonstrated many times, polls of people’s opinions, whether of experts or laymen, are not evidence of anything other than sociological phenomena.

        Thankfully, a discussion of the merits of the various 911 hypotheses is beyond the scope of this thread.

        Just for the record my own study of the evidence has convinced me that alternative 911 hypotheses are without merit, but are still fascinating for what they reveal about the psychology of cognition.

        It’s also fair to say that the majority of people who think the moon landings were staged hail from the left side of politics, which is why it is such an unfortunate topic for Lewandumbsky to wish to pursue, unless he’s a CIA Zionist mole working for Dick Cheney whose orders are to sabotage the warmist cause in Australia.

        Hey, it is possible!

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          I dont about left, right or in middle stuff Wes but until they come up with an explanation for WTC7 (yes 3 towers fell not two)then there will always be some lingering un answered questions.

          00

          • #
            wes george

            Citing the WTC7 collapsed as evidence of conspiracy is the same quality of logical fallacy as to imagine that since it has warmed over the last 160 years, therefore CAGW is confirmed.

            If we were at a zoo and we saw a mule-like creature with black and white stripes and I said “hey, look at the zebra!” And you replied, “I don’t know about that. I think some bastard snuck into the zoo last night and painted a poor mule with white and black stripes!”

            Who do you think is more likely to be right? Why is the simple explanation more likely to be right, rather than the convoluted one?

            This is relevant to the climate debate, because ultimately CAGW is a conspiracy theory too. (which probably explains Lewandumbsky’s obsession with pinning conspiracy nuttery on skeptics as psychological projection.)

            After all, CAGW can not explain past climate variations that occurred before industrial age CO2 production, such as the Medieval Warm Period. It can only be offered as a one-off explanation for about 50 years of the Holocene’s climate. This is a common trait of most conspiracy theories. They all propose utterly unique explanations whose implications outside a single event are ignored.

            Just like in a world full of zoos stocked with zebras it is unlikely the one-off explanation that our zebra in the zoo is a painted mule is accurate, it’s unlikely a hypothesis that can only apply to about 50-years of climate while failing to explain the last 10,000 years is correct.

            Likewise, the 911 truther hypothesis explains nothing about the world, other than some people believe — against all evidence — George W Bush was a bloody organisational genius who pulled off one of the greatest technical feats ever. One has to wonder why Bush did not apply this same genius to organising instant victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why didn’t he stage Saddam’s palace disappearing into the Tigris under a hail of Al Qaeda hijacked scuds or something? Surely, he could have simply commanded the CIA to control the Iraqi army to do whatever he wanted? Why didn’t Bush have a secret underground pipeline built from Iraq to Israel and siphon off all of Iraq’s oil? Heck, maybe he did!!!!

            You see, if you believe Bush was capable of pulling off 911 without anyone finding out, you have explain why he bumbled so many other less complex problems he got himself into.

            Then again, maybe it’s all a conspiracy to fool us into thinking Bush was a bumbling idiot!!!!!

            That’s it!

            Maybe, maybe the war in Iraq was faked too! And there is no Taliban!… They are all really CIA agents controlled by sat-link to Dick Cheney’s castle, which is really built on top of converted missile silo that houses thousands of Jewish Federal Reserve technicians who control the world’s economy using mind control broadcast microchips implanted in the secret eye on the pyramid in each US dollar note!

            I saw a youtube video once that proved this.

            Sorry, lost the link.

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Sorry Wes but your rant has no relevance to my statement.

            Let me re word it for you:

            Can you give me a rational explanation as to how WTC7 (a 47 story building) could collapse into its own foot print at free fall speeds without being hit by a plane? Dont bother looking through the NIST report because even they had no idea so they conveniently did not mention it. Until you can give a plausible explanation for this i suggest you keep your mumbo jumbo nonsense crap jibberings about Zebras to yourself.

            Regards

            Crakar24

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            Right on Crackar.

            WT7 is the smoking gun of 9/11. Any rational, educated and open minded person, after investigating the facts, can come to no other conclusion than it was brought down via a pre-planned controlled demolition.

            Shocking? Yes. But we need to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

            Google is your friend. Although I would strongly suggest that those with weak minds who prefer to live in a blissful state of ignorance do NOT investigate this lest your comfortable safe world view is destroyed forever.

            I for one resist deception.

            00

          • #
            wes george

            You’ve got the burden of proof arsebackward, Crakar.

            You’re suggesting that WTC7 collapse can only be explained by some variety of conspiracy that involves secret agents blowing it up. Right?

            Heck, so far you’re too ashamed to even spell out your conspiracy hypothesis.

            It’s not my job to prove that your hypothesis is wrong.

            It’s your job to show that your hypothesis better explains not just WTC7, but that the implications of your hypothesis better explain everything else that happened on that day.

            You have to show why a secret conspiracy theory is more useful of an explanation than the far more simple theory backed-up by voluminously collected evidence from tens-of-thousands of sources that Al Qaeda did it all.

            It’s a bad start that the very first evidence you cite is based upon demonstrably false statements.

            1. It’s a false statement that the final NIST report didn’t explain WTC7.

            2. It’s a false statement that no plausible explanation for the WTC7 collapse has been put forward. Voluminously documented evidence show exactly how the Al Qaeda hijacked airplane attack on the WTC indirectly caused WTC7 to collapse.

            It’s fine to say you do not accept the evidence NIST, and many other independent sources put forward, to explain the collapse of WTC7, but you damage your credibility by claiming it doesn’t exist.

            We all have Google.

            $$$

            To say that the WTC7 collapse is evidence of a conspiracy because there is no other “plausible explanation” is a logical fallacy…what you are really saying is the imprecision in the evidence for how WTC7 fell is evidence for a conspiracy. But that’s nonsense. It could equally well be evidence for alien intervention.

            Actually, it’s not evidence of anything, because lack of evidence can not be evidence of anything.

            It’s like citing the fact that we don’t know all the details about how the pyramids of Giza were built as evidence for Erich von Däniken’s theory of alien intervention in human history.

            The lack of evidence for how the pyramids were built can not be evidence for Alien intervention. It can’t be evidence for anything other than our knowledge about pyramids is incomplete.

            Conspiracy theories are a kind of cognitive parasite. They suckle at the little nagging loose ends that occur in any complex event. But something else is needed to get a real conspiracy theory going, there has to be a sense of paranoia. An irrational sense of a pervasive evil eye that is always watching and almost supernatural in its unlimited power to deceive. I think there is also a kind of hatred too at the bottom of most conspiracy theories. A kind of passive aggressive way to get back at some group by simply turning the meaning of some important event upside down.

            That describes the work of Naomi Oreskes and Robert Manne as well as the 911truther movement.

            The true believers have to maintain a leech-like focus on the dark corners of uncertainty to the exclusion of all else because the c-theory can’t stand in the full light of day as a holistic explanation of the total event. The moon landing US flag mysteriously waving in the breeze, Princess Di’s last phone call, 2012 low arctic sea ice, Area 51, WTC7, the look on Bush’s face when he heard the news. We all love a good twilight zone story, don’t we? That’s why we continue to listen to the c-theories. It’s a thrill. But then we get up from the TV or the computer monitor and go outside and the sun is shining.

            Why a few never snap out of the twilight zone mood is an interesting question.

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            Ok. Perhaps you can explain why BBC reported WT7 collapse 23 minutes PRIOR TO IT COLLAPSING?

            00

          • #
          • #
            Sonny

            And dont even dare responding until you read everything on that linked page including BBC official statement about the error.

            On February 27, 2007, the BBC’s website published a response by Richard Porter in which he reactively denied the suggestion that there is something wrong with the BBC ( whose “vision is to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world” 1   ) announcing the third of the only three skyscraper “collapses” in world history before it happened.

            “…In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving…. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services….We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage…We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another…If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that…

            00

          • #
            Sonny


            THEY LOST THE TAPES OF THEIR 9/11 COVERAGE.
            THEY ADMIT TO ANNOUNCING THE COLLAPSE BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

            Time to WAKE UP AUSTRALIA!

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Well, Sonny, it is time to wake up, mate.

            By midday the NYC fire department was warning WTC7 was about to collapse issuing minute by minute radio updates through out the afternoon.

            A Reuters reporter with a radio scanner rushed to get the scoop on the story, reported WTC7 collapsed before it did.

            Local NYC news pick up the Reuters report, but quickly issued a correction as soon as they looked out the window.

            The BBC picked it up too, but because they were out-of-towners didn’t know where or what WTC7 was so they didn’t know it was in view behind the reporter…duh.

            Half of the spin on this is made-up BS by Truthers. You know, like Crakar’s claim that NIST final report ignored WTC7. BS.

            BTW, the BBC found the lost video tape long, long ago. As reported by BBC reporter Mike Rudin in 2008:

            The mystery of the missing tapes didn’t last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They’d just been put back on the wrong shelf – 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.

            I guess you missed that 4-year old report, huh?

            So, let’s review…. some toff BBC reporter assigned to the cushy NYC assignment, is suddenly tossed into war-like conditions of amazing stress, confusion, possible danger and rapidly incoming information and you think confused damage reports in the bloody chaos of that day proves that the BBC was part of a cover-up of a massive Neo-con conspiracy? LOL.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

            You’ll need more than creepy twilight zone moments on the most chaotic day in recent US history to build a seriously extraordinary hypothesis upon, mate.

            Beside, who in their right mind would imagine the leftist BBC would get into bed with Bush neo-cons or Zionists to start a war for oil?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9S7yhD5M9A

            00

          • #
          • #
            Sonny

            Wes,
            Why would they have any prior expectation of a collapse? the fact that the media were getting any reports at all about imminent collapse of building 7 indicates very strongly that certain people KNEW IT WOULD COLLAPSE. How did they know??
            Like I said, on normal days buildings that sustain fire damage or damage from debris don’t simply collapse uniformly into their own footprint at free fall velocity! Again, this building was not hit by an aircraft. Anybody with familiarity with civil engineering of structural steel high rises and demolition can spot this a mile off.

            This building was “pulled”. But hey don’t take my word for it this guy owned all three buildings and collected a few billion in insurance claims after.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

            To anybody reading this comment. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Wes George word for it. I you are interested look at all sides, including official NIST reports and decide for yourself how well the official story stands to reason. 9/11 is one of the most hotly debated events of all time. Just like climate change, if you were to rea only the official story…. Well you would have been fooled.

            Learn the lesson.

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Wes, I think you can assume that Sonny is one of the people Lewandowsky has found. There isn’t anything we can do about it. I admit defeat, Lewandowsky is right, there is some percentage of “skeptics” that latch on to conspiracies.

            This one is particularly hilarious and sad at the same time. The number of people it would take to pull off such a building “demolition” (remember they believe all three buildings had explosives in them) would make complete secrecy extremely unlikely. Not to mention that other workers would have to stumble upon the explosives in the course of their maintenance work. Unless you believe that everyone involved was “disappeared” by a lone assassin and then that assassin was in turn offed by yet another until all the secrets were buried.

            Wait a minute………. (sarc)

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            Mark D, your reasoning is faulty but all too common.

            Rather than base your conclusions on the direct observations made on the day (including the media response), you dismiss the conspiracy on the grounds that to your mind it would be impossible to coordinate such a massive crime while maintaining secrecy etc. within the conspirator ranks. How do you know? Isn’t this exactly the type of cognitive dissonance that enables and is relied upon by big liars to get away with big lies?

            This is exactly what the climate alarmists rely on too… To outsiders of the climate debate you and I look like the same kind of conspiracy theoris

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Sonny, did you read the link provided by Jaymez?

            See here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

            Chock full of eye witness accounts of exactly what happened. Not erroneous news snippets.

            You are failing to consider the simple answer in favor of a conspiracy. There is no “smoking gun”, WTC7 fell because of structural damage (being hit by large pieces of the other buildings) and fire. It wasn’t a surprise and it didn’t happen in a mysterious timeline.

            I’ve read many of the so-called truthers stories and frankly they make me laugh. They defy logic, they defy reason, they deny fact.

            I could go on but what’s the use? The problem with this is not me Sonny, it’s you. Explain why you prefer the complex conspiracy instead of the simple explanation.

            How do you know? Isn’t this exactly the type of cognitive dissonance that enables and is relied upon by big liars to get away with big lies?

            You are right. How do I know. I’ve never been to NYC not before 911, not after. I do not have first hand knowledge that these buildings even existed. The whole thing was faked, just like the moon landings. There were no buildings no planes, no terrorists, nobody died. Why, because I couldn’t know (As you have pointed out) Right?
            *
            *
            *
            *
            *

            I “know” because I filter what evidence is available, I use reason and logic to process that evidence.

            My reasoning is faulty? BULL CRAP

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Wes,

            I see your reading and comprehension skills have still not improved.

            Let me asked my question again but in a different way.

            Go to the link below

            http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

            Play the video and tell me if you think this looks like a building that has collapsed due to fire, ask yourself this. How could all supporting columns fails at the exact same moment for the building to collapse in this way?

            No conspiracy theories, no hidden bombs just plain old engineering how could it possible collapse this way?

            Not a too difficult question for a man like yourself one would imagine.

            00

  • #
    Joe V.

    1. This survey is designed to marginalise and alienate those who don’t necessarily agree with everything they are told.

    1 S Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 S Disagree

    Might be useful for establishing gullibility & compliance.

    00

  • #

    One of the things that bugs me most about such “research” is historic precedent.

    From the beginning of The Enlightenment until the 1930′s, German was a language of science and engineering. Even Svante Arrhenius published his papers in German. e.g. Ueber die Wärmeabsorption durch Kohlensäure und ihren Einfluss auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche on p690ff. That reference BTW has contributions by Einstein, Wien, Planck, Fromme, Kerkhoff, etc.

    What brought German science into disrepute was that it became increasingly the tool of politics.

    Side-note to John Brookes: READ what Arrhenius has to say about his treatise of 1896:

    Inzwischen zeigte es sich, dass die so erhaltenen Zahlen der Absorbtion nicht mit neueren Erfahrungen zu vereinigen waren, weshalb eine neue Bestimmung der Absorbtion der Kohlensäure erwünscht schien

    The numbers and assumptions that Svante Arrhenius had used were wrong in his original treatise. His later treatise does a “confirmational experiment” and then looks at the Earth effect in terms of water absorbtion spectra overlapping with CO2′s (p698), arguing with Angstrom over the absorbtion bandwidth. He then proceeds to make lengthy arguments from assumed results and from ignorance; concluding that his 1896 treastise’s “conclusion” was correct, even though CO2 absorbtion wasn’t; because, he reasoned, water vapour offset (which he stated couldn’t then be calculated) would make up for the shortfall in warming.

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      “… because, he reasoned, water vapour offset (which he stated couldn’t then be calculated) would make up for the shortfall in warming.”

      Much the same problem as today then. that pesky water vapour again. Some things never change

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    ” In the UPDATE below note that there appear to be three different forms of the survey, a point that surely needs some explanation.”

    Surely, only a conspiracy-theorist would think so … :-X

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    Lewandowsky told DeSmogBlog:

    “So now there’s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them. It’s a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It’s illustrative of exactly the process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. I’m anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes”

    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mwBG)

    http://desmogblog.com/2012/09/05/research-links-climate-science-denial-conspiracy-theories-skeptics-smell-conspiracy

    What a web of conspiracy we all weave when it’s in turn produced by conspiracy.

    ______
    Ross J.

    (Did he provide the names of the 5 skeptic website he supposed to have contacted yet?) CTS

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      While the gullible confuse skepticism with conspiratorial thinking.
      Doesnt conspiracy require conscious collaboration.
      Just being devious doesn’t count as conspiracy if acting alone OR it’s just in your nature.
      Yet it’s the Psych. who projecting conspiratorial behaviour on himself.

      As the old saying goes , “Доверяй, но проверяй”
      (Trust, but Verify).

      Or as anything sold in the EU is marked :- CE, Caveat Emptor ( Buyer Beware).

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      What a little theatre Eh?

      ” I’m anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes”

      Permission to announce, I sent A, B, C, D & E. a request and they haven’t responded yet.

      Methinks the Psych feigns standards of chivalry & protocol of which he has little familiarity.

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Most climate realists, on seeing something from Lew…i, would just delete the email anyway.

      He is a know moron.

      00

    • #
      Bulldust

      It’s a shame really. The whole issue of whether sceptic blogs were contacted or not is of little to no relevance. The real issue is the appallingly bad science in the paper in what is supposed to be the lead peer reviewed psychology journal.

      I wonder how long before The Drum runs a parallel Redfearn article. I hadn’t realised he had stooped to being a Desmogger. Considering the virtual column inches he gets at the ABC that is quite telling. ABC standards are plumbing new depths.

      On a side note it is interesting to see Brooksey getting his posterior handed to him on the Lew paper article at WUWT.

      00

      • #
        Bulldust

        Something occurred to me while researching Desmog. Lefebvre is the main site donor and wiki’d here:

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lefebvre

        Ironic is it not that Redfearn is calling us conspiacy nutters when the Desmog wiki reference on Lefebvre’s page says:

        As an environmental advocate, Lefebvre is a chief benefactor of DeSmogBlog.com, [1] a whistleblower blog run by Vancouver public relations specialist James Hoggan. The site’s focus is on exposing those who deny the effects of fossil fuel upon the world’s climate while covertly working on behalf of fossil fuel producers.

        You can’t make this stuff up…. just gold.

        00

  • #
    pat

    amazing what taxpayers’ money can achieve:

    3 Sept: Griffith University, Australia: Australians adapting to climate change
    Research from Griffith University and Cardiff University in Wales has found that Australians are accepting climate change and are taking adaptive action.
    The two-year project involving nearly 7500 Australians and 1800 Britons found 90 per cent of Australian and 89 per cent of British respondents accepted human causal impact on climate change.
    Though comparison findings showed striking similarities overall, Australian respondents viewed climate change as a more “immediate, proximal, and certain threat” than British respondents and were beginning to adapt to it through changes in their thinking, feelings and behaviours…
    Australian project leader, Professor Joseph Reser from Griffith University’s School of Applied Psychology and the Griffith Climate Response Program, said only 6.5 per cent of Australian respondents could be characterised as “climate change sceptics”…
    “Most Australians are not paralysed by the debate, they’re taking action” Professor Reser said…
    The research was funded by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility at Griffith University and the Griffith Climate Change Response Program and is ongoing.
    To access the full report got to http://www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/public-risk-perceptions
    http://poc-app.griffith.edu.au/news/2012/09/03/australians-adapting-to-climate-change/

    00

  • #
    RCS

    This simply shows that sociology is a non-science. How a professor at a major university can produce this rubbish is beyond me.

    00

  • #
    pat

    bingo. Tasmania is rich:

    6 Sept: ABC Tasmania: Tony Briscoe: New report assesses Tasmania’s forest and soil carbon
    The study accounts for carbon on public and private land, in live vegetation, forest debris, dead trees and in soil.
    The company which carried out the study is CO2 and it’s director James Bulinski says the report quantifies the Tasmania’s carbon now and into the future.
    “We were looking at what the current carbon stocks were, looking at how those carbon stocks might change under a range of different forest and land scenarios into the future.
    Current carbon stocks, we estimate to be well over three billion tonnes and could be as high as four billion tonnes”.
    James Bulinski says one of the legacies of the project is new carbon accounting software they’ve built called the forest carbon modelling framework that could be used into the future…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content/2012/09/s3584597.htm?site=northtas

    6 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: David Beniuk: Tasmanian forests worth $3b in carbon cash
    A report commissioned by the state’s Labor-Green government, the most comprehensive conducted in Australia, has found the island’s forests store 4.4 billion tonnes of carbon.
    Consultants CO2 say that could be worth $280 million in current voluntary carbon markets but up to 10 times that amount if Australia commits to the Kyoto Protocol’s article 3.4 on forest management…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/tasmanian-forests-worth-3b-in-carbon-cash/story-e6frf7kf-1226466726336

    with CO2 Group shares currently at 12 cents, with a 52-week high of 21 cents, it’s incredible what these guys are earning. check out their compensation:

    Reuters: CO2 Group Ltd
    http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=COZ.AX

    00

  • #
    pat

    Bangkok is over, nothing was achieved, the MSM aren’t interested, and only this report sheds a light on the farce:

    3 Sept: AllAfrica: Frederick Asiamah: Ghana: Future of Climate Finance At Centre of Bangkok Meeting
    Governments began meeting in Bangkok, Thailand on Thursday to prepare decisions that they will take at the next UN climate change conference in Doha, Qatar…
    Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, adds that: “All sides need a clearer understanding on how to get to 100 billion USD a year by 2020 with no gaps.”
    Ironically, a five-page notification to Parties and observer States to the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol circulated in June said the sessions were being organised as informal because of financial constraints.
    Ms Figueres said in the notification that “Due to the…financial constraints, work during the additional session will be of an informal nature, hence there will be no formal plenary meetings, no interpretation or webcast services and no official documents during these sessions.”…
    http://allafrica.com/stories/201209031112.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    6 Sept: Reuters Point Carbon: NZ carbon holds as U.N. units crash on fresh supply
    Spot permits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme were unmoved from last week’s record low levels of NZ$4.70, while U.N. offsets fell on news of higher than expected ERU supply from Ukraine…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1978700

    00

  • #
    Senex Bibax

    It’s telling that the survey questions do not present a neutral response option, such as “Neither Agree nor Disagree”, or “Undecided”. Indeed, given a lack of sufficient evidence, how can a neutral position be chosen between “Probably True” and “Probably False”? The entire survey is meaningless, unscientific and statistically unsound.

    41. Stephen Lewandowsky is an unscientific crackpot, using his academic status to push an extreme political agenda. STRONGLY AGREE

    00

    • #
      Joe V.

      You mean the Don’t Care option ?
      Yes, by not providing it its the Psych. whose attempting to polarise the response.

      All semblance of objectivity is lost. Indeed what is the use for science, when we have authority to tell us what to think ?

      00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    In light of comments like those above and on other sites, Lewandowsky et al, authors of that paper, will feel obliged to give the correct answers to the questions they pose, with peer-reviewed scientific papers only to support their answers.
    Who holds peer reviewed papers that show a quantified link between global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and atmospheric temperature change? Anyone? Serious scientists have been calling for such an ‘engineering quality’ paper for 4 years now. Still no joy.

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    This is how I would expect an alarmist would answer – a typical, overpaid individual embedded deep in a government, or quasi government, bureaucracy.:

    1. An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs. Totally disagree

    2. I support the free-market system but not at the expense of environmental quality. Disagree

    3. The free-market system may be efficient for resource allocation, but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. Disagree

    4. The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns. Totally Disagree

    5. Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. Strongly Agree

    6. The free-market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption Strongly Agree

    7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq Strongly Agree

    1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

    8. A powerful and secretive group known as the New World Order are panning to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign governments Probably True

    9. SARS was produced under laboratory conditions as a biological weapon Probably true

    10. The US government had foreknowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed the attack to take place to as to be able to enter the Second World War. Probably True

    11. US Agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970′s. Probably true

    12. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr was the results of an organized conspiracy by US government agencies such as the CIA and FBI Probably False

    13. The Apollo Moon landings never happened and were stages in a Hollywood film studio. Probably true!

    14. Area 51 in Nevada US is a secretive military base that contains hidden alien spacecraft and or alien bodies. Probably true

    15. The assassination of John F Kennedy was not committed by the long gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but was rather a detailed, organized conspiracy to kill the President. Probably true

    16. The US government allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (eh wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (eg attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks. Probably true.

    17. In July 1947, the US military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico and covered up the fact POSSIBLY true

    18. Princess Diana’s death was not an accident but rather an organised assassination by members of the British royal family who disliked her absolutely. Probably true

    19. The Oklahoma City Bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicols did not act alone but rather received assistance from Neo Nazi groups POSSIBLY true

    20. The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate “research”. ABSOLUTELY false.

    21. The Coca Cola company intentionally changed to an inferior formular with the intent of driving up demand for their classic product, later reintroducing it for their financial gain. Probably true.

    22. I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree Absolutely true.

    1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Disagree 4 Strongly Disagree

    23. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree Strongly agree

    24. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate, unless there is a substantial switch to non-CO2 emitting energy sources. Strongly agree.

    25. I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate. Strongly agree.

    26. The problem of CFC;s is no longer a serious threat to the ozone. Disagree

    27. The problem of acid rain is no longer a serious threat to the global ecosystem. Strongly disagree.

    28. In many ways my life is close to my ideal. I need to go up a pay scale in my bureaucracy and then I will be happy.

    29. The conditions of my life are excellent. I would like more recognition for my work in my bureaucracy and would like a promotion.

    30. I am satisfied with my life. I need to work in a bigger bureaucracy.

    31. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. I have a safe and secure position in a large bureaucracy, what else could I want?

    32. If I could live my life over I would change almost nothing. I wish I had realised all the benefits that can be derived from the global warming industry earlier in my life.

    33. The HIV virus causes AIDS. Probably True

    1 Absolutely True 2 Probably True 3 Probably False 4 Absolutely False

    34. Smoking causes lung cancer. Probably true.

    35. Human CO2 emissions cause climate change. Absolutely true.

    36. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that the HIV Virus causes AIDS. Most of them.

    37. Out of 100 medical students how many do you think believe that smoking causes lung cancer? Most of them.

    38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change? All of them.

    39. Out of 100 people in your neighborhood, how many do you think earn more than you do? I believe in CAGW, so I should earn more of them.

    40. Out of 100 people in your country overall, how many do you think earn more than you do? I believe in CAGW, so I should earn more of them.

    41. What is your age? How old do I look?

    42. What is your gender (M/F) Yes

    What a tedious, ridiculous survey. My apologies for my answers, which are not funny. I just wanted to see if I could get inside the mind of an alarmist – it is not a pretty sight.

    00

  • #

    Jo, Thanks for the excellent and well-written summary, along with the first full list of the questions. There are still some shortcomings that I think have not been fully recognised.

    1. If “climate denial” is on a par with “holocaust” or “smoking” denial, why not start by referencing the clearest statement of the evidence, rather than past opinion surveys? That is, if direct evidence is available, why resort to hearsay evidence?
    2. But if opinion surveys are used, then they should at least be good ones. But the primary references are Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010 (Most climate scientists believe in what they do) and Doran & Zimmerman, 2009 (97% of climate scientists = 75/77 cut from >3000 responses).
    3. Even so, surely the association with NASA Moon Landings was correct? After all, the title is “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.” Not when 93% of all respondents gave it a firm thumbs down.
    4. When Lewandowsky says over >1100 responses, and only talks about those who “reject the science”, it surely implies that all (or at least the vast majority) of responses were from the people he is attacking? Actually, around 15% of responses were from skeptics, in terms of answers to four “climate science” questions. Professional polling organisations in the UK state these figures. But a scientific journal seems not to have insisted.

    5. There are loads of conspiracy theories. But one of the most popular in recent years is something like “Climate denial only exists as a serious force due to significant funding by oil and tobacco interests.” Lewandowsky and his junior partners cannot have missed that one.
    The basic psychology behind this can be found in “The Debunking Handbook” at the skepticalscience website. Here is the justification for lying, ad hom attacks and continued government grants to a failed research program. They know the truth, and are claiming a monopoly of that truth. But to legitimately claim a monopoly it is necessary to show the corollary. The corollary is that every person who disagrees with you is wrong on everything. In empirical sciences this leaves no gap for different interpretations from the same data; no gap for the unexplained; no gap for hypotheses or assumptions to be falsified; and no gap for new data contradicting old data or forecasts. Lewandowsky’s opinion poll applies the truth in the “The Debunking Handbook” to justify one version of climate science having a continued monopoly by showing that opponents are a load of undesirable nutters. It is not just full of gaps. Like past claimants to the throne of dictators of truth, he is more wrong than his detractors.

    00

  • #
    James

    this link has some interesting analysis of lewandowsky’s raw data

    http://belovedaunt.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/lewandowsky.html

    00

  • #
    Anton

    Anyone remember the statement two years ago by Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC that “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”? This was stated in a (German language) interview in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (New Zurich Times) on 14/11/2010. But if you put “Ottmar Edenhofer” into that newspaper’s online search facility, you get three other hits for him but not this interview. It is still on the newspaper’s website at

    http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

    How curious!

    00

    • #
      Mark

      Hey Anton.

      Yes, it’s as well to visit those words of Herr Edenhofer from time to time.

      Mind you, it didn’t stop one of our trolls from attemting to polish those t*rds of words to a high sheen. Utterly futile effort but they tried anyway.

      00

      • #
        Anton

        Hi Mark, it is true that Edenhofer was not commenting on whether the IPCC’s science was rigged, but the quote still makes it crystal clear that the IPCC is political rather than scientific – so that troll was on a loser.

        The IPCC is an organisation that claims to discuss climate scientifically yet is led by a third world railway engineer. How surprising that it wants to take all our hard earned money and give it to third world dictators. Even if you believe that charity should be compulsory rather than voluntary (which is something of an oxymoron), who believes that the peoples of the third world would see any of the money?

        00

      • #
        Anton

        PS Can anybody be bothered pressing the Neue Zürcher Zeitung to reinstate that Edenhofer quote in its search facility? We’re not even asking them to admit skullduggery…

        00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Perhaps worth pointing out that whilst Hanrich was originally listed as a rsearcher with Lewandowsky on this paper, he is NOT listed as one of the papers authors…. Nearly 2 years later. I wonder why, and why the delay in publishing it, as it was being discussed by Lewandowsky, in Sept 2010

    I wonder what the other 2 authors have to say, as they are equally responsible for this paper.

    September issue of the journal must be due out soon.
    Presumably it was going to be in this issue.

    00

  • #

    If you can’t smell the corruption in this Global Statist fraud against the biosphere , your brain is clogged .
    LIVE_FREE !

    00

  • #
    fretslider

    10 conspiracy theorists is undoubtedly greater than one Yamal tree ; )

    00

  • #
    fretslider

    “If your white, male & over 55 (or thereabouts)”

    Jesus wept, I don’t have a male over 55, do you?

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    38. Out of 100 climate scientists how many do you think believe that human CO2 emissions cause climate change?

    Depends which 77 you ask. :-)

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change, Junk scientists and tagged climate fraud, shameless activists, warmist propaganda. Bookmark the permalink. ← Carbon Tax could raise $1.5 Trillion for the US government. No wonder politicians drool over dire predictions. [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    Shevva

    Want to anger up the blood try:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/recursive_denail_fury/

    I’ve been going there commenting for 7 years as an IT monkey, lucky I have no subscription just delete from my favourites and try another IT news site.

    00

  • #
    Ben of Houston

    Junkscience typically has over four pages of links per day, so it’s not really a good candidate for mass media exposure compared to Nova’s or Watt’s one-or-two posts per day sites. I’m a regular there and I certainly don’t recall it.

    00

  • #
    Drewfus

    The value of any consensus is, somewhat paradoxically, only as great as the unlikeliness of it existing. If the the only people who do not believe in CAGW are “right-wing conspiracy theorists”, then the consensus (assuming it exists, for the sake of argument) has no value, or at least no more value than claiming that belief in CAGW is determined by simple common sense, and disbelief only due to the individual being (somewhat) mentally deranged.

    A scientific concensus should be treated like information – such that the quality and thus value of the consensus is proportional to its ‘surprisingness’. When “everyone knows” that CAGW is true, claiming ‘concensus’ ceases to be a strong debating point. The problem for people like Lewandowsky, is that the claim of concensus is also their main debating point. Consequently i think that a better tactic, oddly enough, might actually be to encourage people like Lewandowsky, not try to undermine or contradict them.

    The warmists cannot have it both ways – either the specifics of, and predictions of the CAGW models are a priori unpredictable, and their widespread support only one of multiple scenarios that could have been the case, or, on the other hand, belief in CAGW is so straighforward and obvious, and the competence and honesty of the IPCC scientists so likely, that only a fool would doubt them. But if the latter is true, claiming ‘concensus’ on CAGW carries no greater scientific weight that the statement that the Earth must be spherical because “even a vast majority of the public believe that to be true” – rather than demonstrating this fact by evidence from observations.

    Lewandowsky is not batting for the team he thinks he is. Let’s leave it that way.

    00

  • #

    [...] is probably a later development of the survey behind the Lewandowsky paper. Looking at the actual questionnaire, my comments can be applied to the earlier and shorter [...]

    00

  • #

    The 40 questions behind LOG12 have yet to be fully examined until now. I find that

    the questions were biased to support the view that denial of climate science is due to free-market ideologues who are incapable of evaluating the evidence.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/02/10/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-log12-questionnaire-examined/

    00

  • #

    Psychology is a tool to convince domesticated humans they are “Happy Hominans.”

    http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/best-year-ever/

    Can Lewandowsky erase the message George Orwell tried convey in “1984.”

    http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] It’s a conspiracy Lewandowsky: 10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky JoNova, September 6th, [...]

    00

  • #