JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence”

What can I say? Prof Lewandowsky, expert in conspiracies, thinks we are postulating a conspiracy — but the bad news for him is that we are postulating straight out incompetence, no conspiracy required.

How does Lewandowsky define “conspiracy”? However he wants.

I hate to say I told you so, but I did. Back in May 2010, before Lewandowsky posted his survey, he foresaw the results:

“This attribute of conspiracy theorising applies in full force to the actions of climate “sceptics” who operate outside the peer reviewed literature” [ABC Drum]“

and I foresaw what he would do with them:

“Lewandowsky uses  the name-calling to “poison the well” against people who don’t even believe in a conspiracy [about man-made global warming], but happen to also be skeptical…Jo Nova May 2010

Graham at OnLine Opinion (OLO) has posted Part II of a Fish rots from the Head and it’s quite something to see.

This post will look at the question of what is a conspiracy, and also what constitutes “conspiracist ideation”. The conclusion, just to save you reading to the bottom, is that Lewandowsky has no clear idea so adapts it to what fits his thesis. This is not science because he moves the goal posts to a spot where he will get a positive correlation. It more or less doesn’t matter where he kicks the ball, it will land in the goal because the goal will move to accommodate the ball.

The key point here is that some conspiracies are real, most are not. Those who believe all of them are nutters, but those who believe none are gullible patsy fools. So who has the wand of truth? Who decides what is “real”. As I said in May 2010 “Conspiracy Theorist” is his name-calling fairy dust.

Lewandowsky uses his Magic Fairy Debating Dust to preemptively stop discussions of climate science evidence.  If anyone complains against any mainstream position on anything, he can define whatever it is as  a “conspiracy theory”. Then his omnipotent powers as a cognitive scientist kick in. I quote: “The nature of conspiracy theories and their ultimate fate is reasonably well understood by cognitive scientists”.He who knows can foresee the ultimate fate of all conspiracy theories. A handy talent which could save us doing expensive Royal Commissions, or Supreme Courts, or heck, we could just use this talent to save us the bother of any courts or commissions or investigations at all.

So God and Lewandowsky, apparently, can always tell the difference between a whistle-blower and conspiracy theorist.

The Prof of Psychology chews through the English language, converting the normal use of the word “conspiracy” into something different:

Lewandowsky tries to define conspiracist ideation in terms of belief in “mad” ideas, such as that the moon landing was faked, but by doing this he ends up with a definition that is really only limited to belief in certain conspiracies, not a tendency to believe in conspiracies per se.

What’s the truth and what’s a false conspiracy? There is often no way to know. The conspiracies which made the list appear to be the ones Stephan “knows” are false:

… his first problem is that what he defines as a conspiracy (which in his terms seems to be something which people believe in, but which he doesn’t believe exists) is that there is no objective test of whether the conspiracy exists or not.

So he decides on a subjective basis what is a conspiracy, which means he has no scientific basis for his definition.

Graham makes the astute observations that some conspiracies were not included in the survey.

There is a conspiracy theory that global warming skeptics are funded by big oil. Lewandowsky excludes this from his list. His writings confirm that he believes in this conspiracy. Why isn’t it on the list? The fact that it isn’t indicates that he isn’t interested in “conspiracist ideation” in general, but only specific conspiracies.

Here’s the big money conspiracy Stephan didn’t ask about, that’s posted on hundreds of blogs. Here’s a typical example:

[Stolen documents that are] Revealing to the public the active, vicious, and well-funded campaign of denial that seeks to delay action against climate change likely constitutes a classic public good.

Who believes this baseless line about the big funds that no one can document?  Stephan Lewandowsky (h/t Foxgoose). Any funds sent to Heartland are dwarfed by the money rolling through science, carbon trading and renewables. Who thinks that stealing documents through deception is OK, if it reveals 1% of his pet conspiracy? Professor Lewandowsky.

Who believes that corporate funded media could deceive large segments of the population?

…without vigorous competition and meaningful legal checks, there is no reason why a privately-owned media conglomerate could not create an Orwellian environment that deceives politicians and large segments of the public alike.

Stephan Lewandowsky The Conversation, 29 August 2011

Graham points out that if you only look for “big-government” type conspiracies, but leave out “big-corporate” ones, it’s hardly surprising when you find a link where people who don’t believe official government answers tend not to believe in the biggest big-government theory there is: man-made global warming.

If we looked for people who don’t trust the free market, we’d quite probably also find people who believe big-corporate conspiracies.

——————————————–

 Don’t miss Part II of a Fish rots from the Head. Drop in, read it all, and thank Graham

——————————————-

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

——————————————

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.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (81 votes cast)
Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence”, 9.4 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9369knj

88 comments to Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence”

  • #
    jaymam

    I have been archiving the discussion at shapingtomorrowsworld, in case the moderators there change or delete any comments.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      An Australian scientist [1] noted that iron-rich supernova debris may condense into a superfluid, superconductor surrounding a SN’s pulsar remnant in 1963.

      A Hungarian scientist [2] reported the Sun vibrates like a pulsar in 1977.

      In 2002 it was shown [3] that the link between solar eruptions and climate are consistent with [1,2], with atomic rest-mass data and with numerous other space age measurements.

      This year, 2012, experimental evidence is summarized showing that the Sun made our elements, birthed the world five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, sustains our lives today, and exerts dominant control over Earth’s constantly changing climate [4].

      Links are included so Lewandowsky and his friends in the consensus science community can direct their attention to the experimental data and observations that divide us into believers vs skeptics of the AGW dogma preached by Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

      Their prompt response would be appreciated.

      References:

      [1] B. W. Ninham (1963) “Charged Bose gas in astrophysics”, Physics Letters 4, 278-279

      [2] Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html

      [3] O. K. Manuel, B. W. Ninham and S. E. Friberg, “Super-fluidity in the solar interior:
      Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002). http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/ or Arxiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441.pdf

      [4] O. K. Manuel, ”Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012)
      http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Thanks, Jo, for your comments.

      You are right.

      Oliver


      Report this

      00

  • #
    scooter

    One has to wonder why some conspiracies, e.g. JFK assassinated by CIA, were omitted from the list?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steven Mosher

    Science is about weeding out bad ideas,” he [lewandosky] told The Daily Telegraph.
    “With conspiracy theories, you start out with a theory and stick to it
    no matter what the evidence. So it is not that surprising that conspiracy
    theorists would not accept scientific propositions … If the scientific
    evidence is overwhelming and you don’t
    like the conclusion, you have to find a way to reject those findings.”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dave N

      I would say deliciously ironic, but it’s not delicious at all; Lewandowsky is the epitome of hypocrisy.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If the scientific evidence is overwhelming and you don’t
      like the conclusion, you have to find a way to reject those findings”

      Yep, that is the WAY of the CAGW climate scientist for sure.

      Hide data, hide decline, hide.. hide… hide….


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Winston

      Science is about weeding out bad ideas

      Absolutely correct- but that would then suggest that climate realists aka skeptics are by Lewandowsky’s own definition following the highest ideals of true scientists, since they are weeding out bad ideas not supported by facts (CAGW, and with its cousin AGW in the wings waiting its turn if the ongoing data continues to fail to correlate)- note the fate of Shakun et al and the Gergis paper and Mann’s Hockey stick as examples of bad science being weeded out and shredded for good measure, (and most importantly) even if AGW turns out eventually to be vindicated, then this “running the gauntlet” is an extremely good and essential practice in order to test the validity of papers presented, both pro and con.

      With conspiracy theories, you start out with a theory and stick to it no matter what the evidence

      You mean exactly like alarmists believing in the “Big Oil funded, organised conspiracy” of skeptics, which is clearly at odds with the facts no matter which side you are on, and yet they still cling to the idea like driftwood after a shipwreck.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Real conspiracies happen.

      But by using the normal methods of scientific inquiry one would use to examine and test any hypothesis, one can sort evidence for a real phenomena from delusional paranoid fantasies.

      What’s the truth and what’s a false conspiracy? There is often no way to know.

      A real conspiracy is one that’s not an unprovable “theory.” It is demonstrable fact or is in the process of being exposed, because there is evidence for the conspiracy rather than lack of evidence for there NOT being a conspiracy.

      A false conspiracy is a conspiracy theory that is an unverifiable allegation, often based on a bit of circumstantial evidence and heaps of LACK of evidence to the contrary.

      As a general rule a conspiracy is called a “conspiracy theory” because it’s an unfalsifiable narrative loitering at the fringes of popular culture. It needs the word “theory” tacked on to lend an air of rational authority that it otherwise lacks.

      A real conspiracy is just called a conspiracy or a scheme or collusion or a racket.

      From a dictionary… conspiracy theory: “a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.” The key words being “belief” and “unexplained.”

      When someone makes an allegation that someone else is responsible for an unexplained event, usually a crime, but “there is often no way to know” if the claim is true — that is called an unsubstantiated allegation and in some jurisdictions might also be slander. But when that unsubstantiated allegation takes the praxis of a vague narrative expressed as a conspiracy theory it is a cognitive parasite which feeds on ignorance and paranoia. It has its own life cycle often completely divorced from the evidence.

      It is important to acknowledge is there really is cognitive parasite called “conspiracy theory”, it’s a genre or mode of narrative-creation that follows a general logical structure and only exists when certain boundary conditions are met.

      By comparing conspiracy theories we would find similar characteristics, modes of thinking, logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques are employed by all true conspiracy theories.

      We have to be able to systematic identify false conspiracy theories by their cognitive failures of reasoning and rhetorical style of argument, precisely because they born only where there is a gap in our knowledge.

      A proposition that can’t be tested and would be rejected by the methods of rational inquiry, ie the scientific method, for lack of supporting evidence is simply a failed hunch.

      But an untestable conspiracy theory is much more sinister than a hunch that can’t be proven.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Wes,

        I think it is actually simpler than that:

        First some definitions:

        conspiracy n. The action or act of conspiring; (a) combination of people for an unlawful or reprehensible purpose; an agreement to so combine, a plot.
        and
        conspire 1. v.i. Combine secretly for an unlawful or reprehensible purpose, esp. treason, murder, or sedition; combine in action or aim; cooperate by or as by intention 2 v.t. Plot (something unlawful, evil, or hostile).
        and
        sedition n. 1. Violent strife between factions (usu. political); an instance of this; 2. A concerted movement to overthrow an established government; a revolt, a rebellion, a mutiny; 3. Conduct or language inciting people to rebellion or a breach of public order; agitation against the constituted authority of a State.

        From this we can see that a conspiracy: a) requires a number of people – you cannot have a conspiracy of one; b) there must be a common prior agreement as to the action or aims – they all collectively take part in has been agreed – no fellow-travelers; and c) the agreed action must be a capital crime such as treason, murder, or sedition.

        The thing that stands out though from these definitions is that it is the Climate Scientists themselves who are guilty of conspiracy, in that they have a consensus – an agreement, they all collectively take part, and they use language that incites sections of the general populace – the so-called sceptics – to seditiously speak out against state-sanctioned Climate Science.

        It is the Climate Scientists who have the conspiracy. It is they who are the conspirators. Accusing the sceptics is no more than a weak smokescreen.

        Lewandowsky needs to be called on this. He must either admit that his knowledge of English is pitifully poor, or that his choice of words was deliberately intended to smear those with whom he disagrees.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          lawrie

          The conspiracy seems to be with the supporters of CAGW and the nutters people like the professor. I am astounded that he holds a responsible teaching position and that a serious university would pay him. If this is an example of modern education we are in big strife.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      Stephen,
      To be exact, conspiracy theories, can explain every anomaly. When faced with evidence that contradicts the theory, it is the evidence that is changed. In Popper’s terms it is non-falsifiable. A bit like climate science as presented at skepticalscience.com


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Naivety and arrogance.

    Naivety that Lewandowsky doesn’t seem to have considered that CAGW sceptics everywhere would be all over his paper and the context of it.

    Arrogance that he insists on characterizing his own incompetence as someone else’s conspiracy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      As a personal note, with something dear to my heart, I think I have had an epiphany as to why this bloke gets up my nose quite so much:

      Just what does it say about this Professor of Cognitive Science’s priorities, currently living in the era of possibly the greatest neuro-cognitive catastrophe and evolving emergency to afflict our children in human history, namely the explosion in childhood autism, a severe neuro-cognitive disorder with as yet no known cause and no known cure??

      In spite of that, this sophist believes that his time, reputed intellect and energies are best spent trying to pseudo-psychoanalyse a bunch of climate skeptics by running such a poorly constructed and illogically conceived questionnaire (and among groups of non-skeptics at that), while an issue so pressing and of the utmost priority to the health and wellbeing of humanity at large goes largely unattended within his own field is utterly mind-boggling, and reflects poorly on his lack of professionalism and absence of moral centre.

      It is little wonder that many of the greatest challenges facing humanity go unresolved, when [snip - mod] like Stefan waste their extensive education, their time and our tax dollars on such utter useless and baseless drivel while more important issues go begging.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Understand your frustration Winston.

        The situation with autism which you describe seems to be a problem with no details available to act on.

        Difficult.

        There is another scenario with information being available but which I believe is not getting the public attention it deserves.

        I believe that early spontaneous abortion and rates of children born with problems has risen dramatically in recent decades.

        There seems little doubt that a large proportion of this human pain is linked to foetal alcohol syndrome about which a great deal is known but which for some reason is not commonly acted on by the public.

        I recall a couple of years ago seeing a newspaper article discussion this problem.

        Several female doctors from Melbourne were debating how much alcohol it was safe to drink during pregnancy.

        Eventually they reached a consensus that one or two standard drinks a day would be safe.

        So it seems to be human to want to feel safe in the consensus of the group rather than look at established factual research and apply it, regardless of consequences.

        I have little doubt that a lot of human misery could be avoided if ALL pregnant women drank NO alcohol at any time during pregnancy.

        Those are the established facts and you have to wonder at the fact that this is such a secret.

        Why is it not possible to create a CONSENSUS among all women who intend to be pregnant that they would find it OK to let go of alcohol for a year or so?

        What sort of community are we that fails to inform and fails to support this group?

        What sort of community are we that values the sale of alcohol above avoiding human suffering?

        KK


        Report this

        10

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    It is, perhaps, instructive that Stephan Lewandowsky is a perfect anagram for Phantasy-Slewed Wonk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I’d add that the CAGW industry is the worst example of noble cause corruption I’ve seen in my time in science.

    I know from personal experience that scientists go into science to make an impact, and usually to improve the lot of the human race. The price for that hitherto has been to be poor and financially insecure. But now a cause has come along where you not only can make an impact but can save the world and get rich in doing so.

    That the world does not need saving from human produced CO2 is a minor annoyance.

    The political aspects are a cherry on top. Naomi Klein from last year wrote:

    Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”

    Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.

    When you have a politically very active group of society allied to a pack of (overwhelmingly lefty) public sector scientists with a save the world complex, all of whom are getting rich thereby, why do you need a conspiracy theory? Scientists are trained to cherry pick data and write grant applications to argue black is white. I know this from experience. When the success rate for ARC grant applications is 10% and has been so for at least the last 40 years you can see why there is such a driving impetus to wrap grant applications around the latest fad. If you don’t, you don’t get the money, you don’t get the publications and you don’t get the associate lectureship. You end up driving taxis. Hence many climate scientists are CAGW types: this is just natural selection in action.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Poor old Lewandowsky. He’s just met la belle dame sans merci. Never mind, it’ll grow him up finally. Then again, he might never get over the encounter …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QE5j5yIYo

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The scary thing about the Lewandowsky syndrome is this;

    he is not solely responsible for how he behaves.

    He only acts like this BECAUSE HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

    The really scary bit is understanding why he gets way with it and why he has community support

    (Greens – UWA – Lab) and media backing.

    He is useful to politicians and BIG business which is milking the CO2 AGW thing for all it’s worth.

    He lives in a community that “supports” his behaviour.

    KK :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Lewandowsky suffers from the same delusion as many of his fellows in the world of CAGW academia.
    As compliant ‘mistresses’ or eromenos of the ruling political and economic classes, they all believe that they are ‘untouchable’, having been issued with a ‘Platinum Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free’ card.
    But who can blame them?
    Despite ‘Climate Gate’, ‘Himalaya Gate’, ‘Gleick Gate’, ‘Amazon SKS Gate’ and a veritable, multitude of other promiscuous portals they still get to flounce around as ever, seemingly untouched by the scandal of their increasingly embarrassing behaviour.

    A bit of advice; they should check that card; it has an expiry date!

    When mistresses and eromenoses lose their attraction they often end up being discarded by their patrons.

    Life can be brutal for some and, for most in that unhappy situation, that is deeply depressing.
    As to the remainder, well you got what you deserved!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Lemon

    The thing Jo… is that his assumption is fallacious.
    Climate Sceptics are typically, cynical, capitalist, quite well educated, taxpayers, probably with studies in economics, business and traditional science.
    Conspiracy nutbars, i.e. CIA committed 911 and CIA killed Kennedy and vaccines cause cancer are typically left lugnuts (ie Oliver Stone and Rosie O’Donnell) with, if any, an arts education.
    This guy with the very basis of his… publication… proves himself to be of the latter.
    If I still had time to fill with climate blogging (Canadian Blue Lemons) I’d create a balance sheet of skeptical vs alarmist blog editors and compare their educations.
    Desmog – as an example – are pure environmental journalists – the nearest scientist to the gang is Suzuki who of course denies any connect, although his foundation (which he denies any connection to although his wife and daughter are the CEO and Chair) finances Desmog.
    This study, at least, can be built from published web profiles, not for a halfast web poll which can easily be desmirched.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “although his foundation (which he denies any connection to although his wife and daughter are the CEO and Chair”

      Suzuki.. now there is a guy who has gone seriously wonky !!!!! Nuttier than a packet of peanuts !!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    manalive

    It’s a pleasure (and a relief) to read sane, lucid, cogent and concise articles like Graham Young’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile, over at Science on NBCNews.com conspiracies are everywhere!

    Quality scientific reasoning & method at it’s best.

    Part 1: I have a theory about a conspiracy to perpetuate a global warming conspiracy theory.

    “Believing that climate change isn’t happening or that it’s not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper.”

    Part 2: Here’s what I think you think.

    So Lewandowsky and his colleagues created an online survey and asked eight mostly *pro-science blogs and five *climate-skeptic blog to post a link to the survey for their readers.

    The responses came only from the eight *pro-science blogs, the researchers reported.

    * the ‘bias’ implication is noted.

    Part 3: It’s conclusive, just as we suspected.

    The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up.

    Part 4: You have a question? (disclaimer)

    You must prove I sent the survey email, or maybe my ‘helper’ sent it. My mail out list is private.
    Either way, the onus is on you to disprove email was received.

    Any questions will be treated as evidence of a conspiracy, confirming & reinforcing the the theory outlined in Part1.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Stephanie Pappas is senior writer for MSNBC LiveScience, and is regularly published in Scientific American, which is owned by Nature Publishing Group, which is owned by Macmillan Publishers Ltd, which is owned by Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group in Germany:

    7 Sept: MSNBC LiveScience: Stephanie Pappas: Those with conspiracy beliefs apt to deny global warming, too
    And study that showed evidence of this sparks talk about — yep — another conspiracy
    A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs…
    “(F)or some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted,” wrote Anthony Watts, who blogs on the popular climate skepticism website Watts Up With That?
    Climate change conspiracy
    Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to “believe in” global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers. [ 10 Climate Change Myths Busted ]
    Believing that climate change isn’t happening or that it’s not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper…
    Climate psych controversy
    Unsurprisingly, the results did not please climate-skeptic bloggers, some of whom responded by accusing Lewandowsky of not attempting to contact them at all. In an email to Lucia Liljegren, who blogs at The Blackboard, Lewandowsky declined to name the bloggers he emailed, citing privacy concerns.
    In response, Liljegren wrote, “I think who Lewandowsky contacted will reveal whether he really even tried to conduct a balanced survey,” urging other bloggers to publicly give permission for Lewandowsky to reveal their names. The researcher told DeSmogBlog that he has contacted his university’s ethics committee to find out if he is allowed to do so.
    In the meantime, Simon James, who blogs at Australian Climate Madness, has submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Western Australia in an effort to force the release of emails related to the study, and prominent climate-change skeptic Steve McIntyre has urged readers to email the university with academic misconduct complaints.
    McIntyre later reported that an email search turned up a request from one of Lewandowsky’s collaborators…
    “(T)o our knowledge, our results are the first to provide empirical evidence for the correlation between a general construct of conspiracist ideation and the general tendency to reject well-founded science,” Lewandowsky and his colleagues concluded. Psychological research has found that conspiracy beliefs are hard to dislodge, they wrote, but efforts to debunk multiple lines of conspiratorial reasoning at once may help.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48947384/ns/technology_and_science-science/

    Stephanie knows what her various and many bosses want to publish, it would seem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    have seen a couple of sceptics commenting how they are unhappy about this UK Register piece, especially as Register writer, Andrew Orlowski, who usually wrote about CAGW, used to be open to questioning the science and the politics:

    7 Sept: UK Register: Richard Chirgwin: Climate denier bloggers sniff out new conspiracy
    Moon landing faked ∴ climate science faked ∴ study of conspiracy believers faked
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/recursive_denail_fury/

    Chirgwin is Australian. he gets to write for the Register, yet his blog threads rarely get a comment – maximum is 3 comments bashing Gina Rinehart:

    Richard Chirgwin’s Blog
    http://chirgwin.blogspot.com.au/

    Chirgwin is a bit of a mystery man, but found this:

    Market Clarity: Australia’s source for Telecommunications Intelligence
    Biography – Richard Chirgwin
    Richard’s career highlights include 7 years as managing editor of Australian Communications (later relaunched as CommsWorld), launch editor of Comms.Network (for Reed Business Publishing), e-Access (for Auscom Publishing) and Systems Magazine (for Informa). He is a long-time columnist for Decisive Publishing’s Communications Day.
    Richard’s research and writing experience includes research publications, news stories, technology educational feature articles and white papers, business and market analysis, interviews, and case studies.
    http://www.marketclarity.com.au/about/richard.cfm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Orlowski is still at the Register:

    2 pages: 4 Sept: Register: Andrew Orlowski: Eco-nomics: Was Stern ‘wrong for
    the right reasons’ … or just wrong?
    Perhaps greens just aren’t the good guys
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/beyond_stern_climate_morality/

    however, i don’t go along with Steve McIntyre’s seeming contradictory views in this interview and report on his recent visit to London where he gave a talk “at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, an event hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation”:

    2 Pages: 17 Aug: Register: Andrew Orlowski: McIntyre: Climate policy crippled by pointless feel-good gestures
    CO2 is rising, so let’s get busy with cheaper-than-coal low-carbon energy
    Leading climate blogger Steve McIntyre says policy makers are failing to prepare the public for climate change and have become obsessed with “petty acts of virtuous behaviour” instead. He also told The Register that computer
    scientists should form “tiger teams” to produce engineering-grade analysis of climate models, to counter skepticism about the mathematical modelling…
    Asked by climate scientist Richard Betts of the Met Office, an IPCC author, if he saw more hope for the UN panel, McIntyre replied: “Much of the report was drivel, probably most of it. The fact there are a few sensible observations aren’t enough to repay the effort.”…
    By far the most contentious statement was the one referred to earlier – that policy makers should accept the base IPCC scenarios. Why believe a word they say, asked several questioners? “Until it mends its ways, policy makers are stuck with it,” said McIntyre…
    His remark suggested that the politics was a priori to the science. This is important because the self-selecting and unpaid nature of the IPCC process saw the more sceptical scientists, such as Lindzen and Christy ,give up participating after the IPCC’s 2001 AR3 report, leaving a “consensus” to
    solidify and a cosy review process among pals to replace peer review. Was Christy’s idea of Red Teams, earmarking funds for a critical tear-down of models and projections, part of the answer?
    McIntyre replied that he had advocated Red Teams before, with his co-author Ross McKitrick…
    (ORLOWSKI’S FINAL PARA) Maybe now is the time to implement the idea. Although, and no prizes to readers for pointing this out, a model merely crunches numbers quickly and is only as good as the assumptions made, and if our knowledge of climate forces and feedbacks is limited, the model will be too.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/17/mcintyre_in_london/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Those with a conspiracist ideation tend to rationalize any adverse information or anomalies. An example is that, despite the basis of Mann’s original “Hockey Stick” having being refuted by Steve McIntyre on a number of different levels it is still correct as twelve subsequent studies come up with the same conclusion.
    The adverse of this type of conspiracist is the scientist, who recognizes the anomalies between the totality of our understanding and the information available. The genuine scientist may extend out knowledge, but the great ones come away realizing how little we actually know.

    I also noticed something in common with the JFK assassination (per the Oliver Stone Movie) and the 9/11 conspiracy. There is a belief in the ability of a group of individuals to control an unfolding set of events with disparate sub-plots, that is essentially chaotic to bystanders. That I find not too dissimilar to a belief that a central authority can have the knowledge or detached interest to rationally plan economic activity.
    The adverse of this type of conspiracist is the libertarian.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross James

      The Hockey Stick controversy is yet another conspiracy urban myth perpetrated by anti-warmists. The sudden jump in temperatures is backed by numerous studies all confirming unprecedented global warming over the 1995 to 2012 record. A careful examination of McIntyres study only indicates limited capping – the hockey stick graph spike reamined even after McIntyre’s findings.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

      This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the 2nd millennium. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
      It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.
      For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average. Also, each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap. The variance (i.e. the scale of fluctuations) was not adjusted (except in one case noted below).

      It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jaymez

        You still hanging on to Mann’s Hockey Stick Ross? There can’t be too many of you left. I see you weren’t game to actually link to the Hockey Stick on it’s own which made the MWP and LIA disappear, instead you preferred to link to the cluster of reconstructions from various sources which grouped together and including error bars would allow you to embrace just about any conclusion about temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

        Mann’s Hockey Stick has been falsified and his methodology is not being used by any credible scientist in current temperature reconstructions. Which is a pretty good test of whether his work was any good.

        Here is a pretty straight forward read which gives you a fairly forensic falsifying of Mann’s graph without even having to get into his corrupt statistical methodology. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross James

          So Jaymez, When we look a J Daly’s chart up to 2000 of the IPCC 1990 report we see old data with no rising temperature records of the past 12 years!

          If only. If only we could go back to 2000. However it is rather baseless. Your conspiracy exists. You then prove that indeed you believe in this particular conspiracy. Scientists – nearly all of them have corrupted the temperature records since 2000 accordingly!

          This is much like saying the moon landing never happened.

          You say the temperature rises since post 1998 never happened. Yet nearly 99% of all reconstructed global temperature charts prove indeed the hockey stick was a very real estimate of how temperatures rises would transpire. In fact the reality of how things are right now exist for anyone with a cursory knowledge of multiple studies and reconstructions.

          So we have come full circle and the non-warming antics of a conspiracy are upheld. It is you who then hold to this urban myth – not myself. The non-existence of a hockey stick is a non-scientific provable URBAN myth. The folklore of anti-warmest bloggers worldwide.

          _______
          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Winston

            The upshot is Ross, 12 trees in Yamal (cherry-picked out of hundreds) with 1 outlier skewing the results, does not make “proof” of Mann’s Hockey stick at all. Discarding those same proxies when they failed to match the desired upswing in the temperature record and grafting a differently derived set of numbers onto it is not “science” by any comparator I’m familiar with, and if that is the standard by which you claim climate science is to be judged, then we find that “standard” unacceptable and the methodology invalid- certainly not something to base complete geopolitical transformation of our society upon.

            I’m sure paleontologists defended Piltdown man with equal vigour, and it only took them 50 years to admit that misdirection. You are unfortunately a zealot, Ross, who wishes to shoot the messenger- and the message is that the techniques upon which you rely to advance your theory do not have an acceptable level of competence, transparency and validity to withstand scrutiny. So, don’t whinge to us that you are being held to account. The scientists you are defending are not worthy of your defence.

            As to the current uptick in global temperatures (totally predictable and expected if you look at the geological record), on a historical scale (even within the last 10,000 years) these are trivial, added to which the flimsiest of evidence to suggest that it is even possible for future rises to be even remotely harmful to mankind, and quite possibly a considerable benefit to agriculture and the general liveability of the planet as a whole. It was after all a similar environment to the worst case scenarios feasible under the CAGW theory that supported the largest beasts to roam the earth and one of the most thriving biospheres in history in the Jurassic period when CO2 was at around 1200ppm or above.

            I would also argue that the global political actions associated with your religion actually will in the end be totally counter-productive and entrench the fossil fuel industry even further by being utterly premature and precipitous, rather than replace it with viable “environmentally friendly” approaches to energy generation, with no country likely to be sufficiently advanced or economically viable within 50 years to promote alternative technology (if you remove the foundations, Ross, you can’t build a house on it, and like it or not plentiful power from fossil fuels is the foundation upon which future progress in energy generation MUST be built).

            Just as a hypothetical Ross- ask yourself this- If you want an initiative to fail, wouldn’t one of the best possible ways be to promote it before it is viable, negate all the other forms of energy that might support it and make energy generation diversified to be more economically feasible and practical (eg take note of the trend away from Hydro and Nuclear, both of which are CO2 neutral) and watch it fall over because the economics of it are untenable? This is what the oil companies want I believe, and it is also what the Greens want- but for different reasons, one predatory and the other Malthusian. Neither group have the betterment of humanity in mind and yet are backing this approach to the hilt- ever wonder why? As more and more of these castles made of sand fall over (Solyndra etc), when are you going to admit you have been had, Ross? And the pity is that the noble ideal that you desire is further away because of a false creed that defeated itself by not rigidly adhering to scientific principles and remain objective in its desire to legitimise itself.


            Report this

            00

  • #

    It is pointless trying to reason with an irrational man.

    Professor Münchhausen has never demonstrated that he is capable of rational thought. He won’t even do what would be honourable and commit Gergiscide to protect the reputation of the University.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernie Kelly

    I have this (conspiracy) theory that The Prof is a mole planted at UWA years ago by WUWT, Bishop Hill and Big Tobacco and Oil, and run by Jo Nova through coded messages in this website. Think about it. The kind of papers that The Prof publishes could only harm the CAGW cause by ironically demonstrating the very same claims that “skeptics” i.e. real scientists have been making about “the science” for years.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Bernie,

      I don’t think it’s any secret that the sceptic case has been repeatedly bolstered by the sheer idiotic stupidity of the AGW fanatics.

      Lookup 10:10 as one example of many.

      Seriously, with Lewadonskys’ scientific “rigor” being used to try and instil confidence in their position, we can’t lose.

      We just need to draw attention to their stupidity – and what it is costing all of us.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Twodogs

    Wait, don’t alarmists believe in the big coal conspiracy to deny global warming?

    Hoisted by their own petard!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    did a bit of a search on “Stilgherrian” one of the very few to comment on Richard Chirgwin’s blog and he is all over the MSM, yet i’ve never heard of him and his blog has almost no comments as well.

    Stilgherrian lives in Chirgwin’s Bunjaree Cottages in the Blue Mountains. small world:

    Stilgherrian: About
    (This is written in the third person to make it easier for you to copy if you’re writing about me…)
    Stilgherrian is freelance writer and broadcaster usually based in Sydney but currently living at Bunjaree Cottages near Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains. He covers the intersection of technology, politics and the media for ZDNet Australia, Crikey, Technology Spectator, CSO Online, the ABC’s Drum Opinion, the Sydney Morning Herald, his own website and others…
    After studying computing science and linguistics at the University of Adelaide, Stilgherrian became a broadcaster, first with Radio 5UV (now Radio Adelaide) and then as a producer and presenter with ABC Radio…
    http://stilgherrian.com/about_stilgherrian/

    Stilgherrian Blog: Photo: Chirgwin with Chainsaw: Bunjaree Cottages proprietor Richard Chirgwin observes all safety precautions — although technically this photograph, actually a frame grab from a video, belongs to last week as it was taken on 25 March…
    http://stilgherrian.com/?s=chirgwin

    will give u a taste of Stilgherrian in a second post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    11 March 2010: Stilgherrian: ABC chair Newman out of line on climate change
    Even if you have doubts, the risk analysis is so simple even a merchant banker and “close personal friend of John Howard” could understand it. If you don’t get it in that 10-minute video, try the follow-up.
    The risk of not acting on real climate change vastly outweighs the risk of having spent money on addressing climate change which then turns out to be false — because the worst that’ll happen is we end up with a safer, more efficient society anyway.
    Or if an amateur video isn’t your thing, try today’s piece in The Drum, Climate debate: opinion vs evidence, where Stephan Lewandowsky explains why your notion of “balance” is just plain wrong.
    And once you’ve done that, Mr Newman, butt out…
    http://stilgherrian.com/politics/abc-chair-newman-out-of-line-on-climate-change/

    too foolish to excerpt, yet he surely gets paid by ZDNet!

    27 Aug: ZDNet: Stilgherrian: Geo-engineering: fixing climate for just US$6 billion
    http://www.zdnet.com/au/geo-engineering-fixing-climate-for-just-us6-billion-7000003199/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    on topic for once! several comments on WUWT Lewandowsky thread make the point that there is no need whatsoever for Lewandowsky to get permission to state which sceptical blogs rejected participating in his nonsense. all he needs to do is publish his alleged emails from himself, Hanich or anyone else to the sceptic websites. he needs no permission whatsoever to do that.

    and our price is $23/tonne!!! still, they are planning on changing their rules too:

    7 Sept: Reuters: Fewer than expected bid for cap-and-trade emission permits
    Nine states in the northeastern U.S. cap-and-trade system sold 24.6 million carbon emission allowances at a minimum bid price of $1.93 per ton, selling just 65 percent of permits offered, the program’s administrator said Friday…
    All 22 bidders were seeking the permits to comply with regulations – either electric sector utilities or their affiliates…
    In previous auctions, some non-compliance entities, such as banks buying for speculative reasons or green groups looking to retire the permits, have played a larger role.
    The RGGI is a cap-and-trade system targeting electric sector emissions in nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states from Maine to Maryland…
    RGGI states are currently engaged in reviewing the program and are expected to recommend changes this year, which could include tightening its emissions cap…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/usa-emissions-market-idUSL2E8K7BYM20120907

    7 Sept: Reuters Point Carbon: EUA-CER spread hits 4-yr high as offsets tumble
    The premium EU carbon permits fetch over U.N.-backed carbon credits reached its highest level since July 2008 on Friday as traders sold offsets fearing that a deluge of supply will rise to a flood.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1980491


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Tel

      Whether he sent emails is completely irrelevant to the survey results. What matters is whether the survey was advertised on skeptical blogs, and that is a simple matter of public record. Ignore the “privacy” excuse, it is nothing more than a red herring.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    “Step right up folks, today I hold here the cure to all the ills of modern society. My magic elixir contains special ingredients from the famed scientists Mann, Jones and Karoly. The lewandowsky elixir cures such things as skepticism, reason and logic. To taste the wonder of my elixir it takes just one dollar(at regular intervals from the public purse). Form an orderly queue and get the lewandowsky elixir here and soon you will be released from all of the worries caused by rationality, science and human advancement.”

    As those above point out, why is it that simple folk like journalists and politicians have so much trouble picking out the snake oil salesman?


    Report this

    00

  • #

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave Sivyer

    If we put aside the connotations of conspiracy, is it reasonable to consider the congruence of the AGW mob outputs as being the result of Chaos?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Never assume conspiracy when mere stupidity will suffice as an explanation. Words to live by.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I think he was misquoted, he obviously meant to say:

    “Without vigorous competition and meaningful legal checks, there is no reason why a small, self-imposed, ‘scientific’ elite embedded within government bureaucracies could not create an Orwellian environment that deceives politicians and large segments of the public alike.”

    Stephan Lewandowsky The Conversation, 29 August 201


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Anthony Watts has details of a genuine, but minor, conspiracy in the broader sense of

    a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

    That conspiracy was, earlier this year to produce lots of 5* book reviews for Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, and to get adverse reviews removed. It was organized by through the skepticalscience.com community.

    Watts reposts a comment I made earlier in the year:-

    manicbeancounter says: February 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Stephen Lewandowsky’s 5 star review is revealing.

    “This is a partisan book. It does not attempt to be “balanced” by adding a lie to the truth and dividing by two.”

    Lewandowsky assumes the essential truth of the hockey stick, and whatever Mann says as gospel. It goes a lot into attacking Congressman Barton, and detailing the support for the hockey stick from academic bodies.

    Read it and wonder why 50 out of 69 people found this helpful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    It amazes me that a professor of psychology who declares himself an expert in recognising cognitive defects when it comes to conspiracy theorists cannot see that he is himself caught in a loop where he thinks all those who are unconvinced that humans are causing catastrophic global warming (CAGW), must be funded by the fossil fuel industry, or must be conspiracy theorists – which as Jo points out, is a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on his part.

    It is worrying that his fellow academics have so readily swallowed his position, as have the peer reviewers, and the Psychological Science Journal. Is no-one in academia capable of independent, logical thinking any more, or do they all suffer from confirmation bias?

    If Lewandowsky had done real research he would have discovered that it is true skeptics, who tend to do what the Royal Society recommend, that is take no-ones word, and check for themselves. Skeptics tend to be the ones who either de-bunk or prove conspiracy theories over time. It certainly isn’t those people who accept the position from authority – “trust us, we know what we are doing”!

    We know that there are many current conspiracy theories which persist despite having been disproved, which some one somewhere believes. Whether it be about 9/11 or moon landings, but a naturally skeptical person is the last person who would normally believe in such a disproved conspiracy theory. Lewandowsky makes the obvious mistake of implying that every conspiracy theory is/was without foundation. He needs that to be so, to give his so-called research some foundation. But as pointed out by others he failed to discuss in his paper the many conspiracy theories which actually turned out to be true.

    Jonathan Elinoff has compiled ’33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know…’ which makes for interesting reading. I haven’t validated all of those 33 listed, but on a quick pass, they all appear genuine. So does Lewandowsky think that those who believed in those ‘conspiracy theories’ were ‘deniers’ who were suffering some sort of cognitive dysfunction?

    The existence of conspiracy theories which actually turn out to be true, doesn’t suit Lewandowsky’s paper at all. Why is it no academic, no climate scientist and no journalist who happily published Lewandowsky’s ‘findings’ gave this point any thought?

    But I can easily add to Jonathan Elinoff’s list of conspiracy theories which turned out to be true just by taking a few moments to think about what may have been considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ in it’s time, often by the scientific or political and academic hierarchy, only to have been proven to be true at a later date. Of course they are not remembered as conspiracy theories now, because they are known to be true, but at the time, believers in them were considered to be mad men, deniers, skeptics, tin hat wearers etc. The sort of people Professor Lewandowsky is trying to denigrate. So here is my list:

    1. Human ancestors were apes.
    2. The Germans were systematically killing Jews.
    3. The Japanese had plans to invade the Pacific.
    4. Russia was planning to erect a wall cutting off East Berlin.
    5. Islamic Terrorists were planning a major attack on the US.
    6. Islamic Terrorists were planning a major attack on London.
    7. The British deliberately exposed Australian and British Servicemen and Aboriginal people to Atomic Bomb Tests
    8. The Catholic Church deliberately covered up sex crimes.
    9. Mayor financial institutions were gaming the system leading to the global financial crisis.
    10. Financial institutions were deliberately lending more than properties were really worth, and borrowers could afford with sub-prime loan schemes.
    11. In many cities around the world there have been major paedophile rings operating involving politicians, police, judges, lawyers, and other professionals.
    12. Climate scientists conspired to influence the peer review system.
    13. Climate scientists conspired to avoid scrutiny of data and coding.
    14. The IPCC used thousands of non-peer reviewed sources in the climate reports.
    15. The Australian Reserve Bank subsidiary Securency was paying millions of dollars in bribes around the world to get currency printing business.
    16. The Australian Wheat Board was paying bribes to Saddam Hussein and/or his associates.
    17. The Western Australian Labor Government during the time of Premier Brian Bourke, was doing under the table deals with many corporate entities for personal and Labor party gain, later known as WA Inc.
    18. All Unions have slush funds (as testified by Julia Gillard).
    19. Pakistan Cricketers were cheating.
    20. There were a network of ex-Nazis which escaped with a great deal of wealth to Argentina.

    I’ll stop at a round 20, but I’m sure you get my point, which is that at some point all of these were considered unproven conspiracy theories, only to be found to be true either through the work of whistle blowers, researchers, or the event happening and it becoming self evident. So as Jo Nova points out so well, Prof Lewandowsky’s characterisation that believers in conspiracy theories must automatically be nut jobs, discounts all those relevant skeptics who simply look for the evidence!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bobl

    Incompetent: Yes, Unscientific: Yes – Supposedly the good Professor is commenting on the Psychology of a group of people he has never studied by conducting a survey of the opinions of people that don’t on the whole belong to the group he wants to Study.

    Perhaps then we should proffer a survey of the opinions of groups of other people into the Incompetence of UWA Psychology Professors, and send it to the Vice Chancellor of UWA, as a convenient study of what happens when you insult – what it it now – about 65% of the Australian Population.

    I wrote this once before – lack of support for measures against AGW requires one and only one of the following views to be held

    1. AGW doesn’t exist – admittedly a very minority view.
    2. AGW does exist but feedbacks are negative, neutral or mildly positive – no need for “Action”
    3. Throwing away 100 Billion dollars on a 0.00025 degree reduction in temperature rise is unwise
    4. A rise in CO2 and Temperature is good for us plants grow better and give us more oxygen- They don’t call them climate optimums for nothing you know
    5. The Quadrillion dollars a year required to “Solve CAGW” by mitigation is orders of magnitude more than installing a better airconditioner (adaption)
    6. You believe in CAGW but think money is better spent on Pensioners, Curing Cancer and Education

    The Problem for the Professor is that given CAGW is a Cult, driven by a belief system – same as his belief – Conversion is generally a one way affair – from belief in the Cult to scepticism. Anyone I know that has seriously looked at the math always ends up on the Sceptic side. Public opinion has followed this trend, as the public has become more informed, support has waned – Precisely because it only requires belief of one of the opinions above – I by the way hold all but the first.

    Many supporters of “The Cult” support it because they genuinely believe they are doing good. But Contrast the wasting of Billions on Green Schemes with the fact that the Australian Government wont fund the building of a Proton Beam Cancer treatment center at the University of Woolongong. A Treatment that recent gave Cancer Suffer 2 year old Jayden Stone in Lewandowsky home state of WA hope in his battle against cancer – Instead Jayden had to raise funds to travel to the USA to be treated. What should it be ” Proton Treatment in Australia or 0.000025 degree temperature reduction over 100 years? Choose Lewandowsky?

    BTW. Right now I’m in Perth I’d like to offer myself up as a study subject for Lewandowsky to understand the basis of my pathological scepticism of the need for “Action” on Climate Change. Challenge for Lewandowsky – prove I am not rational. Come-on Prof – are you up to it?


    Report this

    00

    • #
    • #
      Jaymez

      Not sure that you meant to say you believe in point 6. ‘CAGW’ versus ‘AGW’. There is a big difference. I certainly have seen no convincing evidence without accepting a few unproven assumptions, that anthropogenic warming could be ‘catastrophic’. So anyone who believes in that would be doing it on blind faith.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Debbie

        I think the point is valid Jaymez.
        There are people who do have that blind faith but also believe that the money could and should be spent on other more worthwhile goals.
        But, your ‘blind faith’ with no evidence comment is also valid.
        It’s the C in CAGW that requires blind faith.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, Probably AGW would be better but in all degrees, including a CAGW belief. I contend that there must be a portion of the population that believe there are bigger fish to fry first, even if CAGW were possible. For example takes into account those who might believe CAGW is centuries off and therefore we can afford to cure cancer and protect our seniors before attempting AGW mitigation.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    klem

    I don’t get why the skeptic side is giving this guy so much attention. His study was biased, everyone sees that, even the alarmists know that it was biased and give his study little credence. So please fellow skeptics, stop talking about this guy, stop giving him publicity and let him fall back into obscurity. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Once his name disappears from the blogosphere, he and his work will be forgotten.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Black Adder says:-
    .
    “Why did Lewandowsky cross the road? ”
    .
    Wasn’t it to prove that the other side was in delusion, because of its by lack of faith in authority ?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It is sad that the global warming crowd has only FrankenGraph Hockey Sticks, computer projections which are usually wrong, and meaningless anecdotes as “evidence”.

    Meanwhile, the deniers and skeptics point to millions of years of data that show we are near the bottom of CO2 and temperature histories.

    The driving force and elephant in the room of climate change is planetary mechanics. It dictated The Grand Solar Minimum beginning in 2009. CO2 is the flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride into the next Little Ice Age. Accept the facts. Prepare for decades of bone-chilling cold, energy shortages and crop failures. The Grand Solar Maximum is over. Get used to it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Prepare for decades of bone-chilling cold, energy shortages and crop failures.

      And since there’s no such thing as “conspiracy”, what an outstanding coincidence that we arrived at this point in time at the exact same moment that:

      * – Most western nations are facing critical energy shortages after decades of playing with windmills and solar panels instead of building base-load power stations;

      * – With around 40% of the world’s surplus (exportable) food supplies now diverted to making biofuel;

      * – Most of the developed world teetering on bankruptcy and therefore unable to rise to any significant challenge in a meaningful way;

      * – A huge (and growing) percentage of the world’s intellectual capacity and research resources devoted to the study of pixie dust (CO2) and moonbeams (back-radiation) and incapable of doing anything much else, and

      * – A large (and growing) segment of the population utterly skeptical of science in general, to the point of refusing to listen to sound advice when we may most need it.

      Yes, it must be admitted that if there indeed were people who wanted to ensure maximum fatalities in the coming cold snap, things couldn’t have worked out better for them, even if they’d planned it.

      But that would be a “conspiracy” and since such things just don’t happen, then it must just all be a coincidence.

      .
      Oh, by the way, have I pointed out recently that the Liberal Party are STILL committed to an ETS with a floor price of $15.00 a tonne, AND a Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 20% reduction in CO2 by 2020, AND the promotion of biofuels?

      Given that each of these policies now represent a rotting albatross hanging around the Party’s neck AND contribute to the bullet points detailed above, I guess we can chalk it all up as yet another stunning coincidence.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Can groupthink lead to unconscious conspiring to pursue a course to the exclusion of all others, and in that case does it count as conspiracy or is it more dangerous than that ?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      bobl

      No, a conspiracy by definition is conscious, I don’t see sceptics conspiring about anything – I think you will find that each sceptic has their own reasons for rejecting th (C)AGW dogma. That’s a good thing.

      On the warmist side it’s less of a conspiracy (though climategate shows many conspiracies to pervert the peer review system for example – Given they are proven these are actual conspiracies rather than conspiracy theories). Instead it’s more like Corruption. Inducements are being paid to deliver a particular outcome. Has happened many times in medical research for example, and in organised crime racketeering.

      So I don’t see warmism as a conspiracy but rather as Racketeering


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I have begun to believe the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder. Or is that a conspiracy theory too?

    How can so many be so full of it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    don’t miss this: Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has shredded Lewandowsky’s paper and indeed SL’s credibility:

    Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam

    Lewandowsky needs to withdraw/retract this egregious paper and apologize for his malfeasance.

    [Fixed link. Mod oggi]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    You’d have to wonder how Lewandowsky would classify Bjorn Lomborg.

    Just heard an interview with Lomborg conducted by Ross Greenwood on 2GB. While he still subscribes to AGW, he does not support taxes or trading schemes as he believes they will ultimately erode public support for research into alternative energy sources.

    While I disagree with his AGW belief, I can’t disagree with his support for ongoing research into other energy sources. Has to be more deserving than the social science and creative arts rubbish that the universities endlessly vomit over us long suffering taxpayers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Debbie

    Incompetence is far more likely.
    Also an inability to either accept responsibility for or learn from one’s mistakes.
    In my world we call that the ‘great bureaucratic art of covering arse’
    Also known as the ‘slopy shoulder syndrome’.
    Easily recognised by the other well known political tactic of ‘shooting the messenger’.
    Funniest bit is their bad sportsmanship when their shots are caught and shot straight back at them.
    The cries of ‘not fair’ are soooooo deliciously ironic and hypocritical.
    Lewandowsky is just a paid employee filling his job description.
    He has done a lousy job and if I was his employer I would be moving him on and hiring someone who could do the job properly.
    That’s assuming of course that his employers want him to conduct solid research? ? ?
    Maybe he did do what they expected?
    Would that be a conspiracy theory? :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    For what its worth, there’s been a local council election in New South Wales, and so far the results look discouraging for the ALP. Swings of 10% against the ALP, and/or toward the Liberals are not unusual. Smaller swings against the Greens are also quite common, although not universal by any means. Many independents and minor parties get a foothold at the local level so significant variation can be observed.

    On the whole though, Lewandowsky doesn’t seem to be exerting much pro-green fervour around Sydney. It’s pretty disappointing it came to this, the Greens could have stood for something worthwhile, but they let the fruitloops take control, and now you see the results.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DaveA

    I’ll just plonk this here… (bold mine)

    Just keeping everyone posted on recent events:

    ABC News is interested in the campaign to reframe climategate on Wednesday. So I’ll be talking to ABC News tomorrow about the climategate 12 month “anniversary” and the effort to reframe climategate. So a summary of activity so far:

    – John Cook, 2010-11-14, “Climategate reframe now news”


    Report this

    00

  • #

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>