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

McIntyre v Lewandowsky — Can we call in a statistician at UWA to help Lew?

The Lewandowsky view is Drilling into noise. The McIntyre response: Lewandowsky’s Fake Correlation

My favourite Lewandowsky line is: “We cannot get into the details here…”

McIntyre can and does in gory depth. He posts the equations, the code, the tables, everything. He graphs the residuals, and shows the “severe non-normality” of them. He tests the correlation and finds that the two most obvious fake responses heavily affect the results:

“Lewandowsky is absolutely off-base in his assertion that the examination of outliers is inappropriate statistical analysis. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: proper statistical analysis REQUIRES the examination of outliers.”

“One can readily see that the two super-scammers (889, 963) contribute essentially 100% (over 100%) actually of the negative correlation between CauseHIV and CYMoon in this calculation.”

Lewandowsky says: “no one who has toyed with our data has thus far exhibited any knowledge of the crucial notion of a latent construct or latent variable.”

McIntyre replies: “Principal components, a frequent topic at this blog, are a form of latent variable analysis.”

As a former graduate of UWA, this is embarrassing. Does UWA not teach and use rigorous statistical methods? Is there no one who can help him?

Plus, when will that “in press” paper be published?

Lewandowsky’s paper was in press as of July 27th, when the Guardian announced its results. But it doesn’t seem to have been published in the September edition of Psychological Science. Nor is it mentioned in the “early releases”.  Stan points out most of the September stories were first published in late July.   It may mean nothing (a delay of a month), or it may mean the paper is being rewritten, or possibly presages a silent “withdrawal”?  Certainly skiphil found a comment by Lewandowsky that suggests the moonlanding paper was being “extended” and was not quite the complete and settled science it was presented as being at  The Guardian by Adam Corner, and The Telegraph too. h/t to Stan, Barry, Wayne and Skilhil in comments at CA.

64. Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012

Questions continue to be raised for further information relating to this paper. My response is threefold:
1. I see little merit in treading over ground that is already clearly stated in the paper (e.g., the elimination of duplicate IP numbers).
2. Several questions concern material that is presently subject to an FOI request. I will let that process run to completion rather than pre-empt it.
3. The supplementary online material for the article is being extended to contain additional information (e.g., the outlier analysis from the preceding post). The online supplement will be released when the typesetting of the article is complete.
Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.

This Friday it will be eight weeks since The Guardian article. In this modern era where anyone can self-publish a book in a day on their home computer, it does seem odd that Psychological Science needs nearly 2 months to typeset an article.

Note point 2 also: No Stephan, no one cares if you “preempt the FOI” — there is no penalty for releasing information that is public property. As a public servant and a scientist(?) the emails, the data and the methods belong to all Australians. Sure, redact the private details, but no one should have to FOI those answers in the first place. That you use the FOI as an excuse to delay providing the answers you owe the public sends a message about your dedication to the honest process of discovery and your conscientious duty as a man who is supposed to serve the public. If you had a clear conscience, and were proud of your work, you’d be only too happy to help people understand your careful responsible impartial dependable work, right?

Lewandowsky’s forgotten warning about computer models

I searched the entire Psychological Science site and found only a few older references to Lewandowsky.

Notable was this one from 1993 where Stephan warns us about models.

The Rewards and Hazards of Computer Simulations

  • Stephan Lewandowsky

Psychological Science, July 1993; vol. 4, 4: pp. 236-243.

“… care must be taken to avoid pitfalls that may arise when computer code inadvertently differs from the intended specifications of a theory, or when predictions derive not from fundamental properties of a theory but from pragmatic choices made by the modeler.” [abstract]

Does Stephan Lewandowsky realize he hangs his entire career not on fundamental properties of the greenhouse theory, but on not-so-pragmatic-choices made by modelers about feedbacks?

He certainly must believe his own PR — that the deniers are dog-stupid flawed brains who deny the evidence, otherwise he would not have published material which was such a lay-down-misere-gift for for his targets to shred. Could it be that he’s realizing that he’s playing statistical games against full-time statisticians instead of Arts grads with “training”? I don’t think so. It takes a certain acumen to know that.

 

REFERENCE:

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.
————————————–

My posts on this topic:

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

PART VI Lewandowsky gets $1.7m of taxpayer funds to denigrate people who disagree with him

Part VII  Lewandowksy, Oberauer, Gignac – Is the paper bad enough to make history?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (77 votes cast)
McIntyre v Lewandowsky -- Can we call in a statistician at UWA to help Lew?, 9.4 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8j48yp4

141 comments to McIntyre v Lewandowsky — Can we call in a statistician at UWA to help Lew?

  • #
    Nathan

    OT but maybe it’s not. CSIRO trustworthy organisation?
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/whistleblowers-at-csiro-forced-out-and-bullying-rife-20120917-262hk.html

    Jo feel free to cut & place elsewhere.

    00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    While Lewandowsky keeps digging himself into a deeper hole, should someone be trying to stop him?

    00

    • #
      Grumpy old man

      The Greenie grant money is starting to dry up. One less at the trough is probably welcome in so many ways by so many people.

      10

    • #
      Steve C

      Not us, that’s for sure!

      00

    • #
      Speedy

      Jo – Maths just has never been the strong suite with these guys. From the archives…

      If the ABC was Relevant, Part 15.

      [JOHN and BRYAN are in the studio after the show. Feet on the table, ties off and waxing philosophical over a beer or three.]

      Bryan: ….And that’s why Peter Garrett’s job is a safe as houses.

      [There is an awkward silence.]

      John: [Changing subject] I see Penny’s in the news again.

      Bryan: Yeah?

      John: Got up on her hind legs and went into bat for the climate scientists. They’re not coping well with the skeptics.

      Bryan: Inquisitive types, aren’t they?

      John: True, Bryan. But it’s a given that the weatherologists have been taking a bit of stick lately. Look at Al Gore…

      Bryan: Brilliant scientist. Did a movie.

      John: Say no more Bryan. But nevertheless pilloried by the skeptics on a simple matter of interpretation.

      Bryan: How so?

      John: He only tried to say that sea levels would rise by 6 inches – suddenly there was this communication problem, and somehow the public gets the idea he said 20 feet, or a hundred or something…

      Bryan: Clearly misquoted.

      John: In his own movie.

      Bryan: You can’t be too careful John.

      John: And Professor Pachauri. He’s just at home, doing his tax…

      Bryan: As you do.

      John: As you do Bryan, and making a very earnest attempt to declare a net income of 3 million. But…

      Bryan: But?

      John: Owing to a typographical tragedy, he only managed to put himself down for 30 grand that year.

      Bryan: Missed off a couple of zeros?

      John: What’s a couple of zeros?

      Bryan: Nothing!

      John: Nothing at all Bryan. Not that you’d ever guess it but. The critics went off like a pork chop – just like they did with that glacier business.

      Bryan: What was that?

      John: Well, the good Professor had just finished informing the Indian Government they had about 30 years to find themselves a new set of Himalayan glaciers…

      Bryan: And?

      John: And that they were a collective pack of duds…

      Bryan. When a quick glance at the notes revealed that the existing glaciers would be in the hands of the said government sometime north of the year two thousand and ever.

      Bryan: At least he got the thousand bit right.

      John: Despite this, the gratitude of the Indian Government was distinctly underwhelming. And as a token of their appreciation, I now believe they want to give him the Khyber Pass.

      Bryan: Khyber Pass?

      John: Home of the Vegemite Valley Bryan.

      Bryan: Not good.

      John: Not good. A little like Professor Jones. Doing a little spring clean around the climate laboratory one day, when he inadvertently discards the greater part of the 20th century temperature record.

      Bryan: Desperately unlucky, John. A brilliant scientist but.

      John: Just not very well equipped for the collection, retention, analysis and reporting of large data sets Bryan.

      Bryan: No-one’s perfect…

      John: Quite true Bryan. So you can see where Penny is going with this Bryan.

      Bryan: Yep, there’s nothing wrong with the Climate Science.

      John: It’s only the numbers that are dodgey.

      10

    • #
      Wendy

      regarding Lewandowsky’s and his hole…..no we shouldn’t stop him, we should be filling the hole in. ;-)

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Only after we’re sure it is deep enough. Zombies ya know………

        10

      • #

        I disagree. We should always try to separate the person from their ideas. We have two differing philosophies of science clashing here. Lewandowsky’s demands that you believe in a particular idea of science, defending it by whatever means possible. That is why opinons polls are so important. The more traditional idea (up to Popper in the mid-C20th) was a detatchment from particular ideas. Science is a journey of discovery. That means challanging ideas and current boundaries of knowledge, including one’s own ideas.
        In the modern vision of science, to challange the consensus is to challange their innermost beliefs. Personalization and demeaning insults are their best defence.

        20

    • #
      Heretic

      There’s a(n obscene) schoolboy joke which plays on the theme of ‘Deeper ….. deeper’.
      Dig, you b*****d, dig!

      00

    • #
      turnrdoutnice

      Give him a tube map of London so he knows what to expect when he reaches the other side!

      00

  • #

    I remember the sad case of Adam Ant a few years ago. The guy had been going slowly nuts for years but no one noticed because erratic behaviour was all part of the rock and roll lifestyle.

    Does the same problem affect climastrology?

    10

  • #
    Skiphil

    Are there any real statisticians at UWA?

    Lewandowsky claims to teach stats and methods for psychology, but he is evidently way out of his depth. Both his research and his teaching are in need of a thorough examination by real “domain specialists” as Lewandowsky likes to babble about in other contexts.

    In fact, this whole episode is a good reminder that there are many “domains” of expertise pertaining to climate issues…. While the Lew paper is (purportedly) about cognitions rather than the physical world science of climate, Lew is a timely reminder that so many who are held up as “the” experts in climate science really have only a very limited slice of expertise (if that). Sorry for the digression but I do think that Lew’s flailing about is a good illustration of academics out of their depth when they pretend to know so much more than they do. Of course, all of us need to do battle with such tendencies in ourselves and others… With healthy skepticism!

    10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Skip

      There are some brilliant stats people in Psychology while studying about 10 years ago we had a lecturer who was coincidentally an ASPRO referred us to some of his papers.

      I was shocked by one of them when I found he had reported results to about 10 significant figures.

      Obviously he wasn’t the Faculties stats expert, but the interesting thing was that his paper was published without correction by his “peers”.

      KK :)

      10

      • #

        Have you read your Synergy bill recently?

        They bill to the hundreds of milliwatt-hours. We’ve come a long way with metering equipment; given that the meter is from 1968. The invoiced quantity is always exactly to the kWh. How lucky can a meter-reader get? I’ve been trying to catch them to ask for the coming Saturday’s Lotto numbers.

        Synergy then multiply the figure apparently “accurate” to the nearest 100 mWh by a cost in micro-cents.

        When it comes to adding up the numbers, they round the invoiced total to the nearest 5 cents (unlawful, but they keep doing it, despite having been read the ACCC memo of 2000. Twice.)

        10

    • #
      manalive

      … Lew’s flailing about is a good illustration of academics out of their depth when they pretend to know so much more than they do …

      That’s too generous.
      I don’t think Lewandowsky’s paper was a serious attempt at scholarly research in the first place, but a cynical attempt at point scoring and providing alarmist ammunition for their propaganda war.
      His current bluster, obfuscation and shilly-shallying is straight out of Schopenhauer’s How to Win an Argument tactic no 28, what he calls ‘argumentum ad auditores’:

      … in a dispute between scholars in the presence of the unlearned … if you have no argument ad rem [relevant] , and none either ad hominem , you can make one ad auditores ; that is to say, you can start some invalid objection, which, however, only an expert sees to be invalid ….

      00

    • #
      Skiphil

      It looks like Lewandowsky needs more than expert statistical assistance, maybe also a psychiatrist and an ethicist to explain to him appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

      yikes, that Lewandowsky fella is really not looking so good in his latest pretensions to competence:

      Climate Audit demolishes Lewandowsky…. again

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Sometimes it is possible to gain greater perspective on a situation by looking at another problem outside of the main area of study.

    We are exploring the Lewandowsky phenomenon in our tertiary Education system and want to understand how a University could endorse the sort of scholarship shown by Stephan.

    Lewandowsky, unlike the lone gunman on the knoll in Dallas, did not act alone or outside of what seems to be current norm. There are precedents for twisted thinking being applauded in Universities in Oz.

    From memory I think we have another academic, a lawyer (UWA?), who is studying something called “The Legal Aspects of Climate Change Ethics” and this afternoon while driving home I picked up an item about a Melbourne Muslim PhD(Law) student who was studying “The Reasons for Islamic frustration and Violence in Western Countries which have given these protesters a safe haven”.

    This Muslim student proceeded to give a “grudge list” of things happening overseas that, he felt, justified the violent and abusive Sydney protest last weekend.

    The fact that the Law Faculties of our universities can see value in the tortuous reasoning and introverted analysis used in examining “Climate Change Ethics” and “Discrimination against Muslim Self Expression in a Christian State” is extremely disturbing.

    It may be true that I have ad libbed the PhD topics a bit to illustrate the content, but nevertheless I feel that I am describing the content accurately.

    For a start both of these topics would probably be more appropriately handled by the Philosophy Department, not the Law Faculties of the universities involved ( Melbourne and UWA).

    My point is that when you have law faculties giving the OK to the topics described, then it is not such a big stretch to imagine Lewandowsky’s paper receiving similar endorsement.

    He is part of a much larger Malaise within our Society and system of Government which we need to find a way of addressing.

    KK :)

    00

    • #
      Speedy

      Morning KK

      Did anyone ask the gentleman in question about what he was doing to protect the Coptic Christians in Eqypt, currently being denied justice, in even the most basic context?

      I work with such a victim of islamic “Justice”. His stories are not pretty or something of a society we would wish to envisage. While the Western political elite may not comprehend the Christian ideal, the term

      “By their fruits you will know them”

      does smack of a common sense sadly lacking by our “betters”.

      Cheers,

      Speedy.

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        “By their fruits you will know them”

        The concept is so simple that it gets missed by many people. It would seem that words are all that counts these days. And the emptier they are the better.

        00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Lewandowsky reminds me of the boring clown who keeps showing off at the party, up to the stage that even his friends wish he would sit down and stop making a prat* of himself.

    It only remains to be seen how much bigger of an idiot he will make of himself.

    * http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0837094033.txt

    10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Another relevant FOIA email is 4969.txt (my emphasis):

      Volunteering Opportunities:

      There are a number of voluntary jobs also available but which do not warrant a full intership or dissertation but that again hopefully provide the student with valuable insight and networking opportunities into the environmental field in the UK.

      Converting behaviours into carbon savings figures: (Estimated work: 2 hrs per behaviour Max; ideally less)

      Please find attached the EcoTeams Questionnaire… The relevant section for your work will be the actions and behaviours sections.

      Ideally I would like a carbon figure for each of these behaviours on the assumption it at least partially replaces an old behaviour.
      Realistically this will not be possible but it would be great to be able to say we have thoroughly researched each one of these behaviours and found the carbon equivalent data for every behaviour that data exists for.

      The match is uncanny! Was he volunteering for The Cause commensurate with his abilities? Perhaps Guessin’ Stefan’s pseudoscience play book has been been right under our noses this whole time!

      But wait, there’s more.
      What happens when the bought-off media sends out a SURVEY to the head honchos of various climate alarmist institutions asking whether they think the evidence justifies emissions reductions, and someone from UEA actually says NO it doesn’t.

      From: Mike Hulme [[2]mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
      Sent: 04 April 2001 19:57
      To: Farrar, Steve
      Subject: Re: kyoto survey – press inquiry from the THES
      Steve,
      I hate these sort of questionnaires since Y or N answers are barely adequate. However, I’ve given it a go with some other comments ………….
      [...]

      >2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start
      >reducing emissions?
      NO – to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing emissions now – but I am not convinced a blind application of the precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.

      For the record, his survey response was not published because the “deadline has now passed”, so Mike wrote a Letter To The Editor for the following week instead. Mike H was certainly a warmist insofar as he speaks seriously of the CO2 issue, but he does not seem to be an alarmist because he sees no need for urgency. Clearly not a Team Player! ;)

      00

  • #
    Lawrie

    My problem is that Lew is a complete and utter [snip - Mod] yet his university allows him to teach. I heard NSW students only need an entrance score of 50 to be accepted into teaching. Lew obviously just scraped in and has been going backwards ever since. Talk about the dumb being taught by the dumber.

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Lawrie

      Maybe we are all missing he point here.

      Everyone serves a purpose and perhaps Lews place at the UWA is to simply be there and in the process make

      Carmen Lawrence look good. If that’s the case, he is to be congratulated for doing a good job.

      KK

      00

  • #
    Skiphil

    They may have some actual statisticians at UWA:

    http://www.cas.maths.uwa.edu.au/contact/staff

    Whether any of them can be persuaded that these matters deserve their attention is a different question. One hopes that some of them do understand stats better than Lewandowsky. Maybe they would like to restore the credibility of their university. On the other hand, it is such a hot politicized topic that they may hide out….. Or even try to score some dubious points for Lew if there is any conceivable way to do that.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Actually, Jo –

    It’s not so much that the guy’s no good with numbers, he just can’t handle FACTS!

    But for some reason, he’s still called a (capital P) Professor.

    Which is something that simple minds like mine can’t fathom. Most of us would just call him [snip, yes tame I know... but lets stick to science].

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    mfo

    Lewandowsky wouldn’t last five minutes in the real world of business, where your work has to be correct, productive and financially viable. If he was collecting insurance risk and claims data, analysing it and reserving, rating and capital modelling, as an insurance actuary, his work would be unacceptable. An insurance company would be unable to use his flawed methods and results to assess liabilities, premium rates and capital requirements. Using his methods would most likely result in loss of business, excessive claims and insufficient reserves. Lewandowsky would very soon find himself sweeping the streets.

    00

    • #
      Debbie

      Real world?
      Hardly :-)
      The Lewandowsky’s of the world don’t bother with ordinary ‘lower level’ skills like production and accountability!
      Didn’t you know that they operate from ‘higher level principles’ ?
      Just ask him, he’ll tell you. Commonly known in the ‘real world’ as a fig jam :-)
      They’re busy saving the world from ourselves and just can’t be distracted by reality.

      00

    • #

      this too could be applied to the code set free in CG1. No documentation. No QA. Error conditions trapped and then returning to the mainstream code. Ghastly for a real programmer to witness. He or she would never ever get a job in the commercial world, yet they are writing code that can have an enormous impact on all of us. God knows what the rest of the modelling code is like…

      00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Wow. This IS getting serious.

    Klaus O now returns to join Stephan L in another doubles round for the Naomi Oreskes Cup.

    Title says it all: “A simple recipe for manufacturing doubt”.

    http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/oberauerEFA.html

    00

    • #
      Jaymez

      I had a brief read of Klaus O’s attempt to address McIntyre’s criticisms. It appears to me that he deliberately sidesteps the major flaws in their own analysis in trying to create doubt about McIntyre’s criticism. I particularly liked a couple of posts which were taken from McIntyre’s blogsite and re-posted at ‘shapingtomorrowsworld’ which may not be there tomorrow given other posts which have been deleted from that site. It seems the writer has an intimate knowledge of academia, and potentially psychology academia in Australia, and he/she is not impressed at the depths it is plumbing:(Remember these are posted at Lewandowsky’s blogsite. References to ‘the authors’ means Lewandowsky et al).

      GrantB at 00:55 AM on 20 September, 2012

      From Mr McIntyres post that you refuse to link to, a psychologist writes:

      The authors are certainly well aware that the “significance” of this correlation is beside the point. With very large degrees of freedom virtually any correlation is likely to be “significant”. The relevant question is whether the size of the correlation is at all interesting. Even accepting the doubtful premiss that this is a sensible way of computing the correlation in question, this one suggests that about 1.5 percent of the variance between the two variables is shared. Most sensible people would see this as not very much. Add to this the fact that it is a computation over a data set comprising strings of ordinal values with a very truncated range and you start to worry. Add to this the acknowledged extreme vulnerability of the data set to the effects of rogue data points (and there are many) and you start to worry more. Add to this the fact (I think “fact” is justified) that the data were collected in a sloppy way, and worry segues into despair. I am a professional psychologist. Psychology has contributed a great deal to the practical application of statistics and is justifiably proud of this fact. It is extremely unfortunate (I am tempering my words) to see my discipline made into a laughing stock by “green” activists. The more so, because the authors of this paper with their professional hats on are very well aware of all these points and chose to ignore them because of their somewhat warped perception of the greater good.

      My experience of academic life in Australia was that fellow psychologists had a commendably low threshold for detecting nonsense and a robust way of showing it. Where are they now?

      GrantB at 01:01 AM on 20 September, 2012

      From Mr McIntyres most recent post that you obviously weren’t aware of before you started this thread, the very same psychologist writes -

      I think you are far too kind to these authors. The department of psychology to which they are affiliated will certainly offer a statistics course. Now that R has pretty well displaced SPSS, texts like Crawley’s “Statistics”, or something like it, will routinely be used as an introduction. So students will know when linear regression is seriously ill-advised – it’s usually in Chapter 1 and is often asked about in examinations. They will have been taught how to do Q-Q plots to identify and deal with outliers. They will know about Cook’s distance. Students will know about the difficulties inherent in analysing count and categorial data. They will have been taught some measurement theory (Australian psychologists made important contributions to this topic). I don’t know whether they are routinely taught about robust regression, but they will have been taught about related concepts in the context of analysis of variance. And so on … and so on. These issues are all in the standard texts. I simply cannot believe the authors don’t know about them. Indeed, I can’t believe they don’t know a lot more than their students. So they have a much more serious charge to answer.

      00

      • #
        Alice Thermopolis

        NAUGHTY, NAUGHTY

        Jaymez

        You were right.

        Grant B snipped on pretext of “extensive quote”

        GrantB at 00:55 AM on 20 September, 2012

        From Mr McIntyres post that you refuse to link to, a psychologist writes snip
        Moderator Response: extensive quote snipped

        GrantB at 01:01 AM on 20 September, 2012
        From Mr McIntyres most recent post that you obviously weren’t aware of before you started this thread, the very same psychologist writes -
        (snip)
        Moderator Response: Extensive quote snipped

        Shape of Professor Lewandowsky’s “Tomorrow’s World” looking more Orwellian by the day.

        Alice

        10

    • #
      mfo

      Interesting that Lew and Ob are getting themselves in a bugger’s muddle over mathematical techniques. The first step, the survey, the collection of data, was flawed. If the data is incorrect, and in this case biased, then no matter what calculations are done with it, the results will be nonsense. They can waffle on about EFA and Multivariate Analysis ’till the cows come home but their paper will always be an example of: garbage in, garbage out.

      00

    • #

      Oberauer writes:

      The trick is simple when you know a bit about exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA serves to reduce the dimensionality in a data set. To this end, EFA represents the variance and covariance of a set of observed variables by a smaller number of latent variables (factors) that represent the variance shared among some or all observed variables.

      EFA is a non-trivial analysis technique that requires considerable training to be used competently, and a full explanation is far beyond the scope of a single blog post.

      After taking an ad hominem swipe at McKitrick’s statistical expertise in his opening sentence, Oberauer leaves that little heap on our porch; saying that replication of his result from the same raw data is beyong those who’ve not been graced by a vision of the EFA.

      It should be noted is that Oberauer criticises and article by McKitrick without providing a reference or otherwise identifying which McKitrick article he is trying to smear. Is it reasonable to conclude that Oberauer is criticising his own illusion of McKitrick wrote; or does he simply not want to make it easy for others to check Oberauer’s criticisms by cross-referencing the source article?

      I’ve posted a comment:

      Which McKitrick article are you dissecting, Dr Oberauer? It is normal, in scientific discourse and courteous in professional matters, to provide references to articles being discussed.

      My pet statisticians would like to know which method you used to determine the number of factors. You seem to have overlooked mentioning it in your paper. Or did you explore the use of all the common methods and find no difference?

      They’re also begging me to ask if you applied the same analyses to white and pink noise to check the “balance” of questions and your analysis chosen doesn’t colour the results.

      I gritted my teeth and didn’t ask if the considerable training included the number, type and orientation of candles to be placed around the entrails before Exploratory Factor Analysis.

      00

  • #
    Terry

    One spends years of study passing exams, completing assignments and submitting theses to garner knowledge, develop skills and presumably demonstrate a level of competence in one’s chosen field that bestows some kind of status or acknowledgement of that competency (bachelors, masters, PHD).

    Surely, consistent and persistent displays of spectacular incompetence should warrant the removal of that status.

    Alternatively, the institution that continues to recognise the status and competency, despite demonstrations to the contrary, must necessarily suffer the loss of all credibility.

    Over to you, UWA.

    00

    • #

      From my observations one can, as a retired Professor in Germany agreed in private conversation, be educated to stupidity. The cloistering of individuals to the point of detachment from reality is core to their self-delusion of competence.

      IMHO, the most likely core problem is that the system’s focus is on process instead of principle. Institutional performance indicators are tuned to represent the interests of the administrators and the academics. Not by the effectiveness or desirability of social outcomes produced by the institution, its academics and its graduates.

      When examples of education to stupidity arise, it’s painful for a University to admit that it can happen and the resulting unwillingness to avoid talking about the problem simply lets it fester. They are not interested in changing a system in which they find comfort.

      Political correctness prevents “early intervention”.

      10

      • #

        Yep…we’re sailing with the “Ship of Fools”…

        00

        • #

          Went to see the captain, strangest I could find,
          Laid my proposition down, laid it on the line.
          I wont slave for beggars pay, likewise gold and jewels,
          But I would slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools.

          Ship of fools on a cruel sea, ship of fools sail away from me.
          It was later than I thought when I first believed you,
          Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools.

          Robert Hunter, Lyricist for the Grateful Dead…

          00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Bernd, good comment. I would go a little farther to say that people can be “educated to complete reliance”. In other words, so specialized that they must rely on other specialists. They must assume trust in those authorities otherwise they have a foundation of nothing. “Nothing” makes a poor foundation, is dark and scary and hence the reliance on authority.

        This also seems to be a problem in academia more than real life. I’d suggest that the Left is always spouting about the importance of education. Perhaps there is reason?

        00

        • #
          Winston

          the Left is always spouting about the importance of education. Perhaps there is reason?

          Mark,
          “Education” is now a euphemism for “indoctrination”. This is evidenced by the tendency to teach “what to think”, with no emphasis whatsoever on “how to think”. And when “think” becomes a euphemism for “believe”, then you have what we have right now- a de-evolutionary spiral from whence there is little prospect of return, given that academia responsible for this sorry state of affairs fail to even acknowledge that this is occurring. They have successfully white-anted the bastions of Western culture, with many (though importantly not all) not even self-aware enough to understand that this is what they are actively encouraging.

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Mark, Winston

            They have successfully white-anted the bastions of Western culture …

            That would be: North America, Europe, and Australasia, then.

            “When the Berlin wall came down, and all of the communists escaped …”, the Cold War did not end. Instead it just moved the battleground into the Universities, and from there into the “Educated” (nee trained) future elites.

            Perhaps Bernd would like to comment on that?

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Winston, the only thing I’ll add to what you say is the definition of “white anted”. I learned this appropriate term here at Jo’s site and “white ants” are not called that here (US).

            Termites are what they are, and the Aussies explain the political technique of “eating the structure from the inside” as “white anting” weakening a party, or any organization from the inside.

            Here in the US, not only education but churches have suffered greatly from this. Off topic but interesting, in the last 20 years the mainstream Lutheran church body has been entirely white-anted by Leftists (Progressives). Taken over and transformed into something my forbears would be horrified to see. Whether or not you are religious, you might still recognize the outcome is to hollow out society.

            00

          • #

            Rereke Whakaaro – Gramsci’s “Long March through the Institutions” in action. In the UK, the quality of education at all levels has degraded since the 60s.

            Witness – I found the text book for the Maths “O” level (lower secondary exams, as opposed to “A” levels, done a couple of years later” that I did in 1966. Harwood & Clarke. I lent it to the very bright son of friends, studying Physics at Durham University. He noted that much of it was what he studied in his second year of Maths ‘A’ levels. So we have a dumbing down of two to three years, exacerbated by extraordinary grade inflation (a legacy of the last Labour government’s “No child shall fail, however dumb” policy, an extension of their “one size fits all” policy). Now any kid worth their salt will get three As at A level, and the Unis – those that are of any worth – have no idea what they are getting. We also have institutions able to call themselves Universities that should not even be open.

            FUBAR

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            “Education” is now a euphemism for “indoctrination”.

            Indeed yes! There is a movie currently playing called, 2016: OBAMA’S AMERICA. The final scene is of grade school children in class singing, “Obama will lead us…”

            You really should see it if you can.

            00

  • #
    fretslider

    “when will that “in press” paper be published?”

    It doesn’t have to be. Muller plugged his stuff twice in the usual suspects, eg New York Times, Guardian, BBC etc etc

    Lewandowsky has done the same. get the big media exposure, job done.

    00

  • #
    P.Pugliano

    I agree with this commenter at the Briggs site.

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6164&cpage=1#comment-74808

    McIntyre’s efforts are commendable as a means to answer the silly claims that superior and deep knowledge of statistics is needed to understand the validity of Lewandowsky’s paper. But really, I wonder how it has even come to that. Such efforts amount to conceding that the data thus gathered is worth analyzing in any way. No one should lose sight of the fact that it isn’t. Getting distracted by these technical discussions already concedes far too much ground. The absurdity of the survey, the inanity of its questions, the sloppiness of the way it was conducted, and the idiocy of deriving such a title from the results, all seem obvious without the need to go into any of those details. The only possible use of Lewandowsky’s paper is as an illustrative landmark in the history of academic charlatanry and –if it actually gets published– in the current state of psychological sceance in academia and the standards of the journal that publishes it.

    10

  • #
    Robert Campbell

    If any delay on the publication of Lewandowsky et al. is being imposed by the editors of Psychological Science, I’ve yet to see evidence.

    An article at a big journal can be “in press” (finally accepted for publication, but not yet published) for a lot longer than two months. Even with early online publication, the lag is often longer than two months.

    (If anyone wants to conclude from this that existing academic journals will surely be replaced in a little while by online journals that publish from “online-ready copy” and rely on open reviews and criticism after publication, instead of review by selected peers prior to publication, you may have a point. But that’s a different topic.)

    Many journals now encourage authors to post “supplemental online materials” that will be of interest to some readers but would make a print version too long (or too expensive to produce for other reasons). But it’s unusual for an editor to require any particular supplemental materials. Without positive evidence, I wouldn’t conclude that anyone at Psychological Science has requested specific supplemental materials from Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac—or made a recent addition to the request.

    00

  • #
    Robert Campbell

    The average researcher in psychology is far from a statistics expert. Some go to consultants (often there will be one or two people in a psych department with deeper knowledge of statistics who end up serving this function) for help even on routine analyses. Most employ techniques that they learned in the past (could be the distant past, depending on how long they’ve been out there), do not keep up with advances in statistics, and conform to practices that are widespread among psychologists even if professional statisticians have been sharply disrecommending these practices for a generation or longer.

    Also, the vast majority of the analyses performed by psychologists are based on linear models, when there is no reason at all to suppose that, say, brain functioning is adequately described using linear relationships among variables.

    In my experience, most psychologists are a good deal less prone to professional arrogance than Dr. Lewandowsky has been in his recent posts. (I run into a lot more professional arrogance in some other disciplines; which ones doesn’t really matter here…) The better you understand psychology, the more clearly you see how tough many of the problems are, for how brief a time anyone in an organized discipline called “psychology” has been trying to solve them, and how little we still know about matters we all understand to be of major importance. Similarly, few of my colleagues pretend to the unexcelled command of statistics that we now see Dr. Lewandowsky pretending to.

    One wonders whether Dr. Lewandowsky has any idea that exploratory factor analysis is frequently and sharply criticized as a procedure. It was already when I was in graduate school, and I started not long before he did. He may genuinely be unaware.

    Or, as other posters have noted, he may be genuinely blinded by his zealotry. Maybe he really thinks that anyone who criticizes his sampling, his experimental design, his statistical analyses, or his interpretation of results is of painful necessity a complete ignoramus.

    But if so, surely he is in a position to know differently by now.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    A Statistician?

    How about bringing in someone into UWA who has a basic understanding of the concepts of Internal and External Validity?

    Because obviously, at least one lecturer at UWA must’ve missed that bit.

    00

    • #
      Robert Campbell

      I didn’t mean to imply that proper use of statistics was the only thing that Dr. Lewandowsky had missed.

      00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    By an entire and unthinkable coincidence (heh!) the SMH this morning is running two Guardian articles on scientific fraud, including one on fraud in psychological research.

    When research findings explode

    When Daryl Bem, a psychologist at Cornell University in New York, published sensational findings last year that seemed to show evidence for psychic effects in people, many scientists were unsurprisingly sceptical. But when psychologists later tried to publish their (failed) attempts to replicate Bem’s work, they found journals refused to give them space. After repeated attempts elsewhere, a team of psychologists led by Chris French at Goldsmith’s, University of London, eventually placed their negative results in the journal PLoS One this year.

    Sound familiar?

    Maybe the Guardian is preparing to take out some insurance on their CAGW position. It would be logical to do so since their financials are so dire that a blowup in the CAGW consensus could actually destroy their newspaper.

    00

  • #
    John

    Please ensure that the appropriate people at the UWA receive copies of all these articles. Somehow I can’t imagine Lewandowsky drawing them to the attention of people who might decide on his tenure.

    00

  • #

    Hahaha. Well done you Jo, Steve et al. My suggestion to Lewandowsky is to find the nearest rock…and crawl back under it..

    ASAP

    00

  • #
    pat

    O/T apology:

    18 Sept: Ottawa Citizen Blog: Elizabeth, Editorial Board: Why Conservatives need to price carbon
    Carbon tax is the new black on Parliament Hill this week with an all-hands-on deck Conservative Party attack against the NDP’s cap-and-trade policy (“a tax on everything”). The attack has led many in the media, including in the Citizen, to point out that the Conservatives themselves supported cap and trade in the 2008 federal election and, in fact, earlier. But that was then, apparently. Now, Conservatives say, Canadians don’t want a carbon tax.
    Which makes the federal government’s enthusiastic and continuing support – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars – of carbon capture and storage a bit of a mystery. Such projects are beginning to look promising, with one caveat. According to many of those familiar with the technology, they don’t make financial sense unless there is a price on carbon…
    ***Lorraine Mitchelmore, Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Canadian president, is the latest energy industry executive to make the case. Earlier this week she urged federal and provincial governments to put a “significant price” on carbon. Carbon management, she said in an interview with the Globe and Mail, must be part of the way the country balances the competing goals of more oil and gas output while improving environmental performance. The price on carbon might eventually come down, she said: “But you will need a carbon price.” Royal Dutch Shell is building the first carbon capture and storage project – with the help of $745 million from the Alberta government and $120 million from the federal government – in the oil sands.
    And she is not the first to make the point. Officials with TransAlta (electricity power generator and wholesale marketing company), which walked away from a CCS project in Alberta earlier this year (one backed by more than $750 million in provincial and federal dollars), cited the lack of reasonable carbon pricing as a factor…
    Some provinces, including British Columbia and Alberta have put prices on carbon.
    It seems inevitable that the federal government will eventually have to as well, despite the frantic protestations to the contrary. Either that or explain to taxpayers why it is pouring so much money into massive carbon capture projects that will never do what they were designed to do because carbon capture and storage requires carbon pricing to make financial sense.
    http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/09/18/why-conservatives-need-to-price-carbon/

    00

  • #
    pat

    “Britain, France and Germany” better known as the 27-Nation European Union:

    19 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: Govt moves on EU carbon price link
    Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Minister Greg Combet said on Wednesday it would be the world’s first intercontinental linkage of emissions trading schemes and the start of “a deep and liquid carbon market”.
    He also warned of trade retaliation if Australia didn’t act on greenhouse gas emissions…
    It also removes a carbon floor price so Australia can move to “a fully flexible emissions trading scheme where the Australian carbon price reflects the price in the largest carbon market in the world”.
    Mr Combet said this would mean the domestic carbon price reflected the price of Australia’s second largest trading bloc and be the same as in at least 30 other countries, including Britain, France and Germany.
    ***The linking also meant an Australian business with a carbon price liability could buy a carbon emissions unit – effectively a permit to emit a tonne of greenhouse gas – in either the Australian or European carbon markets.
    ***The permits could be bought now for compliance after July 1, 2015.
    Mr Combet said because the Australian and EU systems both cap the overall level of emissions, the use of a European allowance by an Australian emitter would mean one less tonne of carbon pollution was released in Europe.
    “Our challenge is to reduce global emissions,” he told parliament…
    “One tonne of pollution reduced in Europe delivers the same environmental benefit as a tonne of pollution reduced in Australia.”
    He said by opening up the trade in carbon, pollution would be reduced at the least cost and benefit households, businesses and the environment.
    “Anyone who suggests to the Australian community that we can have a free ride, that other nations with lower per capita emissions and less developed economies must take all the responsibility, is engaged in an act of deceit,” he said…
    In a brief comment after the third of the bills was introduced, the opposition’s climate action spokesman Greg Hunt said the package represented “complete chaos” by the government…
    Debate on the bill was adjourned.
    Mr Hunt later told Sky News the coalition would vote against the bill.
    “We won’t be supporting it because this is a deeply flawed approach,” he said on Wednesday.
    “This bill represents complete chaos. It’s the eighth major change in the carbon tax in just over eight weeks.”
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/govt-moves-on-eu-carbon-price-link/story-e6frf7kf-1226477197687

    00

  • #
    pat

    19 Sept: Bloomberg/Businessweek: Ewa Krukowska: EU Carbon Plan Sets ‘Dangerous’ Legal Precedent, Poland Says
    The European Union plan to curb an oversupply of carbon permits sets a “dangerous” precedent and gives the bloc’s regulator excessive powers, Poland’s Environment Minister Marcin Korolec said.
    A proposed amendment to the EU emissions trading law, the first element of the plan to delay some auctions of carbon permits proposed by the European Commission, may lead to a situation where the bloc’s regulator seeks similar intervention in other policy areas, Korolec said in an interview in Brussels.
    “The legal quality of the amendment is problematic,” he said. “I think there will be more countries and members of the European Parliament who will have doubts about giving a blank check to the commission.”…
    The commission has repeatedly said the EU law gives it a mandate to propose the auctioning timeline when the bloc moves to more sales of permits as of 2013. The proposed law change reasserts the commission’s rights and is aimed at removing uncertainty about the supply curbs, it has said…
    Envoys meet again today as the Climate Change Committee convenes in Brussels. The committee was scheduled to discuss the second element of the commission’s plan: a measure to delay a yet unspecified number of carbon permits at auctions as of 2013.
    Poland finds the auction delay, also known as the backloading proposal, “unacceptable,” Korolec said.
    ***“It would mean that the ETS is no longer a market mechanism,” he said. “It’ll be central planning.”
    Both the draft amendment and the backloading regulation need qualified majority support from member states to pass. The change to the emissions law additionally needs approval in a vote by the European Parliament.
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-19/eu-carbon-plan-sets-dangerous-legal-precedent-poland-says

    00

  • #
    observa

    Does UWA not teach and use rigorous statistical methods? Is there no one who can help him?

    Alas no, after years of fostering the products of socialist engineering to flood our Sandstones with second rate intellects. At the same time as tertiary users were dumbing down in concert with computer pricing, computing power was reaching for the stratosphere. Into this great vacuous gigabyte space poured the GIGO of our modern age and the wave of true believers in the computer printout, to justify all they had been carefully inculcated to believe.

    For mine, it’s not the revelations of the Climategate emails, the various Exaggerationgates and religious Green fluff presented as scholarly ‘proof’, but the banal drivel we have to tolerate from the barbarians run riot in our once venerable temples of academe. Remember how you used to go to the toilet, do your business, wash your hands and don’t hang about chum? Not anymore you don’t in some academic’s lofty gender spaces of the mind.

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    The alarmists must really hate the intelligence this side of the fence. :)

    00

    • #
      Ross James

      More like hubris on your side of the debate.

      Simple questions, simple answers:

      1. Would you vote Labor?
      2. Do you think that climate scientists are more about funding their own wealth then real science?
      3. Is this a one world government form of control method, stemming from climate change fraud.
      4. Are the policies of the green environment all trash and a waste of time?
      5. Should the free market always be used as opposed to any government regulation?
      6. The U.N. should be abolished
      7. Rich bankers control secret agendas over government and push climate change policy

      If the above is answered 1) never 2) agree 3) yes 4) yes 5) yes 6) yes 7) yes.

      If you score as high as five and greater you indeed fit the profile of Lewandowsky’s findings.

      You have a profile of a person with a conspirational bent. Simple as that.

      This is a mixture of fundamentalist apocalyptic vision (AKA 666) and ultra fee market think with a disconnect to mainstream understanding that in humanity exists a desire to be aspirational rather then be debase. Simply put: The world is seen as out of control. A evil place both open and hidden, inhabited by demi-gods [persons] of ones own wild imaginations that require to be destroyed and slain. Remember well the squalor remarks of one Australian senator who is driven by the same apocalyptic vision of evil intent. Now ask yourself thus: Did he also think that climate change science was all a fraud?

      Case over. Anything else is mathematical masturbation.
      _______
      Ross J.

      03

      • #

        And if you believe there are no conspiracies ever, then you’re a person of a gullible nature.

        Sometimes the world is an evil and nasty place – Pol pot, eh?

        This is all just mindless name-calling. Lewandowsky didn’t have any “findings”, he had only preconceptions and an unscientific survey.

        30

      • #
        Sonny

        Ross,
        The fact that th government funds a survey which seeks to psychologically profile and subsequently denigrate individuals on one side of a scientific debate demonstrates how fraudulent this climate science movement is.

        You scam artists cannot show even show convincing proof that the earth is warming unusually without resorting to statistical manipulation, let alone a convincing link between warming and human activity.

        So instead the science has moved to shameless psychological propaganda.

        30

      • #
        Mark D.

        Interesting Ross,

        Number one stands out as a complete misfit. It is there because of your own bias. If Lewandowsky believes the same, then it is clear to me (actually to the world) that both of you have a POLITICAL bias! Since it is number one, YOUR POLITICAL BIAS TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE FOR YOU!

        Too bad, I used to think slightly better of you. Further, how far back will I have to search to find a quote of you saying “I hate politics”?

        00

      • #
        debbie

        Actually Ross,
        Many people would not answer yes or no to those questions.
        I’m not glued to a political party or a particular politician.
        I look at POLICIES and judge by those.
        Most of my answers would be ‘maybe…it depends’
        However from researching POLICY from various political parties I would be leaning way over to yes with a slightly reworded 3) and 4).
        Why you ask?
        Here’s a litle bit of homework for you.
        Go to the Australian Greens website and type in ‘Global Governance’ in their search section.
        There is THE POLICY right there on their web page. (I did link it at a previous thread but it’s too creepy to go back there)
        Next litle bit of homework:
        Google ‘Deliberative Global Governance ANU’ and look what we find again?
        So….
        It looks like FROM CLEAR EVIDENCE that
        a)THIS IS conceived by some as a one world government form of control method, stemming from climate change (you say fraud I say policy).. and
        b The policies of the Australian Greens ARE MOSTLY trash and a waste of time!

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Bob Brown wants global government, but the most hilarious thing is that he think he would actually have a say. Really.. This soooo points to the idiocy of the green mind.

          You are, and would be IRRELEVANT , Bob… zero to many decimal places. !!!

          One moronic Taswegian, versus China.. roflmao !!!

          00

      • #

        Somehow, my lengthy response appears at #27.

        00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It does that – it is time travel – your response moved into the future.

          00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Another fine initiative from the Finklestein Department of Precrime.
            They will need to censor Bernd’s comment before he’s even said it!

            00

      • #
        Winston

        Ross,
        If this conflation of confused ideas is an example of your understanding of those you seek to engage, I feel sorry for you.
        To answer your questions as best I can given the ill-conceived nature of them:
        1. Yes, of course I would if their policies were a better representation of the common good (tax and spend is not the common good, massive deficit spending isn’t either- care to defend that, Ross?), and if their was a genuine attempt to root out union corruption (HSU, AWU, etc) and influence which has tainted the party. And yes, I have in the past when I voted for Hawke in 1983, and Don Chipp also was someone I quite admired and voted for in previous elections. I don’t agree with Liberal policy on many things but they certainly are more capable than their opponents, and demonstrably so over the last 15 years and through most occasions in our recent history.
        2. No, Climate science moreso lacks rigour as a discipline, and is populated by like-minded individuals who have environmental interests at the foremost in their hearts, therby colouring their perceptions. They lack a healthy opposing viewpoint within their ranks because they firstly refuse to tolerate one, and secondly because anyone who has a non-mainstream viewpoint would be hounded out of the course and ostracisized before graduation- the profit motive is actually a secondary consideration to self-selected,ideological bias.
        3.Not really- One world government control is a wet dream of bureaucrats in the UN, climate science and microregulation are just convenient tools. FYI- I don’t believe most bureaucrats CARE one jot if climate change or AGW or CAGW is real or not, and you are being naive if you believe that.
        4. No“Green agenda” politics has co-opted good environmental practices for an ideological agenda. Most of their policies are counterproductive and counterintuitve to proper environmental management. Any good ideas are swamped by a lack of practical applicability or native intelligence. Most of the participants here believe that proper environmental management and real issues in this area are being ignored in favour of a false environmental “emergency”.
        5. Free markets are important for economic health (if you deny that you are beyond saving), while government regulation needs to be light, properly targetted and simple not cumbersome, with a view always to stimulating good business practices which are mindful of profitability while not being intrinsically harmful to other businesses or the environment. The regulations in place have nothing to do with sensible management and everything to do with governmental control for its own sake, creating an endless series of useless jobs to feed the bureaucratic monster which is insatiable, all-encompassing and unreasoning.
        6. Yes, any objective cost-benefit analysis of the UN would brand it an expensive failure which has caused far more harm, entrenched more poverty and injustice, and actually promoted a more confrontational international environment which we may see the fruits of in the very near future. As many have asked, what good has this unelected and undemocratic organisation done?
        7. Yes, you only need to look at the former occupations of Al Gore and malcolm Turnbull to find a singular common denominator. Coincidence? Hardly.
        So, your assumptions are grossly inaccurate and the questions show more of your prejudices than my answers show mine, IMHO.

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          A thoughtful and well written response to a comment that incomparison looks to be poorly considered.

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “If this conflation of confused ideas is an example of your understanding of those you seek to engage, I feel sorry for you”

          I have yet to see a post from RC that does not show obvious signs of absolute CAGW religious bigotry.

          A NON-thinker.. a brain-washed parrot. !!

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          I have also voted Labor and even Green in the past.

          Labor has become a corrupt union-run slime party.

          Greens have totally lost any resemblance of being an environmental party, being over-run by far-left agendas and idiocy.. producing morons like RC, HB, and the worst of all, the total urk that is Milne. I never thought someone more moronic tha BB was possible, but there are at least 2, maybe ten, now in the Lab?Green parliament!!

          Note: I use the ? in Lab?Green because they are pretty much the same party, can’t tell the differenc.

          00

      • #

        Very funny.

        Tell me. Have you ever considered a career in comedy? You’re very good. You could run a two man show like Laurel and Hardy did and team up with your mate Lewandowsky.

        You guys are definitely on the same page with your material…that’s for sure..

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Ross,

        Try some Krugman Kryptonite

        If you dare?

        00

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Nice idea, but governments are like radioactive cockroaches. They will thrive as the rest of us shrink.

          00

      • #
        turnrdoutnice

        I won’t bore people with what I have already written so I’ll summarise. Climate science has got its heat generation and heat transfer completely wrong. The basic mistake is to claim the IR emitted from the Earth’s surface is the same as an isolated black body in a vacuum. To get this they breach one of the most fundamental axioms of physics, Poynting’s Theorem.

        The net effect of this and other errors is to create a perpetual motion machine which multiplies real IR absorption by 5x [2009 'Energy Budget']. This is sneakily offset by exaggerated cloud cooling in hind casting to get temperature right. Thus the GHG warming appears to be right according to their incorrect assumption of direct thermalisation but our pops totally imaginary positive feedback.

        In short, it’s a clever fraud, initially the result of the mistaken belief by Meteorologists that ‘back radiation; can do thermodynamic work.

        The reality once you fix the physics’ mistakes is that there can be no CO2-AGW and the GHE is fixed at constant tsi by the first ~2000 ppmV water vapour.

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        OMG. the prime MORON strikes again.

        Your VERY FIRST question proves the whole issue is political.

        Thanks for reinforcing everything we have already said !!!! :-)

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        1. Would you vote Labor?
        Irrelevant.

        2. Do you think that climate scientists are more about funding their own wealth then real science?
        Since most climate scientist don’t appear to deal in REAL science, there can only be on answer.

        3. Is this a one world government form of control method, stemming from climate change fraud.
        Wrong way around..

        4. Are the policies of the green environment all trash and a waste of time?
        The use of the word “all” is leading.. I’m sure there are some policies worth pursuing, yet to find them though.

        5. Should the free market always be used as opposed to any government regulation?
        Again with the “always” .. grey exists !! idiot !

        6. The U.N. should be abolished
        Unless it can prove it can do something useful, like help developing countries with reliable energy supply, (which almost certainly means coal), then YES.

        7. Rich bankers control secret agendas over government and push climate change policy
        Secret ???

        Now WTF don’t you take a reality pill or something !!!!!

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “1. Would you vote Labor?
          Irrelevant.”

          This current Lab?Green mess.. not in a million years !!!!!

          00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            “1. Would you vote Labor?
            Irrelevant.”

            This current Lab?Green mess.. not in a million years !!!!!

            “1. Would you vote Labor?

            Regularly in the past,

            Presently or in the near future? Not even in Ross’s name.

            00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Quite frankly. your little survey is, if possible, even more contrive than the stuff that Loo paper is used for. It’s bias is totally and obviously far left-wing green fanatic idiot brain-washed fool.

        00

      • #
        mfo

        Ross
        1.good start, simple question.
        2.Two questions. Spelling mistake. Badly phrased.
        3.Three questions. Badly phrased.
        4.Two questions. Badly phrased.
        5.Two questions. Badly phrased
        6.Not a question, a statement.
        7.Not a question, two statements. Badly phrased

        Never mind, you can use the following based on work by Lew and OB:
        wc=analfact (loo[,1:6],cosfart=figjam

        Well done. You have automatically been accepted on the Lewandowsky course in statistical onanism at the UWA.

        10

      • #
        Tom

        You’d make a fascinating subject for a thesis by a real psychology academic, Ross. Incidentally, do you have a real job in the private economy or is a government paying you to think like that?

        00

      • #
        Manfred

        UN Agenda 21

        00

      • #
        Andrew Barnham

        Ross James @24.1
        September 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm

        Based on your gravitar image, assuming it is you, I’d guess you have a solid 20 to 30 years on me. Yet you display a breathtaking naivety and narrow mindedness towards other human beings; and the complexity and range of assembly of thinking processes and convictions we each embody. A teenagers view the world. How people who are stupefied and rendered senseless by their very own impassioned, unyielding convictions view the world.

        As exemplified by your poorly constructed and poorly thought out questions. They questions reveal more about you then the answers I would supply would reveal about me. I would answer all of them against your expectations actually, with caveats and clarifications to compensate for your poorly constructed questions. Maybe you can help Lew write his next survey.

        But thanks for the childish and contemptible generalisations you project upon me; they are quite entertaining.

        00

        • #
          Ross James

          Often what is strongly rejected is any talk of international co-operation in regards to Climate Change within these surveys.

          The general caricaturisation of anyone is to be found in the questions. My perception over the last five years in watching the devolution of climate science main stream denial is a source of astonishment and perplexity.

          The mechanisms are generally generated to prejudice mainstream science as being wholly or in part incompetent. A handful of scientists are weighted too favourably and are far too easily accepted with mainstream climate science being rejected.

          The consensus exists that our globe’s climate is changing and will worsen sustainability.

          A simple chart of the worlds population growth should send a steely cold spike up anyone’s back.

          Simply put – the predictions in running out and drying up all of the world’s resources are less then 100 years way. Should not most be a wee bit green and environmental in attitude?

          Never before in the entire of history of mankind will we face things unspeakable over the those years. What we think now does not matter. We are headed into an unknown future.

          http://coolgeography.co.uk/GCSE/Year%2010/Human%20World/Population%20Growth/Population_change.htm

          How easy is it to forget the impending crunch time for humanity.
          _______
          Ross J.

          11

          • #

            Ross,

            you can rabbit on all you like about your version of the Science.

            Until you show us something concrete that is being done, then all you have is, both literally, and figuratively, ‘Hot Air’.

            By far the biggest single indicator that would force people to sit up and take notice is when your side (the side that you claim has so much evidence) actually DOES SOMETHING about it.

            Far and away the largest of those large scale emitters of CO2 are those large scale coal fired power plants, which make up 30 to 40% of all CO2 emissions.

            When your side actually bites the bullet and starts wholesale shutting down of those large scale coal fired plants, then, (and only then) will people begin to sit up and take real notice.

            The results will be absolutely catastrophic, but Ross, if the problem is as dire as you always make out, then it’s a case of doing something drastic, and then working around it.

            But no, Ross, nothing like that is being done ….. anywhere.

            Not one of those large scale coal fired power plants has been shut down because of this scare campaign in the last four and a half years I have been watching, and in fact construction of them is ramping up on a never before seen scale, and with the bottom dropping out of the Thermal coal price, then even more of them will be constructed, oh, except here in Australia that is.

            Instead, all that is happening is that your side, every single sector of it, is seeking to do only one thing about it.

            Not shut them down.

            But to make as much money from it as they can.

            And Ross, you wonder why WE are cynical.

            Get your people to DO SOMETHING Ross, not just rail against us for our so called deltaechonovemberindiaalphalima.

            Ross, don’t just bleat hot air. Get them to do something.

            When that starts to happen Ross, then, and only then, I might be actually tempted to admit that there might actually be something to it.

            I am gradually learning the Science associated with this, but for me, the fact that they are doing NOTHING is the biggest single indicator for me that this is nothing more than an invented scam.

            DO SOMETHING Ross. Don’t just hit us all with a damp feather because we don’t agree with you.

            Tony.

            00

          • #

            Ross “we are all doomed I tell yer” james says…

            We are headed into an unknown future.

            Name me a time when we were heading into a KNOWN future Ross.
            Do you see the inanity of your comment? No?

            Then here’s your sign

            00

          • #
            timg56

            Ross,

            Re our heading into an unknown future.

            Unless you know someone with a working crystal ball or psychic abilities, you, along with the rest of us have always been neading into an unknown future.

            It’s what makes the future interesting.

            Unless of course your personal motto is “Fear the Future.”

            10

      • #
        timg56

        Ross:

        Survey response

        1) Nope – don’t have a Labor Party in the states.

        2) No – though I would not be surprised if the fame and prestige that comes with bringing in grant money has some impact on a few.

        3) No – have you been hitting the booze?

        4) In large part yes. (We’ve had to eliminate the term environmental from our science education material because of the bad reputation it carries with regard to science.)

        5) Of course not. There is a role for both.

        6) Let me get back to you on that one.

        7) No. Now I’m convinced you are hitting the bottle.

        Congratulations Ross, you might qualify for a position with Prof. Lewandowsky.

        00

  • #
    Marty Cornell

    Jo Nova said “As a former graduate of UWA….” Just curious, what’s a “former graduate”?

    ———————-

    Fair point. I’m a former student and a current graduate. :-) – Jo

    00

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      Pleased to hear it, Jo

      Hope we’ll see you tomorrow evening at The Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery?

      Second Ordinary Meeting of Convocation kiccks off at 7pm.

      Professor Paul Johnson, the new VC, speaking on: “The changing role of universities in the 21st century.”

      Perhaps some “other business” too.

      Alice

      00

  • #
    RoHa

    The whole thing seems badly thought out.

    I count twelve conspiracy theories.

    (Items 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 – look more like sicentific disputes rather than conspiracies to me.)

    Of those twelve, eight seem to be the sort of theories that suggest that the US Government is acting against the interests of the people. One (Coca-Cola) is an anti-big-business theory. These are the sort of theories that would be held by left-wingers such as myself.

    And yet Lew wants to associate them with free-market ideologues! Such people are more likely to be right wingers, and fill sceptic blogs with fulminations about a conspiracy of Satanic Marxists trying to use AGW as a way of making the whole world like North Korea.

    If he wants to smoke out conspiracy theorists, he has the wrong set of conspiracies.

    And as Jo has pointed out, some of the alleged conspiracies are matters about which reasonable people could differ. For example, number 7.

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

    Only the totally historically ignorant would think that there was a single reason for a war. And the perpetrators of that particular crime added “regime change” to the mix.

    Number 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”

    That was the conclusion of the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations. Were they all nuts?
    (Um, they were politicians, so maybe I should withdraw that last question.)

    The way the term “conspiracy theorist” is thrown around as a denigratory term suggest that those who use it have the following beliefs.

    1. There are no conspiracies, and never were any.

    2. The official (usually government) explanation is always completly correct.

    3. All conspiracy theorists believe the same set of conspiracies.

    4. There are never any good reasons to believe in any conspiracy.

    5. All conspiracy theorists are nuts.

    But a knowledge of history shows that both 1 and 2 are false. (Also, the official explanation for the 911 attacks makes them inconsistent, since that explanation attributes the attacks to an Al Qaeda conspiracy.)

    (I would say that anyone who believes 1 is hopelessly naive. Anyone who believes 2 simply hasn’t been paying attention. The Yes, Minister dictum of “Never believe anything until it is officially denied” is a better rule of thumb.)

    A knowledge of a reasonable number of human beings will show that 3 is not true. A person can believe one official story while doubting another, and doubting an official story does not imply believing any particular alternative story. I believe the official story about the moon landings and doubt that of the 911 atacks. But I do not have an alternative story about the 911 attacks.

    4 is not true either. There are, of course, good reasons to believe in the conspiracies that have been exposed to history, and there are good reasons for doubting some official stories that have not yet been exposed. Of course, there are some conspiracies that do not have good reasons for belief.

    Where 5 is concerned, well, yes, some conspiracy theorists are nuts. (That doesn’t prove them wrong.)

    But many of us are quite sane and simply very sceptical.

    And it is hardly rational to hold beliefs 1 to 5 when they are so easily shown to be false.

    00

  • #

    Ross wrote:

    This is a mixture of fundamentalist apocalyptic vision (AKA 666) and ultra fee market think with a disconnect to mainstream understanding that in humanity exists a desire to be aspirational rather then be debase

    What’s an “ultra fee [sic] market”?

    If you mean free market, then you’ve contradicted yourself within the one sentence. There are no degrees of free market. It’s either free or it’s regulated. You seem to be unable to recognize that a free market can coexist comfortably with the law; to protect the freedoms of individuals and to make them take associated responsibility.

    You don’t appear to understand that a free market is driven by aspiration. By self-interest. The same self-interest that drives some people to try to control others with threats, defamation or violence.

    Perhaps your most egregious misattribution is that of a “vision” you purport that those who don’t share your views hold.

    BTW: There is NO secret to Agenda 21. There is no secret to the ICLEI infiltrating and recruiting local governments to implement Agenda 21 measures. Here is an open declaration of same in German parliament. Or you can simply visit the ICLEI web site and drill down to its charter.

    As to the UN; it does very little good at all. It is an irresponsible, political quagmire.

    You miscategorise those things as “conspiracies”, with the implication that nobody else can see those things are happening. If they can’t, then they are either ignorant or gullible.

    And to round it off, you take a swipe at a Senator, whose words you appear to have misinterpreted, or misinterpreted for you. You attribute a vision of evil intent; where there was no word uttered as to intent. Here is the “offending” text from page 73 of Hansard for the 18th of September, 2012:

    There are even some creepy people out there—and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, ‘These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union.’ It is extraordinary that these sorts of suggestions are put forward in the public sphere and are not howled down right at the very start. We can talk about people like Professor Peter Singer who was, I think, a founder of the Greens or who wrote a book about the Greens. Professor Singer has appeared on Q&A on the ABC, the national broadcaster. He has endorsed such ideas as these. I reject them. I think that these things are the next step. As we accede to one request we will then have the next one which will be for unions of more than two people. We will have suggestions for unions of three or four people. I notice the Greens are heckling, but the point is that they misled their constituent base and there was an outcry about this. Where do we go then? Do we go down the Peter Singer path? Those that say this is the end of the social revolution have no history of being honourable about that. They continue to push and challenge our social and cultural mores. We simply cannot allow such an important social institution to be redefined, especially when Australians do not see this as a priority issue.

    Where is the “evil intent”?

    You will not perhaps even be bothered to read what was said in the House, Senator Bernardi framing the context on the previous page of Hansard. Excerpt:

    The move for same-sex marriage is just another step in what I consider an attack on our enduring and important institutions, particularly the social ones. It is another tear in the fabric of our social mores. The proponents of same-sex marriage, and I do not mean to generalise but this is about many of the proponents of same-sex marriage, ask for one step and they think that is all they want or they say that is all they want and they will be satisfied when this has been achieved—
    ‘Just this one thing; give us that and that will be okay and all inequality will be diminished and everyone will be equal and it will be fair’. But the harsh reality is that there will never be equality in society and there are always going to be people who feel that they have got a raw deal or have been discriminated against or do not have the same access to opportunities or advantages as others do, and to pretend any differently is really to deny reality. But history demonstrates that once those who advocate for radical social change, which I consider this to be, achieve it in any way, shape or form, there is then another demand and another demand and another demand and they slowly chip away at the very foundation of what provides our social support, stability and cultural mores and we are left with a replacement that is somehow vastly inferior to the wisdom of successive generations.

    No “evil intent” attributed. Just a chipping away; motivated by the self-interest of a few.

    10

  • #
    bananbender

    A psychologist considers calculating a correlation coefficient with SPSS to be “advanced” statistics.

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Shouldn’t that read:
      A psychologist considers calculating “advanced”.?

      Maybe the logical fallacy is in:
      A psychologist considers…?

      When I saw people yammering on about using Excel for the analysis I started to worry. People seriously use Excel for this type of analysis? I wondered what happened to SPSS? I used it when I did my Masters thesis nearly 30 years ago and have not had a lot of need for it since. Nowadays with resources like R students have it so easy. I think the Canterbury University Prime 750 probably had less grunt than my Android tablet.

      00

  • #
    pat

    Lewandowsky gets MSM coverage, even in the UK – Guardian, Telegraph and UK Register – for a LEWDICROUS survey signifying nothing, yet i haven’t seen any coverage of the following survey, which is of great concern to many, many australians. i’ve been trying to find coverage or video of an interview last nite on Sky Business Channel with Peter Jones, Chief Economist at Master Builders Australia, but can find nothing. however:

    Master Builders: June Quarter 2012: National Survey of Building & Construction
    BUILDERS IN SURVIVAL MODE AS ACTIVITY GRINDS TO A HALT
    http://www.masterbuilders.com.au/TemporaryDownloads/7AE8100F-F730-4F59-91C9-D51A19BAC3E3-June%202012%20National%20Survey.pdf

    20 Sept: SkyBusinessNews: Brickworks annual profit falls 70pc
    Bricks and masonry supplier Brickworks has booked a 70 per cent fall in annual net profit as residential building starts dropped to near 30-year lows.
    But the company is hopeful of a patchy recovery in the next 12 months.
    Brickworks on Thursday reported its net profit fell to $43.3 million for the year to July 31 from $142.5 million in 2010/11.
    The result included $35.6 million in significant charges, included restructuring costs and a $31.6 million writedown on the value of some of Brickworks’ building products businesses.
    ***The writedown was due to lower residential building activity and the inability to immediately recover the full impact of the carbon tax…
    Managing director Lindsay Partridge: ‘The recovery in building activity is likely to be patchy over the next 12 months, with weak full-time employment growth, low confidence and poor affordability eliminating any impact from lower interest rates to date,’ he said.
    Mr Partridge said the residential housing market could improve if commodity prices continued falling and the value of the Australian dollar dropped…
    Meanwhile, diversified investment firm Washington H Soul Pattinson, which owns 44.5 per cent of Brickworks, reported a 61 per cent fall in its profit in the year to July 31 to $143 million.
    The result was skewed by a $197 million gain in the previous year from the sale of Arrow Energy shares by coal miner New Hope Corporation…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=797122&vId=

    20 Sept: SkyBusinessNews: Aust banks could withstand crisis- IMF
    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says Australia’s banking system is well placed to withstand a US-style housing crisis.
    IMF monetary and capital markets division chief Dr Cheng Hoon Lim says so-called ‘stress tests’ had been carried out to see how Australia’s banks could cope with a housing collapse like that which hit the US and UK in the past five years.
    ‘Even in the most extreme scenario the banking system fared pretty well,’ she said.
    Dr Cheng said the stress tests conducted by the IMF showed Australia’s banks would hold up even in the event of a five per cent drop in GDP and 35 per cent fall in house prices…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=797124

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Sonny answers:

    1. Would you vote Labor?
    No. Never again after Julia Gillard (I was a former labor supporter)

    2. Do you think that climate scientists are more about funding their own wealth then real science?
    No. They are more about doing their job well and fulfilling the terms of their job description.
    Since they are ALL employed by government their role is to support government policy.
    The fact that they are paid extremely helps them stay motivated…

    3. Is this a one world government form of control method, stemming from climate change fraud.
    Let’s see Ross, 10% of carbon tax revenue is syphoned out of Australia to the UN who is unashamedly committed to furthering a form of global governance in relation to energy, sustainability and environment. So it certainly looks like climate change is helping the UN in this mission, if it was not set up as the sole purpose.

    4. Are the policies of the green environment all trash and a waste of time?
    That depends if you want to see the current global economic system laid to ruin for the benefit of a few in the privileged class and to the detriment of everyone else.

    5. Should the free market always be used as opposed to any government regulation?
    No, what imbecile would ever suggest there is no place for goverent regulation.

    6. The U.N. should be abolished.
    It’s a fucking sham. Ofcourse it should be!

    7. Rich bankers control secret agendas over government and push climate change policy
    Yes. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Take a look at this:

    The gobal warming SURVIVAL HANDBOOK by David De Rothschild.
    (oh my god I said Rothschild!!! Does that make me anti-Semitic?)
    84% thumbs down on YouTube and comments disabled. I wonder why!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSI-L6uGa8M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “1. Would you vote Labor?
      No. Never again after Julia Gillard (I was a former labor supporter)”

      Its not that its just Gillard, its that the whole PATHETIC LOT of the ALP have bent on their knees to her, and refused to say anything against her CORRUPTION of the political, social and moral makeup of Austarlia as a whole.

      I can’t believe that ANY worthwhile person could possibley countenance this… but they do !!!!! What has Labor become!!!!! truly sad :-(

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “1. Would you vote Labor?
      No. Never again after Julia Gillard (I was a former labor supporter)”

      Its not that its just Gillard, its that the whole PATHETIC LOT of the ALP have bent on their knees to her, and refused to say anything against her CORRUPTION of the political, social and moral makeup of Australia as a whole.

      I can’t believe that ANY worthwhile person could possibley countenance this… but they do !!!!! What has Labor become!!!!! truly sad :-(

      00

  • #
    pat

    continuing…

    i was watching T20 cricket last nite, and during the ads, turned to bloomberg channel, where glamourous finance reporter was asking car industry guy “how can we force people to buy cars?”, so i switched to Sky Business Channel, where Peter Jones from Master Builders was describing the present horrors of the construction industry, only to have glamourous finance reporter say, paraphrasing “well it must be bad if they’re thinking of scrapping jobs”. Jones dryly explains 60,000 jobs have already been lost since the GFC. no concern shown by the reporter.

    and no concern in the MSM in general for all the tradies and their families who are suffering and, in most cases, aren’t elegibile for the dole, and who are at risk of losing their homes, because they can’t pay their morgages, not to mention their ever-rising electricity and rates bills.

    this is interesting and ever so cynical:

    13 Sept: Business Spectator: AAP: The missing construction jobs mystery
    If the pattern of the previous 20 years still applied, then employment would have risen strongly too, by around 7.6 per cent a year, lifting the number of people employed in construction by about 370,00 to 1.36 million.
    But it hasn’t.
    In fact, in the five and a bit years since the June 2007 quarter, construction employment rose, not by 370,000 but by 35,000 to 978,000, less than one per cent a year.
    So where are the missing 335,000 or so jobs?
    ***Well, some of them are in other countries.
    For example, an offshore gas-drilling rig built in Thailand and towed to the North West Shelf by tugs from Singapore crewed by Filipinos, is counted as construction work done in Australia, but it’s really the massive volume of construction, not the small amount of it done here, that’s counted…
    So when the ABS measures construction work done in mining, it’s counted as construction work.
    But when ABS calls for the monthly labour force survey, the person doing the work will say there (THEY) are employed in mining.
    So some construction work – and probably much of the recent increase – is done by workers in mining and other sectors.
    The ABS only records employment of 271,000 in the entire mining sector, with a rise of 135,000 in the five-and-a-bit years since the June quarter of 2007.
    Even if we assume half of those additional mining jobs were really construction jobs, that would still leave about 100,000 “missing” jobs.
    But the rest of the gap could easily be explained by rising labour productivity.
    If gross value added per construction worker had grown by only one per cent a year, it would mean around 80,000 fewer workers needed in construction, which would just about explain where the rest of the missing jobs went.
    Mystery solved.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-missing-construction-jobs-mystery-Y4C9E?OpenDocument&src=hp7

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    This isn’t about science or statistics!

    It’s about power and control!

    Tools Fools like Ross James, John Brooks, MattyB, KR, Sillyfilly, & Maxine are just there for the feel good side of this. Not honesty or questioning! Lewandowsky is in the same boat – only we pay him to attack us! Reports, peer reviewed papers, statistics, data and opinions are garbage unless they come out and debate the FACTS of what is actually occuring! The time scale keeps on increasing – the WORLD will be FU(XE% by 2010, 2020, 2050 no – lets make it 2100! Tim the Tool worked this out too late.

    THE TIME IS NOW TO GET RID OF THESE FRUITLOOPS!

    They are all involved in politics or in the so called public service of the people – yet we allow these hicks to dictate policy????

    I’m finished putting up with the lies that seem to flow out of their keyboards.

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Yah man were pissed off and angry yah!
      What ever happened to Australia and the fair suck of the sav?

      00

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Fair suck of the sav’. Haven’t heard that for 30+ years.

        Too many imports is my belief. The Australia that we grew up with has been watered down to a pathetic slave/complience mentality. We need to get angry again.

        00

        • #
          John Brookes

          When I was young, you heard the odd, “Fair suck of the sauce bottle”, and in my head I thought, “tomato sauce”. This should have puzzled me, but I never worried about it. So when Kevin Rudd decided to revive the saying, I was amazed to discover it referred to alcohol, and people having more than their fair share when passing a bottle around. A very socialist saying.

          00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Hey John Brookes,

            You’re wrong about the “Fair suck of the sav” – it meams fair go – taking more than your share but in social situations mainly and it refers to the battered sav – not the sauce bottle. The sauce bottle came later – and if you wnat to claim it at socialist – go for it – but “Fair suck of the sav”!

            “I’ll have a Pharlap & Spanish Fly?”

            What does this mean then John?

            00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Off topic – but Lewandsky wants to take away the spotlight from this sort of environmental vandalism.

    The Musselroe Wind Mill Killer has a new video update:

    Lets look at the soil excavation alone
    1. Wind Mill Towers – 56,000 cubic meters
    2. Transmission Towers – 7,650 cubic meters
    3. Transmission cable trenchs – 252,000 cubic meters (28km X 3m X 3m)
    4. Workstations / Substations – 12,5000 cubic meters
    5. Roadworks & work areas for constructions – 8,500 cubic meters

    Of this nearly 50,000 cubic meters had to be blasted to remove rock etc.

    The total excavation volume equals over 330,00 cubic meters which enough to build a footpath 100mm thick and 1 meter wide yet 3.3 milliom meters long??????

    Lewandowsky etc want the focus off this type of environmental vandalism – even Tristan from Climate Spectator doesn’t bring up the real environment! Greenpeace doesn’t bring up the real environment! John Brookes, MattyB, KR, James Ross, Sillyfilly and Maxine really don’t give a FU£K about the environment – they worry about their position in life!

    The birds, bats and plant life that will become extinct around Musselroe Wind Mill Killing Fields will not be even considered by these tools fools. Because they don’t care!

    00

  • #

    “He certainly must believe his own PR — that the deniers are dog-stupid flawed brains”

    Hold on here. Whilst one of our two dogs is very very dim indeed (bless her, she’s a lovely dog), the other is smart and sharp as nails, with an extraordinary understanding of spoken English. Don’t diss the dogs. I’d far rather spend time with dogs than the idiot Lewandosky, who would seem to me to have a nasty case of NPD. I’ve met ‘em before, and a good way to spot them is how they react when you challenge them about their behaviour. The Narcissist is ALWAYS right (even when they contradict something they have previously said), and the Narcissist not only has no shame, they don’t even understand what shame is. They are, in their minds, the crown of creation. And bloody dangerous at times.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    I can’t make any more excuses to link to Lewandowsky – this is just plain off topic!

    Sorry everyone – but this windmill killing machine SH!t has got to me badly!

    Science by Lewandowsky is non-existant and has even spread over to those in Zoology and Botany!

    Here we have Dr.Cindy Hull. B.Ed BSc (Hons) PhD on video in 2003 but included on the Hydro Tasmania You Tube Video promo in 2011? Have a look at what she says at 3.40 minutes!

    Here’s what she says in general – the video is so nice and kind yet so akin to the environmental vandals of old! This is the new generation of liars that are telling us we need windmills, solar farms, wave energy generation etc – yet they are all on the gravy train of the BIG GREEN! (Don’t get me started on solar farms – visiting the new site of Valdora up on the Sunshine Coast next week)

    Qupoted by Dr Hull

    “lets identify the problem birds”
    “Lets devise impact methods to minimise impact to those ______(bird species)”
    “At one site we’ve put in place strategies to mimimise impact to those _______(bird species)”
    “We’ve put in place vegetation management strategies to make the site unattractive to those species”
    “So there’s going to be no food resources around the turbines to attract the species”

    Not to protect the bird species – but drive them off somewhere else – to make sure no Windmill kills their little bird species! Did they check the territory density of the species, the food available in surrounding areas – NO No NO – just make sure the slashing blade of their giant Killer Windmills don’t slice the legs & beak off their protected parrot or the left wing off the sea eagle – these people are lying bastards!

    Notice in all the videos the lack of information on the native vegetation – when does a windmill kill a plant? – don’t worry! Most of the native vegetaion relies on wind, birds or insects for pollination and seed distribution – all now totally fuck£d by these monsters! Windmills wipe out 50% of native vegetaion by elimating pollination and seed distribution! All studies have now ceased in this area.

    Lets just nuke the whole area, or fence and revegetate to ensure no animal or bird will be killed by their beautiful structural steel Kilowatt making turbines! This is in effect what these idiot machines and the surrounding structures end up achieving – total destruction of the environment.

    This is environmental vandalism at it’s worst. This is just the tip of the melting Maxine Iceberg and her lies!

    And at the end Ms Milne & Mr Brown drive down the road of squashed skeletons of rare green plains grass frogs, mown Acacia seed stock for now dead insects, birds and bats! Yet! They Yell – WOW – isn’t this sustainable energy GREEN!

    BU((SH(Ters – all of them!

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      I wish I could give 100 thumbs up.

      Yet, these monstrousities are the poster child for “Green energy”….

      Green as in a sick puking sort of green.

      ENVIRONMENTALLY DEVASTATING..

      thanks Greenpeace… thanks Wilderness Society….

      how about you get off your FAT wallets and start protecting the environment,

      like you ONCE pretended to.

      00

  • #

    Steve McIntyre opens his account by quoting the opening comments of Lewandowsky and Oberaur

    The science of statistics is all about differentiating signal from noise. This exercise is far from trivial: Although there is enough computing power in today’s laptops to churn out very sophisticated analyses, it is easily overlooked that data analysis is also a cognitive activity.
    Numerical skills alone are often insufficient to understand a data set—indeed, number-crunching ability that’s unaccompanied by informed judgment can often do more harm than good.
    This fact frequently becomes apparent in the climate arena, where the ability to use pivot tables in Excel or to do a simple linear regressions is often over-interpreted as deep statistical competence.

    The emphasis is mine.

    Steve McIntyre says

    I mostly agree with this part of Lewandowsky’s comment, though I would not characterize statistics as merely “differentiating signal from noise”.

    I agree pretty much agree with McIntyre and by implication with (to a lesser degree) with much of Lewandowsky’s comment. There is much to unpick here, so will have to wait for the Saturday morning now 30 hours away, but on my emphasised points are

    1. “Differentiating signal from noise” is highly important. Professional opinion pollsters are very careful to eliminate bias, and to take into account the sample size. Also the deeper they penetrate into the sub-categories, the more circumspect they tend to become.
    2. “Data analysis is also a cognitive activity” should be viewed in connection to Lewandowsky being a cognitive scientist. A University Professor is bringing the weight of his specialism to bear to this tricky issue. It is worth reading the short “Debunking Handbook” that he co-wrote with John Cook for an understanding of the significance of this point.
    3. “Number-crunching ability that’s unaccompanied by informed judgment can often do more harm than good.” A phrase that sounds great. But what is “informed judgment”? Having analyzed numbers for many years, one thing I have learnt is to look at the numbers in different ways, and see where they lead. That can be extremely uncomfortable, and may challange your preconceived ideas, as I recently found.
    4. “Where the ability to use pivot tables in Excel …. is often over-interpreted as deep statistical competence”. I couldn’t agree more. I love using pivot tables, but they do have their limitations. Compared to Steve McIntyre’s heavyweight analysis, my efforts are superficial. However I believe there are two aspects where they are useful. First, is an aspect important for those getting buried in high-level analysis. By analysing figures in various ways it could identify outliers, and say whether you are losing site of the bigger picture. Second, like a good graph, it can encapsulate the message that higher level statistical analysis reveals, making the message clearer to the intelligent lay person. But like a bad graph, pivot tables can be used to mislead.

    Finally, Steve McIntyre likes to develop the backstory. Why the lashing out in the direction of saying the high-level statistics give a different from the low-level Excel work? I clue might be in binging or googling “Lewandowsky pivot tables” and observing the results prior to the blog post. :)

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    jo, the “in press” paper by lewandowsky et al is now published at Sage:

    Sage: Misinformation and Its Correction
    Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest December 2012 vol. 13 no. 3
    Authors:
    Stephan Lewandowsky
    Ullrich K. H. Ecker
    Colleen M. Seifert
    Norbert Schwarz and
    John Cook
    http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi

    and is already reported on here:

    19 Sept: Health Canal: Misinformation: why it sticks and how to fix it
    http://www.healthcanal.com/cancers/32346-Misinformation-why-sticks-and-how-fix.html

    20 Sept Washington: NewstrackIndia: ANI (Asian News International): Why misinformation sticks
    http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/09/20/237-Why-misinformation-sticks-.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    21 Sept: News.com.au: Malcolm Farr: Treasurer Wayne Swan linked to Democrat charity donation
    TREASURER Wayne Swan, who called US Republicans economic “crazies”, has defended a Government gift to a foundation run by Bill Clinton
    The taxpayers’ $550,000 went to the former president’s Clinton Foundation four days ago to pay for carbon accounting in Kenya…
    “It’s completely inappropriate for the Treasurer to be playing in partisan US politics and that is not in Australia’s interests,” Mr Hunt told news.com.au.
    “Against that background, it seems even odder that they are giving money to one of the world’s richest foundations.”
    The Government approved $550,000 for the design of a “National Carbon Accounting System in Kenya”, according to a tender document from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
    The Government is expected to be asked why it was sending the design work to Boston when it boasts of creating so-called green jobs here in Australia…
    Australian politicians have previously injected their own partisan observations into US political contests…
    http://www.news.com.au/news/swans-attack-on-us-republican-party-labelled-hateful/story-fnejlrpu-1226478891350

    00

  • #
    pat

    21 Sept: SMH: Peter Spinks: Climate change: the inside story
    To discuss these and related matters, the Royal Society of Victoria is hosting a climate change symposium that opened last night in Melbourne with a free public lecture entitled “Addressing the myths of climate change”.
    Today, the symposium begins in earnest with world experts discussing each of three key areas of research: science, impacts and adaptation.
    “The symposium aims to provide a forum where experts can engage with the community about issues without the need for overly technical language or political hype,” says co-organiser Associate Professor Gleadow…
    NASA satellite measurements show that coastal regions of the East Antarctic ice sheet, including long stretches of the Australian Antarctic Territory, have been losing about 57 billion tonnes of ice each year for the past three years. The complete loss of the sheet, the world’s biggest expanse of frozen water, would raise sea levels by roughly 50 metres, polar scientists believe.
    The West Antarctic ice sheet, in particular, is losing about 132 billion tonnes of ice a year. Global ice losses now contribute an estimated 1.8 millimetres a year to rises in sea level.
    Such calculations have given rise to reports suggesting that more than 250,000 homes in Australia could be damaged or lost due to storm surge and sea level rise in coming decades.
    Claims that up to 45,000 homes in Victoria alone – worth more than $10 billion – would be threatened by rising sea levels by 2100, were followed by two CSIRO reports that suggest sea levels during storms are likely to be about 15 centimetres higher in 2030 than today.
    Another report will consider four sea-level scenarios by 2100, including two based on rises of 80 centimetres, one of 110 centimetres and one of 140 centimetres. Victorian planning regulations currently forecast a rise in sea level of 80centimetres by the end of the century…
    Find out what’s on today at the Royal Society’s climate change symposium here
    Learn more about environmental chemistry here
    Discover the effects of chemical compounds on the atmosphere here
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/climate-change-the-inside-story-20120921-26ahf.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    Brisbane City Council: Green Events
    What does climate change mean for Queensland?
    Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 6 – 7:30pm
    The Greek Club, 29 Edmonstone Street, South Brisbane
    Bookings Register through the Climate Commission website or by phone on 02 6159 7624
    Professor Tim Flannery and the Climate Commission are visiting Brisbane to hold a community forum about climate change in Australia. This is your opportunity to learn about the science, the impacts for Queensland and how Australia can progress to a prosperous, low carbon future. Come along and get involved in the conversation…
    http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/whats-on/type/Green-events/index.htm

    Griffith is CAGW Central:

    Griffith Uni: Climate Change Response Program: Events
    Flannery’s Greek Club Event and more
    From “Partnerships” Link: A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to promote research collaboration, researcher exchange, and knowledge sharing, has been signed between Griffith University and China’s Ministry of Science and Technology ACCA21 – the administrative centre for China’s Agenda 21. The mission of ACCA21 is to promote the implementation of China’s Agenda 21 and sustainable development in China and, among other things, to develop a network of institutions and experts at home and abroad in the field of sustainable development strategy, S&T policy, Climate Change and Global Environment.
    (PLUS LINKS TO STAFF, FUNDING OPPORTUNITES, PARTNERS, ETC)
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/research/research-excellence/griffith-climate-change-response-program/news-and-events

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Lewandowsky has really hit a nerve with you guys, hasn’t he?

    01

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Absolutely. How dare someone masquerade as an academic and commit such travesties in the name of science. He really has a nerve to try to defend the indefensible. And it seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

      10

    • #
      Mark D.

      JB, The better question is: Have you no nerves to strike?

      00

    • #
      timg56

      John,

      I think it more a case of him swinging and nailing himself in the nuts.

      10

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Jo quotes younger Lewandowsky: Psychological Science, July 1993; vol. 4, 4: pp. 236-243. “… care must be taken to avoid pitfalls that may arise when computer code inadvertently differs from the intended specifications of a theory, or when predictions derive not from fundamental properties of a theory but from pragmatic choices made by the modeler.” [abstract] More recenctly, Lewandowsky criticises “no one who has toyed with our data has thus far exhibited any knowledge of the crucial notion of a latent construct or latent variable”

    There has been talk of latent variables. For simplicity, here is the first line from a Wikipedia search. In statistics, latent variables (as opposed to observable variables), are variables that are not directly observed but are rather inferred (through a mathematical model) from other variables that are observed (directly measured).Lewandowsky chided readers for lack of consideration of latent variables as part of his technique. But they do raise some questions. They are derived from other variables that are directly measured.
    In the present example, there are two types of measurement possible for each of the selected events. Consider a shortly worded event, ‘In July 1947 the U.S. military recovered the wreckage of an alien craft from Roswell, New Mexico, and covered up the fact.’

    This is a statement from which a direct measurement is to be made.

    Possibility 1. Do as Lewandowsky did and allow a subjective survey, where respondents give a rank of 1 to 4 from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. This method raises the question of whether the result is a direct measurement, or merely another form of latent variable. It has the problem that evidence trumps belief and he is polling belief.
    Possibility 2. Derive a probability that the event happened. Poor, illogical wording aside, it is most probable that the event did not happen. This assertion is made because there would be inevitable later discussion and action, such as sealing off the suspect reason to avoid the spread of new life forms; and for other logical reasons. This leaves us with one measurement and so a latent construct cannot be made from it.

    This is of little concern except that the poll response was used to class people into nutters and holy. The questions that are posed simply do not have the ability to do this in a proper way. Even as a half-way point, Lewandowsky would need to have some idea of whether an issue was a conspiracy or not before he could classify people as conspirators or believers. Ideally, he would have a very firm, arguable, personal idea.

    To close the loop, now that Climate Audit has cleaned up the wrong ststistics, perhaps the good Professor would like to give us the benefit of his personal answers to the poll questions, should they have been put to him.

    00

    • #

      Understanding latent variables are crucial – and you give some insight. Lewandowsky says the Excel pivot tables that show, for instance that 1067/1145 reponses strongly reject the “NASA faked moon landings” conspiracy theory is just noise. The true indicator is that 4% of those who dogmatically reject climate science / accept the CT is statistically significantly more than the 1% dogmatically accept climate science / accept the CT. The fact that the 4% is 2/48 and 1% is 3/495 is just numbers. The fact that I, Tom Curtis and Steve Mc have also identified the 4% as fake responses also seems lost. Steve Mc’s brilliance is in comparing the correlation between CYMoon and CYHIV (denial of HIV causes AIDS. He shows that much of the correlation comes from the vast majority who believe neither conspiracy theory, and much of the rest from these two “superscammers”.

      00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Government spin doctor at ABC tells us the carbon tax debate is over, it’s time to move on, and somehow it is Tony Abbot that has the egg on his face as a result, not Gillard.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-21/cassidy-carbon-tax-a-fresh-debate-is-underway/4273130

    A curious thing happened in the Federal Parliament on Wednesday.
    Question Time came and went for the first time in ages without a single Opposition question on the carbon tax.
    You can put it down to the first tangible response to the brace of opinion polls showing modest improvement in the Gillard Government’s fortunes.
    It implies Michael Gordon got it right when he wrote in The Age on Monday that the polls were essentially about what happened – and what didn’t happen – when the carbon tax came into force on July 1.

    The debate is over? When was the climate science of the carbon tax ever debated??

    We are told that just because global temperatures have flatlined for a decade that does not mean global warming has ended, but just because the country didn’t fall over in the first 3 months of the carbon tax we’re told this DOES mean it’s a completely innocuous successful economic and environment policy.

    I reckon that’s a cognitive backflip Guessin’ Stefan should analyse…

    But is the brief lull in Oppositional opposition a sign that MV’s opinion of token resistance culminating in an Anthropogenic Acquiescence is now actually occurring as he predicted?

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      What can I say – anybody else noticed that the Member for Goldman Sachs has been more prominent in the left wing media this past week than either Abbott or Gillard?

      .
      On a completely different note and totally O/T but please, everybody, friend and foe alike, please stay close to family for the next week or so.

      We live in interesting times.

      00

  • #
    Myrrh

    “Lewandowsky is absolutely off-base in his assertion that the examination of outliers is inappropriate statistical analysis. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: proper statistical analysis REQUIRES the examination of outliers.”

    Isn’t this how it all began – the Callendar/Keeling method?

    The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

    Prof. Beck’s paper “180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS”

    There was no verification or falsification of results and methods used by other authors, especially those published in the 20th century (e.g. Lundegardh [35, 36], Duerst [37], Kreutz[38], Misra [39], Scholander [40]), with exception of Buch 1935 [32], lying on the “fuel line” (Callendar 1958 [20]). According to Callendar, Keeling and the IPCC, CO2 variations to be observed in air were due diurnal, and seasonal cycles, or to glacial/ interglacial fluctuations. Natural concentrations are assumed to have been in equilibrium until mankind disturbed the natural situation. In this way, any long term observations that might display decadal to centennial natural variations in atmospheric CO2 are ruled out a priori by Callendar and Keeling. As I discuss further below, these criticisms by Callendar and Keeling, and the selective way in which they discarded previous data, are not able to be justified. Their most egregious error was perhaps the dismissal of all data which showed variations from their presupposed average.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts?page=11

    00

  • #
  • #

    Lewandowsky seems to have forgotten the sage advice “If in a hole, stop….”. He makes an attack on Steve McIntyre’s statistical abilities. To which Steve McIntyre gives a reply, concluding

    Either Lewandowsky “made a beginner’s mistake, in which case he should stop posing as an expert in statistics and take a refresher of Multivariate Analysis 101″.
    Or else Lewandowsky, cognizant of how thoroughly compromised his results are by fake/fraudulent data, rather than thanking his critics for spotting defects and withdrawing his study, has decided to double down by trying to manufacture doubt about criticism of the degree to which his data and results have been thoroughly compromised in the “hope that no one would see through his manufacture of doubt.”

    We should put this in proper context and let Lewandowsky speak.(Emphasis mine)In the Daily Telegraph 28th August he is quoted

    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.

    The Debunking Handbook (co-written with John Cook) begins

    It’s self-evident that democratic societies should base their decisions on accurate information. On many issues, however, misinformation can become entrenched in parts of the community, particularly when vested interests are involved.
    Reducing the influence of misinformation is a difficult and complex challenge.

    00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Or Lewandowsky is trying to diversify into stats and is aiming to change the rules of that discipline. A bit like CO2 is no longer a beneficial plant food but is now an atmospheric pollutant.

      00

  • #
    Political Junkie

    Very early in the game I posted this on Lewandowsky’s site:

    “Some friendly advice:

    Don’t keep poking at Steve McIntyre with a stick. The fact that he has taken no interest in your work is a good thing for your career.

    Do you really wish to have him take an interest and “audit” you? Talk to Mike about how that turns out!”

    It did not take any great intuition or intellect on my part to see how this was going to unfold!

    00

  • #