JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



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

Steve McIntyre audited Stephan Lewandowsky’s data to weed out the obvious fake responses. That people would “game” the test was predictable given the clumsy nature of the survey, the one-sided nature of the conspiracies investigated, the virulently anti-skeptic sites where it was hosted, and the comments on the threads where it was announced. Obviously the survey hoped to show skeptics were nutters, and when it was posted in front of those who-hate-skeptics, readers obliged.

Steve McIntyre weighs in with a lengthy post, several original graphs, and concludes:

“Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically. Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper.”

When the number of responses to conspiracies are graphed against  the share that is “skeptical” of man-made global warming McIntyre reveals an interesting pattern.  The “Oklahoma” point on the bottom right of the graph was the most popular conspiracy theory — but percentage-wise, “alarmists” were more likely to support this theory than so called “skeptics” were.

The line across the graph represents the proportion of the total responses which were “skeptics” (a bit over 20% of the total). So the proportion of “skeptics” who believed the 911 conspiracy — which falls on that line — was exactly the same as the proportion as alarmists who supported it.

 

Figure 1. For all ‘skeptics’ disagreeing with CO2HasNegChange, showing count for each conspiracy against skeptic proportion. (Steve McIntyre graphs the number of responses to conspiracies against  the share that is “skeptical” of man-made global warming. ) Graph: ClimateAudit

The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response

The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”.

After 120,000 comments on this blog, I can’t recall a single skeptic who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, nor do I remember reading a comment on it on any other skeptic blog, nor have I even heard a hint of it in an email. But the two issues are often tied in alarmist propaganda. Like here on un-SkepticalScience (“Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke – sound familiar?”). This “denial-wiki” (“Major targets of denialism include the link between smoking and lung cancer”). See also here (“Smoking Causes Cancer; Carbon Pollution Causes Extreme Weather” )  wikipediahere   (“Climate change is the same as smoking….”) and here. Jim Hoggan (Mr DeSmog himself) said: Soon … these deniers will look as foolish as the scientists who once claimed that smoking did not cause cancer.

Frequently people like  Naomi Oreskes claim Fred Singer and others have doubted that smoking causes cancer, something which is an outright misrepresentation (see my point #3 here). Singer wrote about the statistical failures of the passive smoking case, which is scientifically entirely different from the well documented link between smoking and cancer. Given that this dishonest material is circulated widely on alarmist blogs, it’s likely that all 11 of those responding “yes” to that conspiracy question are the fakers, dutifully ticking off the boxes they have been trained to tick.

“As others have observed, the number of actual respondents purporting to believe in the various conspiracies was, in many cases, very small. Only 10 respondents purported to believe in Lewandowsky’s signature Moon Landing conspiracy. These included a disproportionate number of scam responses. Indeed, probably all of these responses were scams.

However, Lewandowsky’s statistical analysis was unequal to the very low hurdle of identifying these scam responses. Lewandowsky applied a technique closely related to principal components to scam and non-scam data alike, homogenizing them into a conspiratorial ideation.”

Lewandowsky should provide all the data in the survey from all the questions.  There is no valid reason for hiding the rest of the results.

McIntyre’s post goes into great detail trying to extricate any meaningful data from the mix.

————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————

REFERENCE:

(or not)

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

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (64 votes cast)
Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky's paper is a "landmark of junk science", 9.5 out of 10 based on 64 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8eevht8

137 comments to Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science”

  • #
    Joe V.

    Why does Steve go to all this trouble. That clearly wasn’t the intend of the survey. If he can find anything meaningful in that lot, then he’s a better man than …. well than Santer et al. , in their creative attempt to “find” the Missing Hotspot among the noise.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The problem with climate science is that those who live off of the largese of the taxpayer truly believe that the end justifies the means. Scientists conduct research, activists practice politics. When scientists become politcal they are no longer viewing the world through the lens of objectivity but through the prism of politics where the truth is diffused and the only portion of the spectrum that is considered is the one that promotes their cause.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Skiphil

    The Lewandowsky paper is indeed risible trash. It also must be underlined that the paper’s very title “NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” must rank as one of the vilest propagandistic titles ever given to a paper purporting to be scientific.

    There is NO basis for thinking that climate “skeptics” predominately believe in any conspiracy theory about faked moon landings, or that there is any “therefore” at all (i.e., faked moon landings IMPLY climate science skepticism). Lewandowsky’s title is pure propaganda designed to influence judgment before one ever encounters the data (sic) of his paper. He took a propaganda meme, concocted fraudulent “data” to try to support it, and then issued a title designed to be quoted endlessly by journalists, alarmists, et al who would never even read the scurrilous paper. This is truly agitprop of a low order. For shame, Professor, be ashamed of yourself! Lewandowsky is a disgrace to academe and an embarrassment to the pretensions of psychology to be scientific in any way.

    Far from embracing conspiracy theories about the moon landings, most climate skeptics proudly welcome the stance of four eminent Apollo astronauts who include actual moon-walkers in expressing skepticism about CAGW extremism:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/06/nasa-astronauts-skeptical-of-man-made.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Skiphil

      I say “most” only because I don’t deign to get into a debate about non-existent data. Lewandowsky has provided no scientific data at all (his survey methodology is fatally flawed). Whether there are “any” climate skeptics of whatever description who believe outlandish conspiracy theories is irrelevant. There are plenty of CAGW “warmists” who believe outlandish conspiracy theories (e.g., plenty of 9/11 Truther-nutters are warmists). I don’t know of any skeptics about CAGW who believe the moon landings were faked, but some such nuts might exist. Nothing changes the fact that Lewandowsky et al produced a scandalously bad paper which the journal Psychological Science needs to repudiate fast, before their reputation goes down the toilet with Lewandowsky.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Fred Allen

        Lewandowsky has simply taken the tactics of some radical alarmists to the next level, ie: put in some politically motivated claptrap about global warming into an otherwise acceptable scientific paper; release the summary of the paper to the media at about the same time the paper is sent for peer review; bask in the glory of alarming, world-is-ending headlines, receive feedback from peer review that claptrap has no place in a scientific paper; remove said claptrap and publish without a retraction in the media. Lewandowsky just omitted the pretense and picked up the headlines. He knows the paper is worthless as a scientific journal, but it’s effect as a piece of propaganda has been satisfying to the Cause.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Betapug

    To bad Steve was not able to detour and attend Lewandowsky’s Summer School on Modelling class to learn about the
    “power of computational and mathematical models and .. their benefits to…. rigorous theorizing”.

    http://www.cogsciwa.com/ Only E$995 for 2 weeks in the Swiss alps (not including transport but you did get Lewandowsky’s book!)

    Nice venue http://www.kurhausberguen.ch/ but one discordant note:

    “Participants are encouraged to provide their own pencils and erasers”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    lewandowsky has no moral alternative

    lewandosky has no morals

    Seems to me that the second possibility applies, also.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …rigorous theorizing”.

    Too bad he doesn’t believe in rigorous investigation of theories.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning all.

    Stephan needs to listen to the lyrics of his old Dire Staits CD:

    “When you point your finger ‘cos your plans fell through,
    You got three more fingers, pointing back at you.”

    It might give him some idea of where his problems really lie.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      An interesting comment speedy and very relevant to our Newcastle local government elections which carry a

      strong component of the “climate change” – green left bitterness.

      Newcastle ratepayers – finally deciding that enough was enough – created a rout of those who had blown the cities budget on green waffle.

      Most of us have to work to pay rates and felt it unfair that those who don’t pay rates should no longer force the Council to borrow heavily to suit their dreams (or perhaps sch$$mes?).

      It’s not all over yet but it’s a good start.

      Common sense is alive and well in Newcastle.

      Those given a kick have come back with all sorts of bitter tripe – every thing except the real reason for their defeat.

      They abused the trust and good will of ratepayers.

      Three fingers pointing back!

      KK :)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Got rid of a few Greens by the look of it.. not enough, because the Labor concillors are still far-left.

        I hope McCloy gets in as Mayor, and takes a no-nonsense approach toward the left green moron brigade.!!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Looking like 1 Lib, 1 Lab from each ward, then maybe 3 greens and an Independant (ward 4)

        Libs might get a second in ward 2 ?

        How to you read it ? I’m not at all sure how this quota system operates.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Those given a kick have come back with all sorts of bitter tripe – every thing except the real reason for their defeat.

        What are you on about KK, McCloy bought it!!!!!

        sarc/off


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Bob

          Last Council spent nearly two million dollars of our money on a bitter argument over some ugly overgrown fig trees.

          Many of the “tree lovers” would not have a clue where the local bush is let alone use it.

          In Newcastle we have great beaches and great bushland areas adjacent to the beaches.

          I can confidently say that no Newcastle greens use that bush for recreation – I have never met one of them and yet they go on about trees in the inner city.

          But I digress.

          In short Newcastle has had enough of the false touchy feely stuff that has strangled Australia for the last 40 years and especially Newcastle which at the moment is an embarrassing dump.

          Taree and Port Macquarie are miles ahead of Newcastle in terms of maintenance of public areas and livability and serve as an good guide of what is needed.

          KK.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Hi KK

            In short Newcastle has had enough of the false touchy feely stuff that has strangled Australia for the last 40 years and especially Newcastle which at the moment is an embarrassing dump.

            Totally agree, I am also a resident of Newcastle, leaving the polling booth on Saturday, just after walking past those handing out how to vote pamphlets, my wife made a cryptic statement, “without even looking at their signs you can tell who they represent”.

            I was only half listening, needing her to repeat her statement. She said the greens reps, the way they dress, unkempt hair, they’re so easy to pick. I hadn’t even looked but she was right.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Senex Bibax

      I only need to point finger at Lewandowsky – the middle one.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Hey, look you guys.

    Let’s just sit back and consider the morals of what we are doing here.

    Is it reasonable for us to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bite Back

      Is it reasonable for us to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person?

      Wrong question Rereke. The right one is: is it reasonable for us to do battle with those who want to harm us? And the answer is yes.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The only way that the tide of junk science will ever be repudiated is to do what is happening to the Lewandowsky effort.

    Pull it to pieces with accurate analysis and publicly humiliate authors.

    It’s going to be a long slow process, but every avalanche starts with just one little ball of snow or pebble.

    The self interest of the public will eventually take over when they are shown the money they have and are

    contributing to the wasteful lifestyles of the trendy Climo Scientists and Politicians.

    KK


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    O/T. News you can use.

    The NSW Liberal government has announced it has abandoned the IPCC forecasts as the basis for coastal management.

    “The (UN-IPCC) science is not precise enough to justify local councils taking actions that have severe impacts on individuals now, based on uncertain predictions nearly a century in the future.”

    NSW Special Minister of State Chris Hartcher announced that the government would be “dropping Labor’s onerous statewide sea level rise planning benchmarks” and allowing councils to make practical assessments of the dangers of coastal erosion and take action based on what was happening in their localities.

    Pensioners Annabelle and Russell Secombe, both in their 80s, said NSW Greens state MP John Kaye missed the point:
    they wanted to live out their lives in the modest house they had saved for on Illaroo Road, and leave it to their children.

    Sweet victory for Dad’s Army of beachside battlers


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, but the NSW Libs STILL have ridiculous renewables targets..

      Were they voted in to get rid of this nonsense.????

      or were they voted in because they were less far left towards the moronic green far-left agenda of the LabGreens ??? ie the least of 3 weevils.

      Made its time for a proper centre-right party, rather than 3 left wing parties.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    More from Lewandowsky

    Posted on 9 September 2012

    A Cabal of Bankers and Sister Souljah

    I would do so sooner if my time weren’t also occupied with other, comparatively trivial matters, such as the identity of those “skeptic” bloggers whom I contacted for my study.

    Using the Jedi mind control technique, the mantra “The data doesn’t matter” is repeated.
    BoltA gets a guernsey.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross

      Why would it take up his time ? It should be a 1 minute job for a credible research person. They have spent nearly two years from the end of the survey until pre publication –you’d think he could name the sites from memory !!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Anton

    Lewandowsky takes meta-analysis to a new low.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Jo – I think the best way you could demonstrate how bad this paper is would be to host your own survey on this site, asking respondents if they believe alarmists are all end-of-the-world cultists who believe that Marx had some very good ideas, that communism can really work, and that scientists do not suffer from the same human foibles as the greater population. You could ask if alarmists believe that more government and taxes are always better, and perhaps if profits should be banned outright.

    Perform the survey using the same methodology, and print the results in the same language. Present it to Lewandrowsy and ask him to ‘peer review’ it.

    I mean, he couldn’t possibly disagree with the results of a survey done using his own method, could he?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      A replicated Lewandowsky survey is up on Watts: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/replication-of-lewandowsky-survey

      Although I couldn’t easily access the survey without a cut and paste as the link to it seemed broken, for what it’s worth my comments at the end of it are regurgitated here.

      Asking what I think are the numbers out of 100 “professional” scientists and medical students is fallacious. This requires someone like myself, a non-professional to base my answer on those requiring certain results within their professions to remain employed.

      The answer will be skewed and results cannot be derived from this.

      Certainly, smokers CAN develop lung cancer – but many also don’t. Notably, non-smokers CAN also develop lung cancer, which means that smoking isn’t definitely causative.

      Similarly with climate change, there have been no measurable results regarding human emissions. Instead, ocean oscillation patterns and solar activity bear closer resemblance, however so-called “climate scientists” are now deriving “positive” results from computer models that have little or no ability to model the effects of clouds and, almost completely ignore ocean oscillations and solar activity.

      NASA have noted climates becoming warmer on Mars and other planets, however we still cling to the fanciful notion that we on Earth are causing this on our own planet. This is both shameful and neurotic and harks back to the 1300′s where “witches” were burned at the stake for crop failures.

      If CO2 were the powerful mechanism behind climate, Earth would have had a runaway greenhouse millions of years ago when levels were some 20 times higher. How is it possible that we still have frosty mornings and can freeze to death in deserts on clear nights if CO2 is supposedly such a good insulator? Do these “scientists” actually remember OBSERVING frosty mornings don’t occur in overcast conditions and why this might be so? Their precious models likely can’t account for that.

      If CO2 is such a thermal god at such low concentrations (currently 0.039% – 390ppm), wouldn’t we expect people to burn their tongues on their own exhalations on a sunny day at 4%, or 40,000ppm?

      Notably, Aragonite corals evolved in high-CO2 climates, in an ocean that can never become acidic enough.

      This is proven by placing eggshell (calcium carbonate) in soda water. The shell will never dissolve in this water that’s thousands of times more CO2 and carbonic acid concentrated than seawater can ever become.

      Warm water also can’t absorb as much CO2 as cold water, so if any global warming occurs, how are the oceans to become acidic at all?

      This survey is scientifically invalid and biased.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good stuff Olaf

        KK


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Great comment Olaf. Very simple observations i.e. frosty mornings when the ambient CO2 concentration can be 1200ppm etc are very difficult to explain by the supposed science.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “frosty mornings when the ambient CO2 concentration can be 1200ppm etc are very difficult to explain by the supposed science”

          There is always CO2 being produced by nature, and this is one case where “mixing” doesn’t occur as quickly as in moving air, so stratification can happen for a while.

          Often adiabatic inversions occur too, making mixing even slower.

          But as you say, all that extra CO2 ought to warm the atmosphere (according to GHG theory), but it DOESN’T !!!

          Adiabatic inversions with high CO2 below the inversion is yet another pointer that THEY ARE WRONG !!!


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      And therein is the issue. How many skeptics completed the survey pretending to be an AGW believer and introduced their perception of their belief system? Commenters have suggested that few believers have projected themselves as skeptic loonies. But has Lewandowsky thought that some skeptics could have equally tried to subvert his findings by projecting believers as loonies. (I know that if I had known about the survey I’d have been tempted to have a crack at it). Just the methodology of collecting the data is so open to being “gamed” that the research funding is a total waste of money.

      The AGW believers think that we skeptics regard their position as being a great big conspiracy by Governments and “scientists” with vested interests. Others have pointed out that there is no conspiracy needed.

      AGW believers seem to also believe there is a conspiracy by private enterprise and Big Oil to defeat the “science”. Lewandowksy didn’t test for that conspiracy though, did he?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    tckev

    By far the biggest conspiracy is that someone can call themselves a “scientist in the School of Psychology”.
    Psychologist are not scientist because psychology is not a science. It never has been, and that psychology, in all its many forms, entertains the ideas of being a science is just wrong. There are many generalized ideas about the psychology of man but virtually no tried and tested, verified laws. Psychologists often employ only empirical methods to infer causal and correlational relationships between psychosocial variables. Additionally others may sometimes rely upon symbolic interpretation and other inductive techniques. So much of it, especially in the last few years, has proved itself as just hokum dressed in a pseudo-scientific language.
    The best that can be said is that psychology is just one of the lesser arts of the human consciousness, and occasionally it stumbles across techniques that benefits some individuals.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Rob JM

      Its the same in climate pseudo science.
      A bunch of computer modellers who think making stuff up with really expensive machines entitles you to call yourself a scientist.
      Anyone who doesn’t employ the scientific method (which demands all scientist be sceptical of all theories) is not fit to be called a scientist!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi tckev

      To be fair , there are a number of different sections within Psychology.

      Unfortunately there are also people who specialise in “Marketing Psych” and the like which is a real worry.

      Neuropsych and psychobiology can be very interesting areas and can be seen as “science”.

      Any area of psychology which purports to comment on “what” you are thinking or should think is immediately suspect ie Lewandowsky.

      Marketing psych is really not psych but Business admin and that’s where is needs to be put, in the school of Business Studies.

      KK


      Report this

      00

    • #
      RoHa

      “that psychology, in all its many forms, entertains the ideas of being a science is just wrong.”

      When I was an undergrad psych student, a great deal of effort was put into teaching us how to try to make it as much like a science as possible. But it wasn’t a science then, and hasn’t become one since.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Winston

    Jo,
    I think we need to be wary of focussing to much attention on a charlatan like Lewandowsky, and not enough upon the real issues re UN Agenda 21, Renewable energy failures and CAGW related issues. Stefan may be quite happy to be the centre of conversations (what narcissist doesn’t like to be the centre of attention) in the skeptical blogosphere as it takes the eye off the main game, taking away valuable momentum which we have tirelessly cultivated. I think we have spent enough time on this wa….(self snip), sorry mods- onanist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    OT, but I think you might find this news entertaining.

    Jeff McCloy has just been voted mayor of Newcastle in a landslide. He’s a well known climate sceptic who has been fighting LMCC, my local council, for months over Combet’s sea level policies. Given the coverage here the people who voted for him would well know his views – he arranged Ian Plimer, David Archibald and Bob Carter to come to address a public forum and answer questions a few months ago.

    Newcastle is (was) an overwhelmingly ALP town, and Mr Combet is MP for the Federal seat which covers most of the LMCC area. The Federal election may be very interesting.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Novocastrians 5 Catastropharians 0


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Surely somewhat pertinent is the fact Newcastle is a coal town. Pertinent because… oh… you know… carbon tax, RETs, and all that jazz.
      The things politicians will do to secure the blacklung vote…

      Second hand smoking causes cancer?? Wimps! Why when I were a lad… you’d be down the hole by 7am, work yer bloody longwall excavator til your dead-man-switch foot was numb. Five minutes for crib was all we had, then back to filling the conveyor for another 5 hours. And when we got home… WHEN WE GOT HOME… if we didn’t each cough up half a lung of soot our father and mother would call us lazy bastards and tape our eyelids open while forcing us to watch an ABC Q&A Climate Change special! WITH Lee Rhiannon! For an hour!
      You tell that to the eco-café crowd of today and they won’t believe you.

      The enemy of my enemy is my favoured candidate, it seems.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        The “pertinent fact” is that the ALP has deserted their traditional voter base, which highlights the fact that their claimed love of the welfare of “the worker” is merely a sham, as it was and is and always will be. Glad to see some are finally waking up to that. In politics, the worker has to realise he/she has NO real friends to call upon to truly improve their lot.

        As to the rest of your post Andrew,LOL.

        “That were nothin’, when I were a lad…….”


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ian

    Jo, Good work on exposing this paper for the pseudo pscientific warmist claptrap that it is. I dont want to diminish that great achievement, but it really does look like an amateurish attempt to set up skeptics by a sleepy Leftoid institution on the fringes of the known world, it would be nice if they were all as ‘easy’ to expose. Alas, there are plenty more robust papers and august Institutions out there that need to be subjected to the blowtorch of methodological scrutiny.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob JM

    Unfortunately while Fred Singers analysis is correct in showing no statistically significant link between passive smoking and cancer, it doesn’t prove passive smoking is not dangerous. Unfortunately there is a high background lung cancer rate (typically 20%) not linked to smoking, which would make it difficult to pick up any increase in cancer rates. Meanwhile the inhalation of mutagenic compounds from smoke clearly damages DNA, which is directly responsible for causing cancer in most instances. When you know a compound is mutagenic, you should clearly prevent exposure unless there is a clear benefit (like nitrite use in meat preservation to prevent botulism).
    Then of course you have the vertical transmission problem due to children copying their parents.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Richard the Great

      Rob- you are essentially correct in your assessment. Statistics is but a tool for analysing data. Science is also not in the business of proving negatives. We have renewed interest in belief in conspiracy theories. In all cases what you and I believe does not count. The real question we should be asking is what EVIDENCE do we have that the moon landing were faked, the Royal family is really a race of extra terrestrial reptiles and feedbacks from CO2 warming will be catastrophic.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Bruce of Newcastle -

    i posted the following which is up on Bolt:

    “have not seen a single MSM report that mentions Greens vote has been steadily declining, partly due to their support for the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX. shame.”

    went thru everything i could find online – time-wasting no doubt – but Murdoch, Fairfax, ABC, none of them mention the Greens have been losing popularity steadily since the introduction of the CO2 tax. it is truly mind-boggling.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Greens went below 8% in my ward. Down from 13% in 2008. I had to go to the electoral records to find this out. Not in MSM, except this small comment right at the end of the article:

      The Greens had two councillors on the last council, but could leave this poll empty-handed.

      Ouch.

      The swing against the mayor was at least partly because he put up rates 10% for all of the green initiatives they didn’t want to defund, despite being short of money. But Mayor Piper did as all good generals – read the signs and unlike Clover Moore he decided he was better off keeping his state MP seat. So he dropped out of the mayoral running. Result: our increasingly green tinged independents also had a swing of 15% against them.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    to be fair, The Australian in the past hour has posted the following (my post at Bolt was submitted long before this was online), but still the words “carbon tax” do not appear, and we have Labor talking about people going off the Greens because of policies that matter to families, without mentioning all the CAGW policies/programs the Labor/Green Govt still has in place:

    10 Sept: Australian: David Crowe: Momentum shifts to the Right as Labor steps up Greens attack
    Voters turned on the Greens in some of the party’s local government strongholds as part of a shift to the Right blamed in part on federal policy rows over asylum-seekers and climate change…
    Several MPs said the NSW result showed the gains to be made from challenging the Greens rather than acquiescing with their policy demands on climate change, industry, healthcare or education…
    Labor frontbencher Mark Butler told the Sky News Australian Agenda program yesterday he believed support for the Greens would “taper off as people become more accustomed or get a better appreciation of the Greens party policies about things that matter to Australian families”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/momentum-shifts-to-the-right-as-labor-steps-up-greens-attack/story-fn59niix-1226468532939


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendan

    Anyone seen Lewandowsky’s petulant response at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyVersionGate.html ?

    The valid criticsms are dismissed with under grad sarcasm and an arrogant wave of his ‘from auhtority’ hand. As if the issue was about the numbering of the surveys???

    I am astounded that a person at such a level in academia can behave like this. What’s worse is he believes this is perfectly acceptable and valid behaviour from a man in his position. The UWA should be ashamed of themselves.

    He’s taken ‘being a Gleick” to the next level.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I think the survey should be rerun;

      Do you believe AGW is proven?

      If not, do you believe that Lewandowsky is an Extra Terrestial Reptile?

      I wonder how that would turn out?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    another one that’s just gone online:

    10 Sept: Sky News: Local NSW voters sting Greens
    Labor senator Doug Cameron continued the attack on Monday, arguing the Greens had lost the plot on climate change and asylum seekers.
    ‘On the big issues, the Greens fail,’ he told reporters in Canberra.
    ‘But it’s not just the policies, it’s just their complete lack of political maturity.’
    But Senator Whish-Wilson said it was not just the Greens that were in trouble, adding there had been a swing to the right across NSW…
    http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=793516

    doug cameron needs to tell his old union buddies it’s not too late to protest the CAGW policies, including the CO2 tax/ETS.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      In today’s Essential poll they asked about 15 decisions that the ALP have made in office. 14 of them are surprisingly well regarded.

      One is a stinker by a long long way. Guess.

      If Doug wants to jettison a certain policy the Greens love, which would give the ALP at least 5 points lift in the two party preferred, he only has to talk to a certain lady PM.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Styles

    More than 25%of people who do not smoke develop lung cancer.If smoking cause lung cancer,all smokers should develop it.Smokers have an increased risk of developing lung cancer,but the odds are not enough to stop humans taking the gamble.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      And the addictiveness is too much for some people to stop.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        NigeW

        A plus one thumbs up for Brookesy here, even though I normally disagree with his point of view.

        My usual first question to a smoker about what they do is “Is it an addiction, or a habit?” The ones who answer habit are the ones who are able to quit, and stay that way. Addicts require an enormous, and ongoing act of won’t power.

        Plus, to further Peters grandparent point, I have just witnessed my father die from Mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure as an apprentice. Yet his fellow apprentice, now my uncle, smokes regularly and shows no sign of slowing down (either the smoking, or living his life).

        It’s all about individual susceptibility and risk.

        In the aggregate, that’s just statistics.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Epidemiology is a tricky bastard at best. At worst it is a tool for the controlling class to exert pressure on the masses and reform them at some level.
      Human lifestyles and occupations (general living) expose us to thousands of compounds, viruses and micotoxins as well as ionizing and non ionizing radiation. Since we live a fairly long lifetime, it isn’t so easy to understand what exactly causes malignant neoplasms. Further, assumptions have been made and are still being made about cancer causes that will be proven wrong. Just 10 years ago the role of HPV (Human Papaloma Viruses) causing cancer. Some micotoxins (the toxins produced by fungi) are known to be powerful carcinogens yet the public knows almost nothing about them and researchers know only a little bit more yet we are exposed to them daily.

      We have a long way to go and it is a pity that so much money has been spent on useless climate study.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The attempt by Lewandowsky et al. to link skeptics of the UN’s AGW dogma to conspiracy proponents is probably intended to discourage skeptics from connecting the dots from

    a.) The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to
    b.) The formation of the United Nations on 24 October of 1945 to
    c.) Publication of misinformation on cores of atoms and stars in 1946 to
    d.) The fraudulent global temperature data exposed by Climategate in November 2009.
    .
    “There’s nothing there, folks, but conspiracy nuts. Keep moving along, . . .”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Lewandowsky did nothing wrong.
      Mann did nothing wrong.
      Jones did nothing wrong.
      Gleick tricked a receptionist into sending him documents that reveal an organisation’s anti-science agenda and attempts to pervert public education. Who’s the real villain there, the whistle-blower or the dishonest lobby-group that wants children mis-educated at tax-payers’ expense?

      How many times per thread is this irrelevant nonsense allowed, just out of interest?
      It has no relevance to anything and just seems to keep on coming back many times on every thread.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Well, if fake surveys don’t work, they may have to go back to the Precautionary Principle as in;

    Alarmus: My Lords, we face disaster, a great plague of purple toads is about to destroy the Earth. Give us money to prepare our defences.

    Skepticus: I see no purple toads.

    Alarmus: That’s because they are invisible. We must prevent them flattening all, leaving us covered in stinking green slime. Oh the humanity, think of the children.

    Skepticus: If they’re invisible, how do you know the Toads are purple?

    Alarmus: Tobacco can make people turn green. You are an evil denier in the pay of Big Tobacco.

    Skepticus: Were’s that baseball bat?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Ooops…my spelling rivals Lewandowsky’s logic. That should be “where’s” in the last line.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    soldier

    “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”

    George Bernard Shaw


    Report this

    00

  • #
    turnrdoutnice

    Do you know Lewandowsky?

    Nope but I trod in some once……..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    More related to the Lewandowsky climate-sceptics-are-mad meme comes this on Bloomberg’s website today:

    How Hacking the Human Brain Can Save Civilization

    Complete with a nice little plug for our old friend Will Steffen, who wants scientists like him to rule the world.

    Also has a paragraph on ‘aren’t climate models good our brains should be like them’. ROFL is all I can say. I have news for the author: yours is already like a climate model sir, complete with omitted variable bias.

    Hubris so bad my brain hurts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “rule the world.”

      Nobel would be turning in his grave, seeing his name used in such a disgusting way.

      The Nobel prize has become a meaningless gesture of late.

      It used to mean something, not so much any more.

      A pity really :-(

      Many things that Science used to stand for are being destroyed by the egos and arrogance of the CAGW climate priests and their diciples.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    DaveA

    You’ve all been fooled! Lewandowsky is a SKEPTIC and his dodgy ‘warmist’ papers are designed to sabotage the credibility of the warmists. Damn you Lewie, you won’t get away with it, your conspiracy is revealed!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    John Brookes

    Of course smoking causes lung cancer, and big tobacco never ran a coordinated misinformation campaign designed to convince people that the science wasn’t settled. Oh…


    Report this

    10

    • #
      turnrdoutnice

      Irrelevant. You attack that corrupt practice just as viciously as the IPCC’s fake science.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      DaveA

      Yep, and Chewbacca is a Wookie, so the jury must acquit.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Yes, John, and many a strawperson was sacrificed for the cause too. You shouldn’t use your UWA email address for WUWT, Anthony checks.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Well Bruce, that was funny!

        Caught.

        KK :)


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Eddie Sharp

        Very droll John Brooke’s (over @WUWT)

        But, the “warmists” don’t spout anywhere near as much nonsense as the “skeptics”. Indeed, the “warmists” argument is like a bucket with a few small holes, while the “skeptics” arguments look more like someone trying to carry water in a net..

        Now you’ve given me this vision of a straw man with a string vest.
        .
        While warmist types tend to lap up what they’re told, skeptics are better at putting it in perspective and identifying the crucial points on which the rest hinges. It may come from experience, that ability to evaluate but getting warmists to look at things critically is a lost cause.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Eddie

          I didn’t realise that John Brookes was over @WUWT and @ UWA!

          Wouldn’t that be embarrassing for him?

          KK.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Eddie Sharp

            I don’t see why. At least he’s flying the flag for a Warming Australia so it should be no surprise him coming from UWA and good natured warmists are hard to come by.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          AndyG55

          ““But, the “warmists” don’t spout anywhere near as much nonsense as the “skeptics”. ”

          This coming from JB, has to be the height of irony. “Mr Nonsense” his very self. !!!

          Shows that his grip on reality is remote, at the very best.

          Janitor at UWA, maybe??

          Nah, then he would recognise crap like this for what it is,

          so maybe a parking attendant or a social science/ philosophy tutor.

          Certainly NOT anything remotely to do with real science.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yeah, I find it hugely amusing when “skeptical” blogmeisters point out my place of employment. As if I care.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hey JB,

      I`m sitting here having a VB and a smoke!

      Does that mean I am causing Climate Change?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    manalive

    The tobacco smoking/climate change rationalisation comes in two forms.
    There is the attempt to smear sceptical scientists by linking them with the tobacco lobby.
    The other is the direct false analogy jo mentions

    “… smoking causes cancer … carbon pollution [sic] causes extreme weather … it really doesn’t have to be more complicated than that …”

    … Dan Lashof Director, NRDC’s climate center (The Natural Resources Defense Council, a US lobby group).
    False analogy is a logical fallacy first examined by John Stuart Mill; it’s a false analogy for the obvious reason that lung cancer (the cancer most commonly connected to tobacco smoking) was almost unknown prior to the inhaling of the smoke whereas extreme weather has always occurred and there is no evidence that extreme weather events have increased in the past 60 years, in theory as the planet warms as it has, there ought to be fewer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    So is there a way we can get the names of the numpties who peer reviewed this dross?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark of Bondi Junction

    I think the warmist fantasy over smoking originates from Michael Crichton’s statements about second-hand smoke and DDT. Apparently his comparison of Global Warming to Eugenics in the Appendix to “State of Fear”, as well as the book itself, stung. As ever, they responded with distortion, insults and lies.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      That`s interesting you say that Mark.

      It was `State of Fear` which initially sparked my interest in so called Global Warming.

      Since then, everything argued in his book has basically prevailed!

      We are governed by a party in a `State of Fear`.

      And I am afraid that the other side is not much different!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I remember the days of smoking in the work place. I’d go home with my eyes stinging and my clothes stinking from second hand smoke. Same deal when I went to pubs or quiz nights. Its hard to believe now, but once upon a time, smokers would come into your house and smoke, after asking in a perfunctory way if it was ok with you.

      Some people, particularly the mentally ill, seem very prone to nicotine addiction. I’m convinced that some only start smoking because they’ve inhaled enough second hand smoke to get the addiction going. Mind you, the mentally ill seem to use nicotine as some sort of self medication, so maybe its not so bad that they smoke…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Shevva

        My dad smoked 40 a day me, my sister and my mum have never smoked and never will. As usual you then go on to mention mental illness implying my bad was mentally ill, as you do every blog post you set your straw man up and demean anyone that shows any sign of individual personal responsibility.

        You are becoming more shrill by each blog post Joanne Nova posts I would suggest going to see my GP, Oh and Mr Watts pointing out where your worked confirmed everything I thought I knew about you.

        I would guess that the avatar you use is not you as your trolling points to a more adolescent brain.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I would guess that the avatar you use is not you as your trolling points to a more adolescent brain.”

          I dunno, that avatar looks mighty close to being brainless to me..

          The sort of expression you see on a stupid 12 year old’s face when you try to explain something above his IQ rating, as most things are for JB.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          John Brookes

          I’m not accusing anyone of being mentally ill on the basis that they smoke. I have a sister who is mentally ill, and so I get to see a lot of mentally ill people. The smoking rate among the mentally ill is huge. It is just an honest observation, and not meant as a slur on anyone.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’m convinced that some only start smoking because they’ve inhaled enough second hand smoke to get the addiction going.

        Another theory with no visible means of support…


        Report this

        00

      • #

        John:

        Like you I detest smoking — for all the same reasons.

        I have found that crazy people are most likely to accuse others of mental illness. Do you find the same?

        My Big Oil Cheque was late this month — any thoughts on that issue?


        Report this

        00

  • #

    I for one have always wondered how on earth they could possibly make a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. It just seemed to me a very difficult correlation to definitively prove. I’ve always felt that’s one they got away with. “Lies, damned lies and statistics” seems to be the method de jour. I suppose it definitively proves that there is money and political capital in BS. Someone please write a paper about that.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      DaveA

      Depends on the level. Imagine a person who works in a nightclub or pub for a long time. (or did when it was permitted)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      They couldn’t and they didn’t. The two levels of exposure are several orders of magnitude different at the very least. The EPA simply cheated.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      I for one have always wondered how on earth they could possibly make a link between passive smoking and lung cancer

      Your fallacious argument is that because you can’t see how they can do it means it is not possible and not done. Go argue with the 778 papers I found on a quick reference search. What sort of evidence or studies are lacking? Here are but three of the most recent (all 2012)

      Title: Evaluation of Bronchiolar and Alveolar Cell Injuries Induced by Short- and Long-term Exposure to Sidestream Smoke
      Author(s): Kwon, Kun-Young; Jung, Hye-Ra; Hwang, Ilseon; et al.
      Source: KOREAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY Volume: 46 Issue: 2 Pages: 151-161

      Title: EGFR Somatic Mutations in Lung Tumors: Radon Exposure and Passive Smoking in Former- and Never-Smoking US Women
      Author(s): Taga, Masataka; Mechanic, Leah E.; Hagiwara, Nobutoshi; et al.
      Source: CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION Volume: 21 Issue: 6 Pages: 988-992

      4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone is correlated with 8-hydroxy-2 ‘-deoxyguanosine in humans after exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
      Author(s): Chiang, Hung-Che; Huang, Yung-Kai; Chen, Pei-Fen; et al.
      Source: SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT Volume: 414 Pages: 134-139


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Your fallacious argument is that because you can’t see how they can do it means it is not possible and not done. Go argue with the 778 papers I found on a quick reference search. What sort of evidence or studies are lacking? Here are but three of the most recent (all 2012)

        In a nutshell:

        The accepted standard for establishing even a weak correlation between one thing and another has been 95% confidence for a very long time. The EPA’s data couldn’t meet that standard. They then simply lowered the standard to 90% to make “good” data out of bad and prove their preconceived result.

        Any question? Then take them elsewhere because the statistical malpractice of the EPA will start to condemn you as well as them if you try to challenge this explanation. A lie is a lie is a lie!

        If I’m to be convinced of something then you have to do it honestly.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          If you want to convince yourself stop thinking that the epa is a medical research institute and get into the primary literature which has nothing to do with any of the epas.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      dr ian hilliar

      go to wiki, look up Fred Singer, and follow the link to his paper on passive smoking. Good science. Not politically correct if you are keen on legislating to stop smoking.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mike Ozanne

    “Why does Steve go to all this trouble.”

    Because if we deploy the rigour and the science, then we get all the cool quotes like Hamlet Act 3 Scene 4 Line 53

    and eventually it will make a difference..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thank you Jo Nova, for your time and consideration.

    Slowly, I finally found words to conclude Climategate:

    From Hiroshima in Aug 1945 to Climategate in Nov 2009

    Living in the “sphere of influence” of the Sun’s pulsar core
    Is like living in electron orbits around an atom’s nuclear core
    We are humbly connected to RTG (Reality, Truth, God), or
    We are arrogantly connected to false illusions of control !

    THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, NOT ONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE
    Establishing the UN in Oct 1945 to control RTG was an error.

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You make a valid point.

    A validation check is the two rouge responses that I and Tom Curtis identified as both strongly rejecting the climate science.
    #860, Strongly accepted all conspiracy theories, strongly accepted “HIV causes AIDS” and strongly rejected “Smoking causes lung cancer”
    #889, Strongly accepted all conspiracy theories (accept Martin Luther King, which was weakly accepted), strongly rejected “HIV causes AIDS” and strongly rejected “Smoking causes lung cancer”

    If the two medical items are added to the conspiracy theories, then both rouge responses scored the most extreme on all but one. In other words a sign that they wished to escape most cursory checks. On the “Free-market”, #860 scored 5 strong accepts and 1 strong reject, whilst #889 had 6 strong accepts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Here’s another hypothesis. What if Guessin’ Stefan has figured out that us CAGW skeptics, being the questioning sort, are divided on more issues than we are united about. His whole paper could be part of a divide-and-conquer strategy; it gets us arguing over theories which are far more important than CAGW if they are true, but completely distracts us from the proper CAGW debate.

    Nah, that’s probably giving him too much credit.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science” « JoNova: Science, c… The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response…The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddie Sharp

    I appreciate all the effort Steve M. is going to , to demolis this as any sort of academic study, in spite of its scientific pretentions.

    When is Lewandowsky going to turn around and claim he done it as a joke , sorry experiment to show how these skeptics get so uptight about everything?
    [
    The trouble with Psychs. is not knowing when you can take them at face value, whereas skeptics dont like having their critical thinking wasted on deceptions.

    Not a marriage made in heaven .


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It was the UK Guardian that first covered the Lewandowsky article in the press.
    More than any other, this article embodies the maxim that “There are lies, dammed lies and then there are statistics”. So I searched the term and came up with a Guardian article taking apart a statistic about cyclists jumping red lights.
    Seems the Guardian can both critically analyze statistics and gullibly swallow total nonsense according to whether it accords with their point of view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Hi Joanne,
    I just found this post on Stephan Lewandowsky’s site under his most recent post.

    excerpt:
    I am pleased to report that I received advice from executives of the University of Western Australia earlier today, that no legal or privacy issues or matters of research ethics prevent publication of the names of those bloggers.

    So here they are:
    Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
    Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
    Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
    Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)

    It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.


    Report this

    00

    • #
    • #
      Hans Erren

      As Steve McIntyre noted: the “contact” was from an to him unknown person who asked him “please click this link”.

      Apparently Lewandowsky never receives fishing spam.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John from CA

        I’ve been reading over the comments to many of Professor Lewandowsky’s posts and they point out your issue. Its was Professor Lewandowsky’s research assistant that sent the emails so there has been a lot of miscommunication going on.

        Professor Lewandowsky seems to be fanning the flames at the moment and is attempting to draw conclusions about Skeptics for the current back-and-forth on the blogs.

        After reading the study, its clear that the fundamental concern relates to his conclusions and his use of terms like Denier/Skeptic = people who reject science. The conclusions are heavily referenced to other studies but his survey test group is largely comprised of people who support the IPCC conclusions/Affirmers/Warmists/Luke Warmers. So the survey results reflect the broader views of Affirmers yet the language points to Skeptics in the conclusions.

        Beyond the attempt to tie support for free markets into the attitude mix, which in my opinion is silly, Professor Lewandowsky appears to be under the impression that there are limits to economic growth and limits to future innovation in energy systems. Professor Lewandowsky needs some help understanding the meaning of the terms he’s using in the study and needs to chat with some MIT professors like Professor Dan Nocera.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Such an email would go straight in the JUNK MAIL / SPAM bin.. not given a second thought.

      How many people remember junk mail they deleted even last week, let alone 2 years ago.

      Lewy’s aggrogance and self-importance shine through on this one. !!

      Thinking his emails would be important enough to remember, .. get real, Lewy !!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Let’s see who is NOT in this list.

      Anthony Watts of “Watts Up With That?” – Voted Best Science Blog of the Year 2012 and lifetime achievement award (for three such wins).
      Jo Nova of “JoNova” – Voted Best Australian/NZ Blog of the Year 2012.
      Roger Tallbloke of “Tallblokes Talkshop” – Vote Best European Blog of the Year 2012.

      Clearly not a serious attempt and getting the “sceptic” side of the debate.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    mfo

    Having a couple of friends teaching at university in Oz I was horrified that a man like Lewandowsky is at UWA. I would strongly suggest to prospective psychology students that they avoid being educated at UWA for obvious reasons. It is well known in psychology that questions can reveal a great deal about the mentality of the person who asks them. This survey reveals everything about Lewandowsky and nothing about the participants. It is a perfect example of pseudo-science which will be used to demonstrate the wrong way to design an experimental survey.

    In Lewandowsky’s latest post he concludes with: “3. Where do we go from here?
    That’s easy. On to the next theory, of course.” He actually thinks that his “paper” demonstrates a scientific theory. Except that he knows his work is nonsense but he is too small a man to admit it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John from CA

      I probably would have said a perfect example of post-normal science as the conclusions appear to have been written before the survey results were analyzed.

      Its actually a pretty interesting topic. Its a shame the survey is so inadequate.

      Note: posted this above under the wrong comment.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Maybe I’m a bit biased and, thus, less than charitably disposed but I can’t help myself.
    If there is any justice in life, I hope that Dr Lewandowsky is as severely punished as Peter Gleick was.
    And as Michael Mann and Dr Jones were after ClimateGate.
    Yup these poor guys sure did get a pasting.
    Darn it. Used the wrong tense there.
    Correction, they will all get a pasting.
    It’s not the if that’s in doubt; just the when!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jon

    I think all this is just bullshit and distractions from the comming report?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Now far be it from me to ever be on your side in anything, but this conspiracy thing is interesting. I did the survey when it appeared on WTFUWT, and the only one I thought might have even half a chance of being real was that the Oklahoma bomber did not act alone, but was helped by some unnamed right wing group(s). Now I had absolutely nothing to back up my opinion here, so why did I form it? Very simply because I knew nothing, and because the “baddies” were not from my side of politics. The assasinations of JFK and MLK would also fit this mould, except that they’ve been studied and written about a lot, so the likelihood of any conspiracy seems small.

    So I’d be interested in a more general study about belief in conspiracies, and what causes it.

    Of course the very first conspiracy most of us are ever exposed to is our parents. They actively gang up against us and formulate secret plans behind our backs. Maybe we never fully recover from that initial experience of powerful forces manipulating things behind the scenes…


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #