JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link

The MoonLanding paper is finally here. Eight months after Lewandowsky was so sure he had a “peer reviewed” conclusion that he announced his results in The Guardian and The Telegraph , the paper has finally been published.

Lewandowsky et al claimed to show skeptics are nutters who believe any rabid conspiracy like the “moon-landing was faked”.  Their novel method for discovering the views of skeptics involved surveying sites frequented by those who hate skeptics.

The survey questions included conspiracies likely to appeal to a small percentage of conservative or free market thinkers, and largely left out conspiracies that would appeal more to supporters of bigger government (like the idea that the rise of “climate denial” was a big-oil funded conspiracy). It studied big-government conspiracies and ignored big-corporate ones. There are gullible conspiracists who also believe in global warming, but there was no danger this survey would find them. The survey bias was so obvious, even alarmist commenters said they feared few “denialists” would take it. The results that were headlined in newspapers were based on a tiny sample of ten respondents to an anonymous online survey. Not surprisingly Lewandowsky’s university (UWA) received many complaints about ethics, methods, and the dismal quality of the data, and bloggers had a field day shredding the paper.

In response, the Australian Research Council awarded Lewandowsky et al another $338,000. Just where do their priorities lie?

The paper was delayed.  The typesetting oddly took 8 months, and includes a new key point. To answer the rabid critics, Lewandowsky needed to show that that many real skeptics did fill out the survey. The evidence for that apparently relies on Cook’s site (the ambush-labelled “Skepticalscience”). Lewandowky et al now effectively claims skeptics really were reading Cook’s site and lots of them did the survey there.

How 78,000 equals zero

Lewandowsky et al go out on a limb to say skeptics may have made 78,000 visits that month and could have seen that survey link (if only there had been one there):

Prevalence of “skeptics” among blog visitors All of the blogs that carried the link to the survey broadly endorsed the scienti fic consensus on climate change (see Table S1). As evidenced by the comment streams, however, their readership was broad and encompassed a wide range of view on climate change. To illustrate, a content analysis of 1067 comments from unique visitors to http://www.skepticalscience.com, conducted by the proprietor of the blog, revealed that around 20% (N = 222) held clearly “skeptical” views, with the remainder (N = 845) endorsing the scienti c consensus. At the time the research was conducted (September 2010), http://www.skepticalscience.com received 390,000 monthly visits. Extrapolating from the content analysis of the comments, this translates into up to 78,000 visits from “skeptics” at the time when the survey was open (although it cannot be ascertained how many of the visitors actually saw the link.)

For comparison, a survey of the U. S. public in June 2010 pegged the proportion of “skeptics” in the population at 18% (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Smith, 2011). Comparable surveys in other countries (e. g., Australia; Leviston & Walker, 2010) yielded similar estimates for the same time period. The proportion of “skeptics” who comment at http://www.skepticalscience.com is thus roughly commensurate with their proportion in the population at large.

But, as Barry Woods and DHG both discovered and Geoff Chambers pursued relentlessly, it appears no link was ever posted on SkepticalScience. Steve McIntyre points out the total number of skeptics doing the survey on Cook’s site can thus be ascertained — and it is exactly zero. It’s hard to believe any scientist would think they would get away with this. The paper will surely have to be withdrawn. (But will the government funding be withdrawn? The Australian Research Council (ARC) needs to answer some very awkward questions.)

Here’s a study in dishonesty

FOI documents obtained by Simon Turnill show that Cook didn’t post the link at all, he tweeted it (how many people were on his twitter list in 2010?). You might think this is a minor change, but not at all. Cook’s tweet probably didn’t get the “390,000 visits” his site might have got that month. Instead the records show he got five retweets.

More importantly, above all else, Cook has been untruthful with his readers and with skeptics all along.

Like a five year old explaining where the cookies went, his story keeps changing as Woods and especially Chambers pin him down. Back in September last year, Lewandowsky said eight sites hosted the survey and Cook’s site was one, but strangely no one could find a link on SkepticalScience. Cook then said he hosted it in 2011. But it wasn’t there either. Cook apologized, and said it was 2010. When Chambers pressed on for evidence, Cook and the moderators stopped the questions and insisted it go private. Cook emailed Chambers, saying he couldn’t add much more. Chambers wanted the comments from the discussion of the survey at Cook’s site because the comments on other sites where the survey were hosted revealed the thoughts of the people most likely to have done the survey. Strangely the post and all the comments had been deleted. [Read the whole exchange at Climate Audit].

It’s odd for a whole post to disappear, but even odder when the post is then quoted in a peer reviewed study. Cook repeated that he had provided a link to the survey, but Chambers could find no record of it in the Wayback Machine either. Cook then suggested that he had “forensic evidence” — an email from Lewandowsky asking Cook to post the link, and Cook’s reply that he posted it the same day. What Cook wasn’t saying but must have known (since he checked his email records), was that his emails forensically showed that Cook tweeted the link.

The tweet by Cook, that Barry Woods and DHG both found, is online here on August 27, 2010. The Wayback Machine recorded Skepticalscience on August 30, 2010 — and there was no post. Nor was there a post about a survey in the following week either. So it appears unequivocal, as much as anyone bar John Cook can tell, that SkepticalScience did not host the survey.

McIntyre asked Cook to explain:

Not to put too fine a point on it, it appears to me that you lied, when you asserted that your correspondence with Lewandowsky on 28 August 2010 was “forensic evidence” that showed that you had posted a link at Skeptical Science to the Lewandowsky survey on that day. I use the word “lie” because you had clearly examined the 28 August 2010 correspondence at the time of your email to Chambers and knew that this correspondence did not show that you had posted a link at Skeptical Science to the Lewandowsky survey on 28 August 2010 or any other day.

Before I make any public statements about this matter, I am offering you an opportunity to rebut the belief that the statement bolded above was a lie.

Cook did not respond.

If Cook did post that survey long enough for anyone to comment on it, he would probably have a record of the comments made even after deleting the post. Where are they?

The “smart” thing for Cook to have done at this point was to make sure the published paper was corrected to “seven sites” and not eight, and did not rely on the link at his site which no one can find. He and Lewandowsky both must have been aware that skeptics knew. It speaks volumes that Lewandowsky and Cook cited a post on Climate Audit (Steve McIntryre’s site) about this point in their second “conspiracy paper” called Recursive Fury, so they knew that they were wrong, and that skeptics knew that too. Despite this, they still went ahead and published the revamped edition of the Moon Landing paper with the misleading information in it.

To the skeptics who suggest that Lewandowsky or Cook planned the first paper to fish for comments to use in a second paper, I say not a chance. They just aren’t that competent. They struggle from one gaffe to the next.

As Skiphil notes, Lewandowsky expects skeptics to keep two year old emails from unknown assistants at a university they may never have heard of, but he doesn’t expect his own co-authors to keep posts up displaying supposedly “scientific” surveys with results that are used in his papers.

Their incompetence will hurt the reputation of Psychological Science and Frontiers, if they do not take quick action, as well as the University of Western Australia, the School of Psychology, the University of Queensland and the ARC.

The strategy here appears to be double or nothing.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (160 votes cast)
Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link, 9.3 out of 10 based on 160 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bvp2cy5

165 comments to Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link

  • #
    ian hilliar

    thanks Jo, you always give me something good to laugh about. A tweet! what a treat! Is ther any way we can get on to the ARC about withdrawing Lewandowksi’s fudging -sorry, that should be “funding”. Gergis was bad eneough, but Lewandowski and Cook are just disgusting


    Report this

    370

  • #
    cohenite

    I see Geoff Chambers is claiming he has been defamed; I think he has a case.


    Report this

    240

  • #

    Excellent retelling of a story that’s too complex for most people to bother with, but which has been great fun untangling. Just as with Watergate, it was the coverup which gave them away.
    I’ve been insisting in comments whenever I get the chance what a team effort this was, though a disorganised one. Apologies if I’ve forgotten to mention Joanne and Simon Turnull among the conspirators.
    Something I’ve only just seen in comments at ClimateAudit is Barry Woods’ correspondence with Lewandowsky back in July 2012. It covers exactly the same ground as the correspondence I had five weeks later with Cook at SkepticalScience, almost in the same words. Cook and Lew must have thought that Barry and I were conspiring; no wonder they got so recursively furious.
    My last word on this, an anagram borrowed from jorgekafkazar in comments at WUWT: “Stephan Lewandowsky” = “What Lysenko Spawned”.


    Report this

    770

  • #

    I think it’s about time to follow Christopher Monckton’s suggestion and start pressing charges.


    Report this

    390

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Well it’s looking more and more like a good old fashioned con job.
    If I got away with grifting $338,000 out of public funds I would need some help.
    I smell a scam and I want answers, that money could do so much good in this country it’s not funny.
    The irony of the story is not lost on anyone, as is the disgusting behavior.


    Report this

    280

    • #
      Jon

      He is given the money because they think he can produce the results they want? And I don’t think they care about scientific principles or it beeping a scam?

      Vote wisely?


      Report this

      190

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Sorry, I just have to have another go.
      Today in Victoria we have The Good Friday Appeal for The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne.
      As of 6 pm today the total was almost $8.5 million, mostly given by adults & children who go out of their way to raise money for the appeal.
      Cook & Lewandowsky get $338.000 for lying about an imaginary survey for an imaginary problem!
      Now you can see where I’m going with this but also consider the Billions of dollars wasted worldwide on this [snip] when so much better could be done for our world.
      I now know what to say when asked “what about future generations?” by some warmist twat.
      This is an obscene imbalance of right and wrong and is so blatant it must be addressed now.


      Report this

      560

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        “This is an obscene imbalance of right and wrong and is so blatant it must be addressed now.”

        Agreed, agreed 100% but its not going to happen unless the UWA is hurt. Until they experience financial pain their incompetence will continue and / or its so much easier to hope it will fade away. Academics live in ivory towers and know for sure that the rules which apply to we plebs don’t apply to elite personages such as themselves.

        Guaranteed your local parliamentarian is blissfully unaware. Swamp him with letters complaining about the misuse of our taxes. If enough of us do this it might just have an impact.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Is there a proscription in Dr. Lewandowsky’s grant that prohibits the expenditure of funds to offset legal fees? There should be.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Lynn in Gambia

    This is an unbelievable story! Do these people have no integrity at all? How did science turn into a circus sideshow? This is laughable and disturbing.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Keith L

    So now we are psychic conspiracy theorists?


    Report this

    80

  • #

    [...] Time for action at the UWA. New Lew paper comes out, withdrawn from site soon after due to sex, lies and videotape. Well, the second one anyway. It’s still scandalous what they did or didn’t do! Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no …. [...]


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Incidentally, in the aftermath of the long drawn out and seemingly unquenchable PR disaster that climategate keeps turning out to be for UEA, there are rumours of them working hard on repairing their academic credibility. Given the alarums and excursions of the last few years, big donors have been noticeably gun-shy of the place. They’re sprucing up their academic credentials by trying to recruit some scholastic heavy hitters like Gergis, Marcott, Shakun and Lewandowsky. Apparently the University of Western Australia are actually very keen to let UEA have the advantage of the latter’s full-time services, and as quickly as humanly possible. It’s all going extremely well, but I do think them having to break the fait accompli to Lew will be the tricky bit.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/lewandowsky-cook-claim-78000-skeptics-could-see-conspiracy-survey-at-cooks-site-where-he-didnt-even-put-up-a-link/

    I no longer take Lew seriously …

    Pointman


    Report this

    210

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The strategy here appears to be double or nothing.

    The hole that they are digging – it’s now twice as big…


    Report this

    120

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Our present government and all the the warmanista pushers are totally unaware of the theory of holes. It is a theory that is governed by Murphy’s law and the direction of digging is irrelevant as up and down are the same direction only a different sense.
      Sense it would seem is irrelevant to these people, thus they will keep digging a hole.

      It has been noted that there is no cure for stupid, most other malady’s have been innoculated against . When rules and laws are proclaimed for stupid, as has been happening of late, we all have a problem


      Report this

      50

    • #
      john robertson

      Best part is they are digging in soft ground and the rain ain’t stopping.
      So is it a stink hole or a sink hole?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Reed Coray

      A quick look at the globe indicates that the antipode of the UWA is somewhere near the state of Maine in the good old USA. Someone should tell the Maine residents to be on the lookout for a nonsense-speaking, stiff-necked, stuffed shirt who can’t stop blinking.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Funny that the town of Maine is ubiquitous in horror flicks where things go bump in the night.

        Just like Monty Python making the skit for the Village Idiot in the University of East Anglia.

        It’s prescient at the very least.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Whether it be GISS’ continuously manipulated temperature statistics, Mannian Maths, Lewandowsky’s ‘research, Cook’s arm waving or Hansens’s public rants, the intention is always the same:

    To try and ‘prove’ man is responsible for the circa 0.7 degrees C warming over the past century and that natural climate cycles had nothing to do with it. This means climate change is all man made and not in any way natural. This, in turn, means that the Global Warming Industry’s gravy train won’t be derailed. Spicing up the situation requires loudly advocating the concept of CAGW, despite the fact there is not a shred of evidence it exists.

    And almost nothing is more important than keeping this gravy train on the tracks. Hence, the sort of scientific integrity repeatedly demonstrated on John Cook’s blog and its highly censored comments.


    Report this

    160

    • #
      Robert

      Hence, the sort of scientific integrity repeatedly demonstrated on John Cook’s blog and its highly censored comments.

      Is that what they are calling that type of behavior these days? No wonder Cook gets so confused, lying == integrity, obfuscation == transparency, “I did” == “no I didn’t”, etc. etc. A classic example of someone still living in the kindergarten world of opposites.

      It does make it easy to deal with his sort though, if he tells you it is raining you can be fairly certain the sun is out and you won’t need an umbrella.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    • #

      Great link!

      Funny how your average home user of a computer will pay someone to backup all their data each month, but a guy with thousands in grant money somehow cannot find the paper, the post or anything else? Is he really that incompetent? I doubt it.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Backslider

      Some very good points made there at retraction watch by Toby White:

      First, the senior author has an extraordinary conflict of interest. The behavior under study is precisely public criticism of the author’s professional competence. Psychology in particular has a deep concern with the distortions caused by even relatively trivial conflicts of interest.

      Second, it is probably safe to assume that Prof. Lewandowsky did not write his Psych. Sci. paper simply to create the experimental conditions for the Frontiers paper. Still, negative reactions to the Psych. Sci. paper were entirely predictable. This was not a “natural” event. On the contrary, the experimental set-up (the contents and release of the then-unpublished Psych. Sci. paper) was completely under the author’s control. Thus Prof. Lewandowsky created, controlled, conducted, analyzed, and published a psychological experiment without any disclosures to, or consent from, the subjects.

      Third, regardless of whether consent was required for the experiment, the authors published individually identifiable information about, and analysis of, the mental health and cognitive status of their subjects. This is not simply bloggish, lay opinion. This is, mind you, published as objectively determined, scientifically verified, analysis by professional psychologists for publication in a professional journal — concerning named individuals who were not willing subjects and did not consent to participation in a study, or to the release of personal mental status information.


      Report this

      50

  • #

    On August the 2nd 2012 I made this comment, in response to the Guardian article (linked within) about sceptics, moon conspiracy theorists..

    I think I was the first to find 6 surveyed links, out of the 8 anti-sceptic blogs: ( also posted these at Bishop Hill, in discussionthereads bout the same time)
    I after reading the Guardain, thought to email Prof Lewandowsky, to ask for blog name (as the sceptic blog names are in the sup data, he COULD have sen these to me!)

    Steve has put this full email exchange into his comments at Climate Audit..

    Reproduced from here:

    http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

    (you might notice a number of sceptics names, that popped up in the Recursvive Fury paper (not Richard Betts, that would have been really funny) Paull, Foxgoose, Geoff, myself and others)

    ———————————
    Barry Woods August 2, 2012 at 10:51 am
    How many ‘actual’ scep­tics will have seen these survey, or answered them..

    as this paper based its research only from 8 ‘anti-sceptic’ blogs.

    They asked 5 skep­tical blogs to post a link…
    Who refused. [we now know some unaware, some spoke to Hanich](sus­pecting motives?, like those that com­mented below did)

    The 8 blogs actu­ally sur­veyed were so called ‘pro-science’ blogs ! (who are all very anti-sceptic, with a lot of very derog­atory lan­guage & rhet­oric about deniers.
    The blogs who posted the links are claimedto be:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
    http://tamino.wordpress.com
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
    http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/

    even the locals didn’t think the ‘den­iers’ would fall for such a trans­parent survey…
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/#comment-44097

    “Yeah, those con­spiracy theory ques­tions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hard­core den­iers are going to be fooled by such a trans­parent attempt to paint them as paranoids?”

    Actual links to the ori­ginal art­icles.. these were the links I found:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/08/counting-your-attitudes/
    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/opinion-survey-regarding-climate-change/
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/29/survey-on-attitudes-towards-cl/
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/questionnaire/
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/take-a-survey/

    I haven’t found the links yet to:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com
    http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/

    where even the locals thought it was a trans­parent and poor survey, an attempt to try to describe scep­tics as para­noids or nut.. ie. very likley, by the com­ments that the ‘anti-sceptic’ locals had some fun with it..

    As no data is avail­able yet, it would be very inter­esting to see a break­down based on refer­ring URL’s as the blogs men­tioned some are MUCH more high traffic than others, which begs the ques­tion. did most of the survey res­ults come from just a few of these blogs (who detest sceptics) —
    The per­centage of actual scep­tics taking this survey must be tiny…

    making the Guardain art­icle con­clu­sions and claims rather laughable.

    ———————————–

    you would think Psychology as a field would be the first (and best equipped) to spot Lewandowky’s , Cook’s etc, conflicts.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Here’s a starting point:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/12/15/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-to-pursue-fraud-charges-against-Climategate-scientists-Will-present-to-police-the-case-for-numerous-specific-instances-of-scientific-or-economic-fraud/

    Hooaah … so here’s a tinyurl:

    http://tinyurl.com/ca458np

    As might be expected, the legislative references are mostly to the UK, but there are reasonably close matches here, since Australian law is largely derived from the UK system. It is an outline of how to proceed, and contains some important caveats.

    Locally:
    Is one of the above still an employee of University of Queensland Global Change Institute ?
    Certainly looks like it from their website.
    He may not be a co-author for the subject paper, but is certainly involved. His name is on another similar or follow-up paper I think? Was any of this work funded by a public agency?

    Public Sector Ethics Act 1994:
    http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Acts_SLs/Acts_SL_P.htm
    “public sector entity means any of the following— … (c) a university, university college or agricultural college; …”
    Doesn’t look as if the GCI figures in any of the exemptions ….


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Peter Miller

    A little off topic; I see there is a new expression for alarmists/warmists etc.

    It seems to be gaining traction: Natural Climate Change Deniers.

    Climate change is natural, it has been around for billions of years and will continue to be around for billions of years.

    The little bit of natural climate change we have experienced over the past century is little or no different from the previous warming periods of the 10,000 year old Holocene Era. This is what Mann, Cook, Hansen, Lewandowsky and the Team are all about: Trying to rubbish/disprove/deny the self-evident fact that climate change is the natural order of things.

    This is why it is so important for ‘scientists’ like Mann to try and disprove the indisputable existence of the MWP, the Roman, Minoan and Holocene Optimum warm periods.

    The term “natural climate change denier” is not only accurate, it is not abusive and it is self-evident that it refers to someone who believes in bad science.


    Report this

    271

    • #
      john robertson

      The acronym will be?
      N C C D’s.
      Needies?
      Actually with no evidence of anthropogenic climate change, other than local land use micro climates, we can drop natural.
      CCD sounds like a disease already.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    MadJak

    Lewandonsky

    The proportion of “skeptics” who comment at http://www.skepticalscience.com is thus roughly commensurate with their proportion in the population at large.

    Based on what evidence? Oh that’s right, your opinion, obviously.

    You have got to be ‘effing Kidding me if anyone could honestly believe such a baseless, unsupported load of twaddle. It must make you feel good, in a self absorbent kind of way, I’m sure, but it is, nevertheless a pointless piece of onanism.

    Oh, and I’m guessing this finding is wholly repeatable – provided the same authors repeat their opinions.

    Lewandonsky, I would suggest you go to a real school somewhere and look up and understand the concept of a confounding variable. I would suggest that the Journal of Psychological science does the same. Honestly, you’ll be better for it. I am trying to help you!

    The complete lack of any form of reliable evidence for this paper means to me it should be printed on extra absorbent double ply. It is a poor reflection on the Journal of Psychological science – I wonder if there are any papers in there supporting phrenology?


    Report this

    160

    • #
      Ace

      MadJak
      You respond to a pretty bleak impression of “psychology”.

      I assure you, its nothing like you’ve described….its far, far, far worse than that.

      In half of psychology “reality” has been replaced with ontology.

      Thats where Lewandowsky is “coming from”

      Thats why your comments would be water of a quacks back to them….in “their” part of psychology opinion is indeed regarded as “data” sufficient for writing a paper and agreement of opinion between “researchers” (measured by a statistic called “Pearsons inter observer reliability”) REALLY IS regarded as validation of “observations”.

      In other words, you really cannot make it up ….to be worse than it actually is.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Ace,

        So, if I understand you correctly, if a number of academics make observations about some behaviour – let’s say, somebody jumping around on one leg – and they individually come to the conclusion that it must be some sort of ritual. These academics discuss their observations, and by applying Pearsons inter-observer reliability to their collective opinion, come up with the joint conclusion that was indeed a pagan ritual undertaken by owl worshipers. They jointly write a paper and get it published, and it becomes part of the academic body of knowledge.

        I come along a little later, having read the paper, and being somewhat interested, to talk to the subject in question. I want to know how many people worship owls, and why. He replies that nobody worships Owls as far as he knows. So I tell him about the paper, and the intensive research that led up to it.

        Having thought for a minute or two, the man then realises that what I am talking about was not some religious ritual, but was the incident where he dropped a large sledge hammer on his foot, and was in some considerable pain – hence the “Ow’s”.

        If this is an example of what passes for scientific rigor, in the twenty-first century …

        I suppose the answer we will get, is that I should submit a counter paper to the same Journal, refuting their observations, in favour of my own. But I was alone in following this up, so in my case it is only opinion, and does not pass the Pearson test, so it gets rejected, and in some way that rejection gives post hoc support to the original paper.

        We are all doomed, doomed, I tell you.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Ace

          Rereke man…youve pretty much summed it up.
          I know…it beggars belief.

          One small adjustment to what you put. What happens is that these “researchers” agree what constitutes hopping around on one foot. They agree what an owl-circumstance is. then they tick off all the examples of each they seperately see in a video of your guy. Then they apply Pearsons inter observer reliability to establish the level pf consistency in their opinion, inter observer agreement. Then they apply a statistical test to show if what in their mutual opinion happenned is likely to happen as often as they saw it among the number of times they watched that guy.

          The idea that several observers can consistently make the same common error doesn’t seem to have been considered.

          Of course, in theory, their report should set out their observational criteria and being transparent, anyone can poke holes in those criteria. However, as we are seeing, such transparent doesnt always occur. Moreover, it assumes there are any among the readers willing to disagree with the conclusions of the report and therefore at all likely to bother critiquing those observational criteria.

          I apologise for putting it all crudely….I REALLY dont want to have to revise all that stuff AGAIN (though sooner or later I guess I will have to). More importantly, there are plenty of old-skool (not even Frankfurt School) social scientists and cognitive (experiment based) psychologists who are as disgusted by this state of affairs as you or I. But like you said about students, careers come into the balance. Academia is not just about Left-Right politics but intra-office politicking.


          Report this

          40

  • #
    Paul Matthews

    I drew attention at Bishop Hill back in September to how the SkS team were contradicting themselves over the question of whether or not they had hosted the survey (see Geoffs comment four above mine for the link to the SkS thread).
    Curtis said “Skeptical Science and John Cook are not associated with Lewandowski’s study.” Cook said “Skeptical Science did link to the Lewandowsky survey back in 2011 2010 but now when I search the archives for the link, it’s no longer there so the link must’ve been taken down once the survey was over.” Both of these statements are untrue.

    Ironically, it was this comment of mine pointing out their false statements that led to me being granted the honour of being listed in the LCOM13 (Fury) data sheet as ‘expousing conspiracy theory’.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Michael

    I’m surprised Geoff Chambers and others don’t charge them with libel,as the paper is full of defamatory comments. Don’t they realize that a law-suit would be bad news for them? I’ve read some of the paper,and no competent judge would fail to see it for what it is. Ethics seem to have left the buildings,along with several other things,such as competence and honesty,assuming that they had any to being with..


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Eliza

    My impression is that this paper has been withdrawn/retracted? Please correct me if I am wrong HT WUWT. There is a posting at retracted papers etc.


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Eliza, there are two papers. One the Moonlanding paper, was publicized last July. It came out finally this week. The other paper “Recursive Fury” was published in Feb, went “in limbo”, reappeared, and has gone “in limbo” again. The science is so bad, it is hard to keep up…


      Report this

      260

  • #
    Eliza

    Surely The University of Queensland and Western Australia will have to fire these people?


    Report this

    142

  • #
    lurker passing through, laughing

    A point to be taken from this is that it is likely that a great deal of academic work is of similar quality, given the defense given by the peers and employer of Lewandowsky.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      gai

      You are correct.

      I was looking at an entirely different subject (Banking) and ran across Congressional testimony from a professor of economics that was put up at an economics website for discussion. At least one of the commenters was another well known professor of economics (per wiki). Even I with no formal training in economics could spot the lies. The one poor guy who spoke the truth was treated like a piece of bleeding meat in a piranha tank. (yes I did double check my facts)


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Shub

    Jo,
    The premise of the Lewandowsky et al 2013 study rests on (a) there being a representative sampling of skeptics (b) the validity of the extreme responses in the survey which contribute to the abstract and the title.

    The representative sampling, in all likelihood, could not have taken place if only the 7 websites apart from Skepticalscience carried the survey. It therefore becomes important to prove somehow that Skepticalscience had decent traffic from skeptics.

    Lewandowsky and co-authors state in their paper that they found 222 unique comments from skeptics (“comments from unique visitors”) for the month of September 2010, from a total of 1067 comments.

    Skepticalscience received far more comments in the past than it does now. Threads have, on an average about 25 comments per thread. And this is on average, and there were lots and lots of threads being posted back then, and several threads have >50 comments and a few have >100 comments.

    In Sept 2010, Skepticalscience actually had a total of about 3096 comments. (How do I know the number? We’ll get into that later). This corresponds closely to the posted comments on the site: ~2900 comments.

    Next, I went over a few threads from Sept 2010. They longer ones have comments no doubt but they have the usual phenomenon going – a lone sceptic, or a couple, or a handful, arguing with the regulars who appear greater in number. It is hard to see where the 222 unique commenting skeptics are.

    So, two things:
    The close to 3000 comments should have the 222 unique skeptics. That would make it 7%, not 20%.

    Second, the numbers on their website just don’t add up to the description in the paper (3096 versus 1067). What analysis did Cook actually perform? Time to ask Cook for the raw data of the comment analysis?


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Jaymez

      Shub you may as well write to Lew and get on his list of conspiracy theorists, because surely only a conspiracy theorist would think they’d make stuff up?


      Report this

      60

    • #

      Thanks Shub. We would really need the number of commenters, as opposed to comments. The 3000 comments presumably came from something less than 3000 unique people.

      You know, Cook could find out, he could post a survey … ;-)


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Barry Woods

        A bit Irrelevant.! ;-)
        The link was not posted there. Making whole cook, analysis refundant

        Plus, can we see his working out, purely cook’s thinking here.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Skiphil

        awesome anagram for phrase

        “what Lysenko spawned”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/mcintyres-dissection-of-the-cook-lewandowsky-lyingdeceivingincompetence-complex/#comment-1259909

        OK, now the charlatans will pretend that invoking Lysenko here is another form of “conspiracist ideation” — we “can’t win” because the anti-scientific methods of the Lewspew pals will classify ANYTHING that associates more than one person with incorrect, inept, and/or unscientific behavior is merely our “conspiracy ideation”…..

        It’s a neatly “sealed” world that the Lewspew crowd has created for climate science critics and skeptics…… oh yes, a “sealed” world (of Lew’s creation) was supposed to be one of their criteria for judging OUR alleged “conspiracist ideation”….


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Your conclusion may well be true. But in creating a “sealed” world, Lew and crew have reduced their study to a single issue, bounded by their definitions of that world — “climate science critics and skeptics.”

          This site however, and all of the other skeptic sites, look at multiple issues through the lens of skeptical query, and not just the single issue of fabricated climate change.

          Fabricated climate change is important, for no other reason that the diversion of huge amounts of funds to worthless projects, but it is certainly not the only area of concern where a skeptical mind might be employed. And those other areas of concern would have other reasons to be concerned about, so it cannot even be claimed that, “climate science,” is an adequate proxy for study, because it is unique in a large number of ways.

          If he is really serious about understanding the role that skepticism, and “conspiracy ideation,” has in society, he should look to the Federal Government for assistance. There is at least one Government organisation where scepticism is expected and valued — the ASIO.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    TinyCO2

    This whole thing is extraordinary. If Lew had chosen to pick on just about any other group of people including convicted criminals, his work would have been pilloried amongst his peers as extremely flawed and agenda driven. There would be an advocate group demanding an investigation and they’d have got it.

    Even had Lew had done the survey properly there was no justification for it. You couldn’t even derive some understanding of sceptic behaviours because he compared ‘sceptics’ to warmists and didn’t compare either of them to the public at large. Had he done so he would have had to conclude his fictional sceptics were less likely to believe in conspiracies than the average person. The only reason for producing work like this is to defame the subject of the study. Lew must have felt it was safe to do so because sceptics are considered acceptable targets for discrimination. Apparently he’s right in that opinion because not only was he allowed to publish the first offending paper he was allowed to publish a second paper mocking the anger caused by the first.

    If the paper was rewritten to substitute any other group – black, Jewish or homosexual the back lash would be immense. That sceptics have to do their own investigations and submit FOI requests is typical of how these institutions have forgotten how victimisation begins. That they don’t seem to recognise bad science either is more a professional concern than a moral one. I could understand that Lew might make a mistake and produce a paper that forgets common sense but this car crash is two years in the making. It has passed through the hands of many people and not one said ‘Sorry Lew this is only fit for paper recycling’. Having launched the paper on the World he got his head to play with by sceptics but instead of retreating into blushing silence he’s produced a second pile of waste paper AND THEY LET HIM.

    Of course the reason why his work has gone unquestioned stems from the funniest of reasons – many warmists are convinced that the sceptic movement is a well funded, well organised machine and any criticism of them is justified because it’s an Astroturf effect… which would be a conspiracy theory.


    Report this

    340

  • #

    My thoughts on the matter. (rough and ready, Easter hols, don’t care)

    http://unsettledclimate.org/2013/03/29/the-perils-of-science-by-press-release-to-get-a-headline-with-data-and-publication-following-months-later/

    and to be very, very clear, I think the journals have been blindsided. science assumes the actors act in good faith, and every science has the right to be wrong. Show me a scientist who has never been wrong, and that will be somebody who hasn’t learn’t very much (even amongst the most brilliant)

    I would like to help the journals and universities to sort the mess out. I have not made a formal complaint, beyond raising my concerns and asking for info, and asking it be looked at. (though that may be being treated as a complaint) To be clear, the absolute majority of scientists act in good faith, of that I’m sure.


    Report this

    52

  • #
    jazzbox111

    I’m doing my final units in an LLB. Relax, I’m in my early thirties so I’ve been around the block. I’m pretty good at law. If anyone out there is genuinely interested in taking action against Lewandowsky please let me know. Only catch is you must have studied law, have some understanding of complaints processes or litigation, or you can bring someone to the table that is actually a qualified lawyer or law student.

    There appear a number of possible actions. I would need to do some research to make sure that I am correct, but I believe that a result against Lewandowsky or at least a lawful and non-vexatious action that may draw attention to this dishonest individual is possible. You have to ‘cast the net’. Go after anyone and everyone involved. There are ways to do this, believe me, that would bring tears to anyone’s eyes, or at least enrage them and they are perfectly lawful and non-vexatious. Yes, I know you – the respondent – may be reading now and that you can see that you may be perhaps unfairly in your eyes one of the fish caught in the next. If you are a strong denier, if the forces of darkness and hubris are strong in you (yes, I am re-claiming that word denial of climate-change has got to be at least a peg down from denier of reason, surely) you will be unaffected you think, it is a bluff. You will so brilliantly defend your impartiality and reputation. “What a fool this law student must be, for revealing his tactics this way.”
    [snip - I think it could be misinterpreted - Jo]

    I find Lewandowsky to be an unintelligent person with an obvious blind spot to alternate viewpoints. It is immediately noticeable in his Youtube tirades [snip]

    I am so very, very tired of seeing people like him get away with what they do: using public money to very aggressively pursue what is clearly a political/pseudo-religious agenda. I actually thought that this so called ‘study’ of his was like a kind of farce, it was irony, that he was using it to mock only. It appears he actually believes in it. I’m sorry, but if you quack like a duck, you’re a duck. Or quack!

    I’ve been following Global warming theories and now (good grief!) Climate Change theories since I was 13, when first introduced to the idea. Recently my learning curve has been very steep it has had to be as a result of the proliferation of information, but I confident I now (after reading many, many articles, critiques, histories etc) have got the grasp of things. Things are dire indeed, to the tune of billions.

    My logic is as such, it is the Kung-Fu Masters technique to defeating the enemy: using them against themselves. Here goes …

    OK. Yes, the world will end unless we do something about this Co2 and cut emissions. We know it’s 100% fact, we have established it beyond any doubt, the earth is round. Well, then I suppose that’s it. Now all we have to do is reduce carbon, now that those brave souls, the climate scientists have done their bit, and it will be remembered for eternity (they did save the Earth you know, that’s not NOTHING), well now they are out of work! We know what to do: reduce carbon. I hope these fine men don’t end up like Vietnam War vets, beggin’ for change and understanding for fighting the good fight, how ironic that would be. But surely, they could just find other jobs. We need the money that was previously allocated to their noble research to STOP THE CO2 monster. We can’t be funding research to prove a fact that has been 100% guaranteed. Poor souls.

    Jo, you are a modern day Jo(an) of Arc – although I don’t want to single you out because of your gender. Truly, you are remarkable thinker and a very, very brave person who will go down in history as a voice of reason in these strange modern times where information is so widely available and yet so widely un-availed of.

    In my early youth I felt very concerned, initially, about the state of the ‘climate’. But really, there was little evidence presented back then that established anything to be concerned about as as fact. I waited. Then, jeez, the weather got a little weird didn’t it? Or did it? Well, it’s weather, so yeah, it was predictably unpredictable. And as time went past I realised that identifying weather ‘anomalies’ or ‘trends in climate’ meant NOTHING. Anomalies are unpredictable. Period. If they were predictable they would not be anomalies. When twats like Flannery start reeling off lists of ‘anomalies’ and ‘trends’ I question what type of universe I am in. Is there some Cartesian “Evil Genius” that is toying with my ability to reason and interpret the world outside of me? I mean, is this person, a “professor” for real? Is Lewandowsky for real? These people should not be anywhere near a university, they are either knaves or fools or both, but goodness, they are not even bright enough to know that people who pay attention can call their bluff. Though look at ole Pachauri, now that he is no longer in the IPCC honeypot, well now he has gone all flabby on everyone. What a ridiculous character, how spineless!

    [Snip]

    Anyway, before this turns totally into meaningless rant, here is the offer – within 6 months or so I will be fully capable (due to good fortune) to fund action against Lewandowsky, Flannery etc. and others like them. And by golly I will. It has been 4 years since I got serious about this issue, and yes, I have met people who treated me like I was subhuman, ugly, that my attitude was shameful and (no kidding here) for even questioning the fact that GW or whatever they are coming up with next (what its down waaaay in the Ocean now? What the hell?!?! How did it get there?). So if my goose does arrive, you please pull me up on what I have just said, and if I have spoken nonsense, and if its all just hot air well, then you can say “He at least was not fooled by the GW mind-game, however, his word as far as litigation goes was rubbish – no more time for him on that”.

    Goodnight.

    (PS apologies in advance for spelling and grammar, its late and I won’t have time to write again for a good while)


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Jaymez

      Hi jazzbox, lucky you stopped before it turned into a meaningless rant ;) You sound particularly frustrated and I guess I can understand that if you have spent the last couple of years or so in University surrounded by left wing academics and worst still in the law faculty! One thing I can suggest if you want to and are able to help the cause is at the top right hand corner of the page is a ‘tip jar’ for Jo Nova. We need her seemingly tireless work writing this blog and helping organise Monkton’s tour and things like that to slowly turn this thing around. Contrary to popular belief, Jo is not funded by Big Oil, and unlike Lew isn’t on the taxpayer funded gravy train. So I know anything you can send her way will be put to good use.

      Keep up the fight. We may need your legal skills when we get into hand to hand battle in the not too distant future.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      /sarc on Considering how dispassionate you are in your analysis of the subject matter, I’ll certainly be rushing to invest my time and resources in hiring you to fight this good fight. /sarc off

      p.s. If you live in Brisbane, I have a graveyard shift job opening at the business I’m managing. You’ll earn more than you ever will in law and you’ll be kept away from the general public. Win win you might say. Give me a call.


      Report this

      13

  • #
    jazzbox111

    Yes, always with the grammatical errors AFTER posting. Is there some way I can edit the previous post to at least ensure that I am not embarrassed by a couple of bad grammar errors.

    —-
    Jazzbox Check your email – Jo


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    These people are activists, driven by their emotional needs (though they would probably call it ‘passion’). Some of them have PhDs, and most of them have good educations, but emotion-driven activism is what they do.

    So they lie; when they are called on the lie, they cover up the lies with more lies; then they will cover up the cover-up with even more lies, and so on ad infinitum, because protecting their emotional requirements is way more important than bourgeois notions such as truth or integrity.

    They aren’t going to stop this stuff just because their shabby deceptions get exposed; but exposing them — every time and every place — hurts them deeply, much as they may pretend otherwise.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Windy

    I look forward to reading the Skeptical Science article on this bogus unscientific paper. Hehehe.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John Brookes

    So the paper says you guys are nutters.

    I’d say that the number of genuine nutters here is fairly high, but a pretty large fraction aren’t nutters.

    The most obvious nutters are the dragon slayers. There are one or two Einstein nuts. Then there are those who believe that there is some sort of conspiracy amongst climate scientists (as opposed to unintentional bias).

    But while the motives and psychology of climate change “skeptics” interests me greatly, I won’t be reading the paper. In this case I’m more of an “anecdotal evidence” type guy.


    Report this

    532

    • #
      timg56

      John,

      How does there being “nutters” posting here have any bearing on either the actions of Lewandowsky and Cook or the quality of their papers and “research”?

      Even if every reader here met your definition of a “nutter”, the papers would still be crap and the these two gentlemen would still be lying charlatans.

      A piece of advice my dad passed on to my brothers and I from his dad was “Never give anyone cause to call you a lier, a thief or a cheat.” To think that Cook and Lewandowsky have not provided cause for perhaps 2 of the 3 is evidence of being in denial.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Unintentional bias among ‘climate scientists’?

      That is a really interesting concept; let’s think about that:

      1. Why do they always refuse point blank to debate sceptics? Answer: Because they know their ‘science’ will be sliced and diced. Gavin Schmidt came close last night on Fox News, but then blew it by churlishly/childishly refusing to sit on the podium with Dr Roy Spencer.

      2. If you were a sceptic and posted on a natural climate change denier site, why would you expect to always have your comments censored. On sceptic blogs there is freedom of speech. You have censorship when you have something to hide, either the truth or something of strategic importance.

      3. You genuinely believe in the ‘science’ of Mann?

      4. The global warmimg of the past century is circa 0.6-0.7 degrees C. I know of no sceptic who disputes that, the question is how much is man made and how much is natural. Only a charlatan would claim that it is all man made and then go on to deny the evidence of the previous natural warming periods in the Holocene Era.

      5. Despite being able to outspend sceptics by a factor of at least 1,000 to one, natural climate change deniers are unable to persuade more than a tiny percentage of geologists and engineers, working outside government, that AGW is anything to be concerned about. AGW is a mildly interesting, modest phenomenon which we are unable to accurately quantify, despite all the IPCC’s claims to the contrary.

      In ‘climate science’:

      Intentional bias = guaranteed Thermageddon = virulent CAGW = career protection and enhancement.

      No deliberate bias = employment consequences.

      As a practicing scientist, I loathe bad science with a passion and far too much of ‘climate science’ is biased bad science. If someone who hates bad science fits your definition of someone who is a ‘nutter’, then it all seems a little sad.


      Report this

      260

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Peter,

        John Brookes sees himself as an Agent Provocateur. He quite relishes the role.

        Fortunately, he is not a very good Agent Provocateur, and is therefore quite obvious.

        Consequently he comes across as the Court Jester, which is not a bad thing to have.

        I have yet to see any attempt at humour on non-sceptic sites. They are too busy trying to be seriously serious.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Backslider

          I have yet to see any attempt at humour on non-sceptic sites. They are too busy trying to be seriously serious.

          Which indicates that the people have serious personal problems. Lewandowsky would find far more interesting things to study were he to take a look at warming alarmists.

          The humor here is fabulous and shows me that I am among normal people.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Streetcred

          Picture of jb being removed from Lewandowsky (apologies for the replication from an earlier post)


          Report this

          20

      • #
        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Agreed. Yes it was a neat summary.

          I’ve previously attempted to argue it was a conspiracy to begin with, going as far back as 1987, but have since realised this (literal) conspiracy theory is difficult for most people to believe given that it relies upon re-interpreting words written by the key individuals in a devious way, and there is only one key witness that first alleged the devious interpretation. That doesn’t mean its untrue, but it won’t pass most people’s standard of “reasonable doubt”. Maybe there are other ways to prove it, but I don’t know of any.

          It is much easier to demonstrate that even if the whole saga was an earnestly-believed hypothesis bolstered by a couple of honest mistakes to begin with, since at least 2007 it has morphed into a coverup and whitewashing of these same errors, with incompetence being rewarded in some cases, not merely tolerated for expediency let alone punished. If it was not a hoax to begin with, it has become one now.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Snotrocket

      Brookes: In this case I’m more of an “anecdotal evidence” type guy.”

      Anecdotally, I hear you’re a bit of an onanist. Who am I to dispute such evidence?


      Report this

      50

    • #

      The most obvious nutters are the dragon slayers

      John, maybe go have a look at this on WUWT?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

      After sleeping on it apparently, Anthony Watts has reluctantly suspended his dislike of “Slayers”. The result may surprise you. Of those who indicated a clear opinion, respondents agreeing that Slayers have a point certainly outnumber the opposite. Very little in the way of ad hominems, no significant flaming, hardly anything OT, no “[snip - we won't go there]”

      Btw – which side is an “agenda 21 nutter” on? I supported A21 about 20 years ago, then steadily moved in the opposite direction as evidence accrued that was totally in conflict with my own professional experience.


      Report this

      41

    • #
      Backslider

      In this case I’m more of an “anecdotal evidence” type guy

      Well JB, the anecdotal evidence is that Lewandowsky, John Cook and friends are determined to fight CAGW skepticism with ad hominem rather than science. You know that as well as I do, just as we both know that your reference to ‘nutters’ is just you having fun trolling. You know as well as I do that just because somebody has a view contrary to your own, whether its right or wrong, does not make them a nutter. You also well know that most of the people who frequent this blog are perfectly sane.

      That being the case, you yourself should be denouncing Lewandowsky et al as roundly as anybody else here.

      Think for a change John.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      James

      The self-importance of this little head-tilter is quite amusing. Does he include himself in his (“guys”) nutters’ tally?
      Another Warmist who continually shows he knows little of the philosophy of science and even less of its practice.

      (The buttered cat spinning in mid-air will shortly be replaced by the Spinning Brookes flipping past his tipping point.. the Greens next method of rotating a turbine.)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Thats ok JB the IPCC and most of their cronies are more “AE” type guys too.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Forgot to mention the agenda 21 nutters – sorry guys!


    Report this

    126

    • #
      john robertson

      Keep looking into the mirror,these creatures you profess to see are probably observing you therein.


      Report this

      21

    • #
      Jaymez

      Hi John, I know you are from Perth, so it may interest you to know I have spent months trying to get some numbers out of the two councils in which I pay rates, one being the city of Perth, who are also members and signatories to ICLEI. http://www.iclei.org/home.html ‘ICLEI – the global cities network We are a powerful movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities & urban regions, 450 large cities, 450 small & medium-sized cities & towns in 84 countries dedicated to sustainable development’ which if you look at it’s own material shows it came out of the UN’s Agenda 21 programme. All I wanted to know is what is it costing the councils to a) be a member of ICLEI, b) participate in ICLEI programmes, functions, conferences and training, and c) Meet the ICLEI targets for ‘sustainability’ within the council. I want to know how the considerations of Agenda 21 are affecting our day to day life. You’s think it would be pretty easy information to get. Just saying.


      Report this

      150

    • #
      mullumhillbilly

      … And don’t forget the one world government supporter nutters JB. As a sample of one, you are “our” moonlander, except the moonlander response was a fake, and your nuttery is genuine.


      Report this

      62

    • #
      Mark D.

      JB: [I] Forgot to mention the agenda 21 nutters

      What do you mean nutter?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      John, The time will come soon for you to take a long hard look at yourself.
      If you don’t do it others will, as your personality type will be the subject of study to find out how this AGW farce was so effective for so long.
      Have a nice day :)


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Streetcred

      You’re living the Agenda21 dream already, jb … you just aren’t aware enough.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Stephen Harper

    Near the end, “They struggle from one gaff to the next.” should be “They struggle from one gaffe to the next.”

    I am inclined to comment simply that the intellectual dishonesty of this pair is breathtaking – but having heard Mr Lewandowsky speak at a panel discussion at UWA on the topic of AGW a year ago, I am not so sure that in his case the issue of honesty comes into question. Witnessing just how unhinged the good prof is, being so madly fixated on his imagined ideological enemies, I don’t think there is evidence of sufficient mental competence to apply an objective test for honesty. It is simply unfair to judge Lewandowsky in this manner. He is more to be pitied than blamed. Heaven help his UWA students. They deserve even more pity.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    timg56

    I’d venture Cook and Lewandowsky are providing an excellent case study for a psychology paper.

    I also love the kid and the cookie jar analogy. What makes it so good is that in addition to describing their behavior, it also covers their compentence at it. Your average 5 year old couldn’t do a poorer job of trying to cover up.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Phil Ford

    I’m never keen to the use of the courts as a means by which to answer our warmist critics, but I’m starting to agree with Christopher Monckton that we climate sceptics need to man-up and make it perfectly clear that if CAGW trolls everywhere continue with their persistent attacks and calls on government to turn us into criminals for holding a point-of-view then we should waste no time in getting them in front of a judge.

    I’m really running out of patience towards these common purpose pro-CAGW climate trolls. I really hope we can see some brave (and presumably wealthy) soul from amongst the climate sceptic community take the lead and make a very public example of the inherent wickedness of warmist zealots.


    Report this

    90

    • #

      Maybe we have to realize that academia and the courts are how these individuals gained power in the first place. I doubt they care much about blogs (they can do studies and deride skeptics all day long). If they are fought on their own “turf” and lose, that might actually make an impact. Science cannot be decided by courts, but bad behaviour can surely be addresssed. Perhaps it is time to take these people to court.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I really hope we can see some brave (and presumably wealthy) soul from amongst the climate sceptic community take the lead …

      But then we would be accused of being well funded by ….


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Foxgoose

    Just in case anyone here isn’t aware – for reasons that aren’t clear Lewandowsky has abandoned his previously draconian moderation at his UWA sponsored Shaping Tomorrow’s World blog – where he and Cook have liberally smeared and snipped the denierati in the past

    Since this is a publicly funded blog, read by academics from several universities, conspiratorially minded, recursively furious folk, like me & a few others, have taken advantage of this “security lapse” to ask them awkward questions and generally let them know how we feel about them.

    It’s quite cathartic and highly recommended.

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html#comments


    Report this

    50

  • #
    michael hart

    The only thing I can recall seeing at the Cook’s site looked like an emperor with no clothes.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    DGH

    You asked, “how many people were on [John Cook's] twitter list in 2010?”

    Answer: As July 30, 2010 just a few weeks before he posted the link on his website, deleted the link and mysteriously lost all evidence thereof, skepticscience had 1,000 followers.

    http://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/19960124159


    Report this

    80

    • #
      • #
        DGH

        No worries. Funny to see 78,000 skeptics site visitors whittled down to a mere 1,000 twitter followers.

        For the sake of Science, it is too bad that the self-appointed arbiter of “pro-science science stance” @skepticscience hasn’t had an opportunity to let us know the ratio of white hats and black ones on that list of followers. No doubt he and Dr. Lewandowsky will invent a methodology and get back to us with the results.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Foxgoose

    Eddie Sharpe
    March 30, 2013 at 6:01 am · Reply

    Isn’t dropping the moderation just to ollect ‘evidence” of deniers list behaviour, for another study ?

    Could be – but since every new Lewpaper turns out to be another nail in their coffin – what’s to lose?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    johnbuk

    I think you’ve all been fooled by this clever Lewandowsky chap. It’s very obvious he is collating data for a soon to be published book on “Noble Cause Corruption – a First-Hand description of a Climate Scientists Struggle against Big Oil”.
    He has set this trap and all of you have fallen into it. Shame on you.

    (Do I really need a sarc here?)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    johnbuk

    Hey Foxgoose, love your comment at 5:52 at “Recursive Fury” – Nail/Head. Brilliant.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Heywood

    Interesting that the warmist brothers JFC and/or Nice One appear in almost every thread, except where Lew and Cook’s paper’s are being discussed.

    Anyone else noticed this?

    Can’t defend the indefensible huh? Even though Brookesy is giving it a red hot go.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Albert

    Film maker explains how we didn’t have the technology to fake the moon landing

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs


    Report this

    40

  • #

    [...] be a bit busy explaining the daft "moon landing conspiracy theory" pish in the wind paper they just published (after 8 months in "typesetting" – have they not tried computers ?) which even has the UK [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    The two natural climate change deniers are becoming sloppy.
    They have moved from bad science and obfuscation to fraud and lies.
    How long before Lewankdowsky and Crook become an embarrassment to their paymasters and are cut loose?
    Even a third rate publicly funded ‘university’ such as the ‘University of Western Australia’ can only take so much negative publicity.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    handjive

    Here is an “aside’ involving Skeptical Science.

    Will dana1981 from Skeptical Science be writing an open letter to the Climate Commission after Flannery, Steffen et al claimed weather is now climate to support the “Angry Summer” report?

    Open Letter to London Mayor Boris JohnsonWeather is not Climate
    21 January 2013 by dana1981


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Backslider

      Oh, I like this from Dana1981:

      Were the sun the main driver of global temperatures, the planet would have cooled slightly over the past 50 years.

      Yes, folks, its not the sun…. something else is keeping us warm, although I’m not quite sure what it may be, he doesn’t say.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The statement by Dana1981 is also ignorant of the influence of Solar Activity (ie magnetosphere and solar wind activity as indicated by sunspot count). In the Warmist World, Total Solar Irradiance is the only solar parameter they pay attention to because they know it can’t explain the warming.

        Pay no attention to the paleo work of Nir Shaviv, the lab experiments of Henrik Svensmark, or the CERN CLOUD experiment.

        It takes only a minute with Google to find how solar activity varied over the century, apply the Svensmark hypothesis to it, and conclude there was going to be an additional forcing on the climate in the warming direction after 1950. Imagine the temperature forcing as being a very smoothed and lagged version of the sunspot count. Sunspots increased between 1935 and 1955, so is it totally impossible with all those oceans buffering heat, that temperatures would increase between 1945 and 1965, followed by a cooling, followed by a return to warming? Because that’s what happened.

        Svensmark didn’t stop there. Because when he looked at the source of the cosmic rays, and then recreated what the cosmic ray flux was like over millions of years, the implications he found for life on earth were astonishing.

        But skip the Svensmark, shush your mouth about Shaviv, omit Oman, cease spotting your sun spots, and forget about the man behind the curtain, because, citizen, TSI is the only thing you should concern yourself with! Move along, nothing to see here.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Ace

    I realise who Lewandowsky looks like.
    Rolf Harris.

    Poor Rolfs got the rough end of that deal.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Backslider

      Derryn Hinch named Rolf Harris as the 82 year old who was arrested in the Saville probe.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        Did you know Rolfs hit single about brothers in war sharing a horse was an English version of a Polish song which the Poles used as a secret expression of patriotism throughout the German occupation? I cannot remember what it was called. Words were different. Only the tune was the same. Heard it on the radio recently.

        Actually I may have it all wrong. May have been a German song the East Germans sang throughout the Communist occupation of themselves.

        That show strings together bunches of obscure tunes and the doesn’t explain what was what until afterwards by which time you’ve forgotten what happened when.

        Thats the BBC too.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    ianl8888

    All of the above comments will appear in Lewanclownsky’s next paper as proof of conspiratorial ideation


    Report this

    40

  • #
    dylan

    This lewandowsky chap doesn’t distinguish between those holding conspiracy views on climate change and those holding conspiracy views on internet blogs. A simple bayesian condition. All blogs whether they be pro-ipcc or anti- will inevitably include conspiracy views those with more extreme views. It’s just the nature of the internet and relative anonymity.

    J.Brookes is right that there are genuine nutters here at nova (and some certainly need professional help) but I’d bet there are a similar proportion of nutters working the ipcc blogs.

    Still dont understand why nova gives lewandowsky the attention/oxygen he so desperately craves and the ‘data’ he needs to enrich himself.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Leo Dorfman

    In response, the Australian Research Council awarded Lewandowsky et al another $338,000.

    Lord Monckton has written about the fraudsters getting rewarded

    He missed this example!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Concern is starting to move to legal advice when public monies are expended on University research and University funded blogs.
    In the case of Joelle Gergis, I emailed the Dept of Climate Change in July 2012 asking if moneys are refunded if the proposal seeking funding is not met. This was the reply in Jan 2013 -
    Dear Mr. Sherrington,
    As previously indicated, the paper in question (‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’) has been resubmitted to the same journal (Journal of Climate), and the paper still remains authored by the same scientist (Gergis et al). It is currently undergoing the usual peer review process.
    As the paper is being considered for publication by the Journal of Climate, the Department does not consider that the grant has failed to execute the milestones of the agreement. Furthermore, the grant provided to the University of Melbourne was not solely provided for the publication of this paper. The grant was provided for a project which included research and the assembly of an online database, as well as the publication of numerous journal articles, of which this paper is just one.
    More generally, if the Department deems a milestone to be uncompleted, or completed to an unsatisfactory standard, the Department may choose to hold off a payment until the deliverable is of satisfactory standard. In most cases, the recipient is given the opportunity to complete the milestone to the required standard before financial penalties are applied. The standard Departmental funding agreement outlines the steps which are to be taken if the Department deems a milestone or deliverable unsatisfactory.
    The Climate Change Science Team is part of the Science and International Adaptation Branch of the Department. The role of the Science team is primarily to provide national leadership in driving climate change science policy, to assist the delivery of world-class research and to provide accurate and well-targeted information on climate change science to a range of decision makers and the community. While most of the members of the science team have strong scientific backgrounds, it is not the team’s role to conduct scientific research. The team actively assesses and communicates the latest science and is advised on climate change science issues by reputable high standard scientific organisations such as the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Academy of Science, the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, the IPCC, Australian universities and other world leading Australian and international scientific organisations.
    Thank you for your enquiries
    Regards
    Climate Change Science Team”
    I asked who comprised the Climate Change Science Team and whether one or more of the authors in question was a member. No answer. Does anyone know the names on the Climate Change Science team?

    Then, if you look in the leaked AR5 draft you see under authors Chapter 25 p 88
    Gergis, J. et, al (2011b)
    gergis et. al (2011a)

    Next we have this Lewandowsky problem. Were the objectives of the grant fulfilled in a proper way? If not, is a refund in order?

    There is also a problem of manners. Some of you know it’s s difficult time at home and that I’m approaching 72, so in “The Conversation), a blog funded at least in part by Universities and perhaps by public money, there was this kind little gem in a thread on the angry climate. (BTW, one cannot write an article on this public blog unless one is affiliated with a university.) -
    “Chris Owens Professional
    The cold spell in the UK and Europe has already been linked to the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss. Why is it that so many deniers are in their twilight years? Easy to be cavallier (sic or sick?)with the habitability of the planet when you don’t have to live with the consequences?”

    Is it proper that public funds be used like this? Am I being too demanding?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Why is it that so many deniers are in their twilight years? Easy to be cavallier (sic or sick?)with the habitability of the planet when you don’t have to live with the consequences?

      Geoff,

      I’m probably stating the obvious but he doesn’t comprehend that many of us have children and grandchildren who will go on living in the world we’re so “cavalier” about. Unless we’ve all turned into some vile, evil monster in our old age we care deeply about the future of the planet.

      The most fun of all in being a denier (skeptic) is being dismissed by these jerks who couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag as though we were subhuman.

      You are not being too demanding. You should, if anything, be even more demanding.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I am told that skeptics tend to be older because they are not dependent on the funding and employment younger people are. If you want to work at a university, it’s prudent to not oppose those in charge (though in Wyoming for some reason the only state university seems to hire people who stand against everything in this state, including those who pay their salaries–maybe good help is hard to get?). Many colleges in the US and elsewhere have zero tolerance for opposing the views of the liberal teachers. Try and find any kind of employment in academics if you oppose the teaching of climate change as a “fact”. Older persons have the freedom to say what they believe. That was the claim of the “no longer a climate scientist because he crossed us” James Lovelock. It’s about power–when you are young, more people have power over you. It may have nothing whatsoever to do with facts or truth.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Backslider

      Why is it that so many deniers are in their twilight years?

      Well, I am most certainly not a “denier”, nor am I in my “twilight years”. From where does this guy get his demographics?

      Perhaps older people are wiser? Perhaps older people have the time on their hands to regularly participate in discussions, however I do not at all believe that they are in the majority with CAGW skepticism.

      This kind of ageism is remarkable and suggests that older people are somehow mentally decrepit. Its against the law in Australia (as is Lewandowsky et als’ vilification).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Look at the pattern of claims. It fits perfectly with the mindset of warmist faith. There is a blindingly simple explanation for everything. You could sum up the entire warmist dogma in about 3 lines then just interchange them for the one most suited to the argument your in at the time.

        – Your funded by big oil
        – Your a stupid old white guy
        – Your career is in decline and your bitter

        That will give you something to say on any occasion if your a warmist. Does it matter if your never right about any of it ? Not so far, just keep saying it.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Dave

    Geoff,

    Does anyone know the names on the Climate Change Science team?

    They’d have to come from this list.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    New evidence settles this old moon hoax argument, and turns out all us climate deniers were right! You see there was a Nazi scientist who specialised in the pscyhology of mass hallucinations. He was brought to America after WW2 in Operation Paperclip, along with Werner von Braun and other Nazi scientists. Dr Carlsberg’s job was to make everyone believe the USA had landed on the moon. He knew the key to this was not to realistically depict a moon landing, but to figure out what people expected to see in a moon landing and then show them only that. This was the original Inception job. Dr Carlsberg organised the whole thing personally to reduce those with a need to know. He organised building the sets, stitching the space suits, catering for the actors, buying the cameras and lights, and the radio link up with NASA. The entire project was compartmentalised, classified as Special Access. Most of the sound stage production crew met with tragic automobile “accidents” soon after, rubbed out by CIA hitmen who had no idea what their targets had done wrong. We would have never known about it. A secret photo smuggled out of the CIA’s sound stage has surfaced after all these years and at long last provides the FINAL PROOF that the Moon landings were a hoax!
    APOLLO11_SOUNDSTAGE3_P045.JPG

     
    25 hours too early?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Fantastic!

      Now can we bury this Lewandowski flake along with all his friends and the fake moon landings and forget all about them? And I do mean bury them. There must be some way to cut them down to size. Maybe Drs. von Braun and Carlsberg can work another scam and prove these guys are fake flakes. They were really good the last time around and I don’t see why they can’t do a similar act again. Maybe they can even prove that Lew and crowd are invisible. That would get rid of then for sure. NASA must surely be working on invisibility in some secret lab somewhere; I know they’re working on warp drive so it’s logical that invisibility is well along too. :-)

      Plop! Falls off his chair, yet again… …picks himself up, yet one more time… …yawns several times… …Need more coffee again… …

      Oh damn! They’ve already proved they’re fake flakes — and worse.

      “Fake Flakes” :-)

      Hey! Maybe we can turn them into breakfast cereal? Our own special brand you know, just for deniers of obvious facts. It should be in high demand and Jo would finally be adequately funded.

      I’ll work on the formula if someone will hire the patent lawyer. ;-)

      —————-

      Sorry, I can’ resist a good rant sometimes.

      But seriously, isn’t it time to bury these failures in life’s trash heap somewhere and get on down the road?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Joe V.

    Isn’t a professional Psych. providing diagnosis of individuals , from only broadcast & published observations & publishing those diagnoses, however implausible , somehow wrong ?
    Didn’t Christopher Monckton call out a Doctor for just such un-professional behaviour recently ?
    Dr Helen Caldicott

    Does Dr. Lewandowsky represent any professional institution that could be harmed by this ?


    Report this

    10

    • #

      I don’t believe that he’s a clinical psychologist.

      He only gets to torture language.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Michael

        It’s unethical for psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose people they meet casually. it’s defamatory for them to publish “professional” diagnoses of the mental status of named persons without their consent. it’s against all privacy laws for a professional to suggest any particular individual suffers from any condition the professional is a specialist of. etc etc

        There’s a reason why psychology journals aren’t chock-full of articles having as topic the telediagnosis of past referees, previous editors, and responses to old articles.

        and we haven’t even mentioned the errors, omissions, manipulations, lies etc etc that make Lew et al the most ridiculous psychology papers since the idea that looking at flags make people change political affiliation.


        Report this

        30

  • #

    Lewankdowsky and Crook are in ‘good’ company.
    Quite a few of the CAGWarmers have been caught stealing and lying.
    Unethical behavior from Mann (Quelle surprise) is currently being discussed at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/#more-83134


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave B

    Don’t know if this might be of use to those who are inclined, to track down old deleted SKS posts links etc, http://archive.org/web/web.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    I have now put ARC in the same file as ALP, BOM, ABC, CSIRO and SMH.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    3x2

    Silly little man. What a farce.

    It would be funny but for… In response, the Australian Research Council awarded Lewandowsky et al another $338,000. Unbelievable.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Barry Woods

    You might want to save a copy of the peer reviewer caled Elaine (FOr Recursive Fury’s twitter feed

    not ‘pal review’ – but ‘groupthink’ review perhaps

    @ElaineMcKewon try snapbird.org

    I’m in no doubt a exxon/koch fossil fuel funded denier to her..
    yet will judge other peopele, so much for ethics..
    ——————————————————————————-

    ElaineMcKewon ALEC, Heartland & fossil fuel industry join forces to attack #renewable energy across U.S. http://t.co/BdErafWr4q and http://t.co/Pe3s8qTKWs
    11:21 PM Mar 26th from web

    ElaineMcKewon Recursive fury: facts, misrepresentations & conspiracist ideation in response to conspiracist ideation study http://t.co/7IfRflTFEs #climate
    10:10 PM Mar 26th from Tweet Button

    Conspiracy theories and they can’t see the biggest one, is the big oil denial industry greenpeace fantasy


    Report this

    20

  • #
    agwnonsense

    Give us a break ,chook and lew paper could only manage 21 digits each how are they going to count to 78,000.Lets see 78,000 divided by 21 equals bulltish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Groping toward clarity, I hope, here is new variant of my remark which JoNova kindly linked in the head post … a note on Lewandowsky and Cook mired in incoherence and double-standards (cross posted with CA):

    Since Lewandowsky is already on record (last Sept.) insisting that various bloggers should have perfect email records and recall for any unsolicited two-year old request(s) from his assistant Hanich, Lew has unwittingly set the bar very high for himself.

    While the skeptic bloggers had no reason in 2010 to know the name Hanich (or even Lewandowsky), or to care about a spammy request from the equally obscure Univ. of Western Australia (no offense Aussie friends, but UWA is not a household name in North America), Lewandowsky reviles and ridicules them for not instantly sorting out the long lost details two years later.

    Yet, Lewandowsky and Cook, still cannot now after many more months, provide a precise, accurate accounting of the details of their own studies and email correspondence pertaining to such work. Their research, their work.

    So in Lew-world, bloggers can be chastised, maligned, and mis-represented for not displaying instant recall for spammy emails from years past, but “scientific” (sic) researchers are not expected to keep their own records of scientific data and correspondence in any state of order at all.

    This is incompetence of a peculiar kind, drowning in hypocrisy and ignorance. The Cook-Lewandowsky team can be proud!


    Report this

    60

  • #
    JunkPsychology

    Cross-posted from Climate Audit:

    Using the CSV files that Steve McIntyre provided, I’ve analyzed all extant comments in the Skeptical Science archives from September 1 through 30, 2010.

    I skimmed through all the comments, and the positions taken in them are my basis for categorizing the commenters. I wouldn’t be able to recognize most of the warmists or skeptics by name or customary handle, anyway. It’s always possible that other comments made outside the time frame would have led me to change my classification of a few of them.

    I used a broad definition of “skeptic.”

    SkS being, umm, dogmatic in its general drift and tone, I classified any commenter who seriously questioned either the standard SkS claims about the science base or the standard SkS policy prescriptions as a skeptic. This left a few who either weren’t directly addressing either, or were hard to make sense of.

    Commenters:

    68 skeptics (23.7% of the total)
    189 warmists (65.9%)
    30 unclassifiable (10.4%)
    287 commenters in all

    Comments:

    716 from skeptics (24.4% of the total)
    2174 from warmists (74.1%)
    43 from unclassifiable persons (1.5%)
    2933 comments in all

    Among the warmists, 4 commented more than 100 times, 13 more than 50 times, and 21 at least 25 times in one month.

    Among the skeptics, 3 commented 50 or more times, and 11 commented at least 25 times.

    The mean number of comments was nearly the same: 10.5 per skeptic and 11.5 (with large standard deviations).

    No unclassifiable commented more than 5 times.

    Stephan Lewandowsky commented once under his own name—on September 29, 2010, about a matter unrelated to his survey.

    I did not read every comment that came from a prolific commenter with a clear position (the same people tended to dominate many of the threads)… but I didn’t see any references to the survey from anyone else.

    It might be useful for someone else to code these independently, enabling us to see how well we agree.

    And which 1067 comments out of the 2933 Cook analyzed, I have no idea.

    Since 222 + 845 = 1067, there were zero unclassifiables in his data set. So maybe he just excluded anyone he couldn’t tag as a warmist or a skeptic?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      How many questions do you have to ask before you become a skeptic ? For example if Tim Flannery asked a question about the effect of sun spots, would he immediately become a skeptic ?

      If the terms skeptic means wiling to keep asking questions until your satisfied your on to the right answer, then its a tag I wear with great pride. I have remained ready to switch my views everydy of my life, I am still ready. Only trouble is I have not seen anything significant from AGW that even seems like good basic science, let alone convincing evidence.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        JunkPsychology

        SG,

        I classified as a “skeptic” anyone who seemed to be taking issue with the dogmatic science or policy positions that are laid down at “Skeptical Science.”

        Two independent analyses have been done by Shub Niggurath

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/#comment-409087

        and A Scott

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/#comment-408997

        Both used additional information about the commenters’ views as expressed outside the September 2010 time frame, Googling them when necessary.

        Both were stricter about the skeptical designation; they added a “lukewarmer” category.

        It’s obvious from reading through the comments that SkS maintains a party line, and anyone who presents a half-decent skeptical argument will be swarmed over by the in-house warmists.

        Not a place you’d go to recruit skeptics to fill out your survey… assuming Lewandowsky and Cook bothered to post it there, which they obviously didn’t.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova’s blog: Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no … [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JunkPsychology

    That’s a mean of 11.5 comments *per warmist.*


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lurker, passing through laughing

    Dear Australia,
    Thank you so much! Your gullibility is only matched by your generosity.
    You wonderful people actually paid for my “survey”. And real money, $AU 338,000.
    LOL, life in Australia is great: Academics with no accountablity, childish posing elevated to real news, Great beer, good looking women and interesting accents! What more could someone with a useless degree and no desire to actually work ask for?
    Keep those good times rolling.
    most sincerely,
    Dr. Lewandowsky


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] Cook’s history of shenanigans there is concern that some kind subterfuge is planned, especially since he asked different [...]


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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