JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”, gives him money, loses more scientific credibility

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky

Over Easter, psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky moved from Perth to Bristol  (lucky UK). He’s the psychologist who is expert in an imaginary group of humans called “Climate deniers”. Neither he, nor anyone else has ever met one but he discovered their imaginary motivations by surveying the confused groups who hate them. As you would, right?

None of the so-called researchers can explain what scientific observations a climate denier, denies. It’s an abuse of English, profoundly unscientific, but has some success in shutting down public debate, if that’s what you want.

Can humans change the weather and stop the storms? If you know we can, Lewandowsky calls that “science”. If you wonder “how much”, you are a denier.

The Royal Society, possibly reaching a tipping point in its rush to abject scientific decay, has immediately awarded him the Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. It’s effectively a top-up on his salary for the next five years, just in case the UK might lose him. While Australia is grateful, scientists everywhere, cry. Hat tip to Geoff Chambers

[The Royal Society]

Value and tenure

The scheme provides up to 5 years’ funding after which the award holder continues with the permanent post at the host university.

The focus of the award is a salary enhancement, usually in the range of £10,000 to £30,000 per annum.

The Royal Society now “owns” Stephan Lewandowsky’s achievements, for they have decided he is talent from overseas “of outstanding achievement and potential.” We presume they have the internet, and bothered to google the obvious? Apparently, either The Royal Society has not much idea of what they now need to defend, or they have changed their definition of “outstanding achievement”.

I should think that now was an excellent time for concerned fellows to write to The Royal Society and politely ask what that definition is.

What does it take to be “outstanding”?

Does an outstanding Royal Society Scientist base their work around namecalling? Hello “deniers”. Do they hail the chosen ones — annointed climate science experts (aka the Gods of Science) and declare authority to be more important than observations? (How many fallacies-per-page does it take to qualify for RS recognition these days?)

Is it “outstanding” to call thousands of scientists “stupid” or to falsely pretend thousands of people could have seen your survey on a site that never hosted it?

Call me a cynic: Is “outstanding” success now assessed in a pragmatic spirit — say managing the unthinkable — like achieving journal publications and media headlines with only ten results from an online internet survey? It might not be outstanding maths, but it is outstanding PR-for-a-cause, especially given the data doesn’t remotely support the title of the paper or the headline.

Perhaps his real “achievement” is to get ethical approval for work done by researchers who hold their subjects in contempt and don’t bother trying to hide that? That would breach normal National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) ethical standards. It would mean psychology could be used against personal enemies, and taxpayer funded grants be used against taxpayers. None of which is what “outstanding” science should be, or used to be.

The Royal Society was established near the start of the Enlightenment, to promote empirical science over political authority. It’s motto: Nullius in verba, Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it”. Now it aids and abets in the old Soviet tactic of medicalization of dissent, to silence and discredit those who promote opinions or facts that the political establishment finds inconvenient. The Lewandowsky connection risks damning the Royal Society forever as just another corrupt political authority, and profoundly anti-science.

Contact the Royal Society here.

 

PS: Geoff Chambers also found this excellent discussion of “Noisy” polls.

But sometimes it’s not some abstruse subtle bias. Sometimes it’s not a good-natured joke. Sometimes people might just be actively working to corrupt your data.

The paper’s thesis was that climate change skeptics are motivated by conspiracy ideation…

Unfortunately, it’s…possible Stephan Lewandowsky wasn’t the best person to investigate this? Aside from being a professor of cognitive science, he also runs Shaping Tomorrow’s World, a group that promotes “re-examining some of the assumptions we make about our technological, social and economic systems” and which seems to be largely about promoting global warming activism. While I think it’s admirable that he is involved in that, it raises conflict of interest questions. And the way his paper is written – starting with the over-the-top title – doesn’t do him any favors.

(if the conflict of interest angle doesn’t make immediate and obvious sense to you, imagine how sketchy it would be if a professional global warming denier was involved in researching the motivations of global warming supporters)

…This then devolved into literally the worst flame war I have ever seen on the Internet…

 

Other posts on Lewandowsky’s Achievements

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (87 votes cast)
Royal Society calls Lewandowsky "outstanding", gives him money, loses more scientific credibility, 9.5 out of 10 based on 87 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/c3uegbp

264 comments to Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”, gives him money, loses more scientific credibility

  • #
    Robber

    “Professor Lewandowsky receives the award for his project entitled ‘The (mis)information revolution”. What’s the problem? He’s certainly qualified at distributing misinformation.

    440

    • #
      Dennis

      Misinformation:a new field of not science?

      130

    • #
      cohenite

      OT but the NMH is running a poll about whether Lake Macquarie council’s plan to demolish lake side homes to protect them against sea level rise is a great idea or not; please go here and vote against this Lewandowsky type stupidity:

      http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1462661/poll-lake-houses-demolition-plan/?cs=305

      50

      • #
        Dave

        Just voted.

        It’s unbelievable that instead of waiting for a proved outcome, they demolish the homes and guarantee the end for those residents. The sea level might not even occur for another 100 years, but no, the council demolishes them now. Crazy, Crazy, Crazy – way too crazy for words.

        Is this Agenda 21 at work?

        Seems totally unreasonable to even consider going down the path of demolition.

        90

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Dave

          In the picture shown in the article the actual sea level rise will be the equivalent of about half of the

          stained height showing on the concrete wall.

          Four to five inches or 100 to 125 mm if there is no change from the present rate.

          KK :)


          Report this

          30

          • #

            Do the reputable, professional scientists indicate that “no change from the present rate” is a likely scenario?

            CSIRO and BoM released the following statement in 2010, and it’s still on their website, so presumably it hasn’t been shown to have been wrong:

            Global-average mean sea level rose
            faster between 1993 and 2011 than
            during the 20th century as a whole.

            and

            Sea level rose at a global-averaged rate of about 3 mm per year
            between 1993 and 2011, and 1.7 mm per year during the 20th century as a whole.

            http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-climate.html

            So, somebody developing policy in relation to sea level rise would most competently be planning for an accelerating rise in sea level in the coming decades.


            Report this

            08

            • #

              Sorry, that was “2012″, not “2010″.


              Report this

              02

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Margot

              We all know that the oceans are rising at the moment.

              basically what this means in practical terms is this.

              If you stood barefooted at the high water mark and water until 2100 or even 2130 what would you find.

              Yes, the high-water mark would possibly just cover your ankles.

              Big deal.

              Unfortunately not many people are prepared to acknowledge another FACT regarding those same oceans.

              Fact: From about four a thousand years ago the oceans DROPPED about 1.5 metres or 1500 mm or 5 ft.

              Now we don’t hear much about that do we Margot.

              Why do you think that is Margot?

              Is there another Grand Plan behind all this?

              Is there money to be made from distorting reality?

              Margot. You may not be familiar with the area under discussion.

              Much of it is undermined and has and will continue to drop as a result of the mining activity.

              This is a bigger concern than any potential man Made sea level rise.

              Why is there no outcry about this Margot; is it because it does not fit the current paradigm for concern of green crazies.

              The truth is that in the last Northern winter just ended many hundreds of people died because of extreme cold and tens of thousands of animals likewise perished.

              What this means is that in some areas the accumulated snow may not disappear before next winter and a pattern of accumulation will begin.

              last time this happened the oceans dropped 131 metres; yes 131,000 millimetres and the ice fields over New York Central Park were 1500 metres deep.

              Margot, there is a truer reality than that in the LMC Climate Change Department.

              The science faculties of all universities know this truth.

              Why is it that University Climate Change warriors are out of step with the rest of academia which

              sees them as pariahs?

              KK :)


              Report this

              71

              • #

                KinkyKeith – I’m not sure where you get your “fact” about sea levels dropping 1.5m 4,000 years ago, but I would say the reason “we don’t hear much about this” is because it is not true.

                Sea levels have been pretty constant over the last 7,000 years, rising slightly over that time.

                20,000 years ago, sea levels were 140m below where they are now (because of all that ice locked up).

                As to future sea level rise, your projection of “ankle-deep” rise over almost 120 years is out of whack with all the reputable, professional science I have read on on the matter. I believe there is broad agreement among the relevant professional experts that the sea level rise to 2100 is likely to be 300mm, not including the results of ice melt which are too hard to calculate. In other words, it’s going to be a lot more than 300mm unless something changes.


                Report this

                13

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Ahhh Margot,

                Ever heard of Beryl Nasher?

                It is a well known geological fact that oceans have been up and down over a range of 2 metres since the big pulse ended about 7,000 years ago.

                Most recently that variation showed up as a fall in ocean levels of 1.5 metres over the last 4,000 years.

                The current sea level rise is a bit like the pulse on a cadaver; hard to find.

                But if there is a rise it is about 1mm per annum.

                True; people do fudge things and make up stories but that isn’t science, so let’s stick to the facts.

                Margot.

                KK :)


                Report this

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                What can I say Margot.

                If you think the ocean is going to go well past your ankles you must be an extremely dainty person.

                KK :)


                Report this

                10

          • #
            crakar24

            I like the comment that said “the sea level will rise, but its a lake?”


            Report this

            62

        • #

          Where in Agenda 21 do the UN propose to demolish lakeside homes?

          [snip. Stick to the point]


          Report this

          16

        • #

          This is definitely NOT about an expected water rise. Only a complete idiot–oh, we’re talking about politicians here–would tear down houses “anticipating” sea level rises. Next, I suppose they move everyone out of wooded and brushy areas because those burn. Then areas that flood. Then?


          Report this

          10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Cohenite.

        The lakeside meeting at Speers Point that tried to bring the stupidity of LMC into public focus was a classic warmer steamroller exercise.

        The previous LMC mayor ran around talking to the Media and using the event as background for his own purposes.

        The actual event and the plight of the locals whose properties had been needlessly devalued were basically just collateral damage to “The Cause”.

        Bob Carter and Stewart were there and spoke to the crowd of unhappy lakeside homeowners.

        Lake mac must have a lot of spre cash if it can waste so much on this.

        KK
        GJ


        Report this

        60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        It’s gone up 2% in the last two hours.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Skiphil

      a bit OT except that this might be a more appropriate subject of critical psychological study by Lewandowsky et al. What kind of minds are led to this kind of nutty behavior:

      This is quite emblematic of the mentality of so many CAGW cultists. Of course they will now claim it was just a silly little joke, but advocacy of book burning is extremely outrageous whether or not it is carried out (I doubt they actually burned the book in their little conference room, but the point is that they could think it appropriate to celebrate and advocate such a deed).

      Two depraved faculty members at the Dept. of Meteorology, San Jose State University (California USA) thought it would be a hoot to post a photo on the department website of the two of them about to burn a book critical of climate science:

      Professors invoke book burning of unwelcome book

      Now the embarrassing photo has been removed, and the university claims it was merely some ill-conceived attempt at “satire” — but what is the “satire” about burning or threatening to burn a book you disagree with??? There is no satire in that. It is simply an expression of extreme intolerance, bigoted narrow-mindedness. It can only be amusing to co-religionists who share a horror that anyone could disagree with them.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Stephan Lewandowsky is well versed in ad hominems: but this is his only ability.

    Good take down on this self professed GAIA lover & FRUIT LOOP:

    Watch Plato Sandilands interesting Video.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Sean

    Hoe many times have an appeal to authority been where the most compelling reason that an AGW advocate can make is to cite the unanimity of the position of the most prominent scientific societies. The Lewendowsky affair proves we are way past risking these institutions becoming “corrupt political authorities”.

    250

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Australia has lost Stephan Lewandowsky!!!! Oh frabjous day.

    Now if we could only lose Julia and Swan, we will have won the trifecta.


    Report this

    330

    • #
      MangoChutney

      Woaaaa, steady on there, it’s bad enough having your “science” rejects


      Report this

      130

    • #
      toad

      You’ve dumped David Hone and Natalie Bennett on us, now Lewandowsky.
      Why do you hate the UK so much ?


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        Careful, or we’ll send you Flannery as well…..


        Report this

        150

        • #
          DougS

          Flannery – the nuclear option – pullllleeeeze, NO!


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Byron

          That`s cruel and unusual punishment , They`ve already got Dr David Viner of the CRU with His statements in 2000

          “within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event ,Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

          13 Years and counting Dr Viner


          Report this

          100

          • #

            You can check it for yourself:
            http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

            The statements attributed by journalist Charles Onians to David VIner are:
            “a very rare and exciting event”
            “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
            “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,”

            As you can see, Byron’s “quote” is a fabrication.

            [It's called paraphrasing. You Margot are a pendant] ED


            Report this

            02

            • #

              The only thing that makes David Viner’s “quote” remarkable is the inclusion of the words “within a few years”, and those are words that Viner did not use.
              Remove those words from the fabricated quote, and what’s left is completely unremarkable.
              And the fact that Viner is elsewhere quoted using a time-frame of “20 years” to indicate the time by which snowfalls would still occur but have become rare is proof that the journalist’s use of “within a few years” doesn’t accurately represent Viner’s views.


              Report this

              02

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Something just in from “Haunting the Library” for Margot.
                Delingpole calls this white stuff “viner”. The rain is Spain falls mainly in the plain, but this stuff just ain’t rain.
                George Monbiot says “This is what ‘global warming‘ looks like”.
                Of course, you will argue that this material on 29 April is typical in Spain. Somebody likely told you that , and you believed them.


                Report this

                20

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Ed

              Is that Pendant or Pedant?

              [Of course it was pedant but my mistake may have been Freudian.] ED


              Report this

              10

            • #
              crakar24

              OK Margot,

              have it your way

              “a very rare and exciting event”

              WRONG

              “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”

              WRONG

              “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,”

              This statement runs at odds with the previous two which begs the question why would he say such a thing, regardless it has only been 13 years so we cannot test the accuracy of such a statement yet, meet you back here in 7 years.


              Report this

              10

              • #

                “WRONG”?
                How do you figure that?
                It is a fact that the warming trend reduces snowfall events. A warming trend also tends to increase precipitation events.
                In some places (eg, Southern England) the ∆T is the dominant effect. In others, it is the ∆P that features more prominently.

                You could try:
                Variations in Northern Hemisphere Snowfall: An Analysis of Historical Trends …
                By John P. Krasting

                The facts support Viner’s opinion. He didn’t write a research paper on this, he just threw a few lines at a journo.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        All you have to do is find some suitable spot for them. St. Kilda Island suggests itself.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Greebo

        Fair exchange for Gillard and McTiernan in my view.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      agwnonsense

      Hang on a second,Don’t we have a use for Lew Paper every morning?


      Report this

      70

  • #
    john robertson

    Well, the Royal Society is very full of it.
    And as this weather cycle cools they will be very deep in it.
    I can see their future need for a whole lot of Lew Paper.

    Therefore this is actually an intelligent action on their part.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Dennis

    Tick for Jonova …. done

    —-
    Thanks! jo


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Dennis

    No wonder so many sailors were scared of sailing off the edge of the world after the so called experts warned them that the Earth was flat


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Greebo

      They needn’t have worried. The circumfence would have saved them. ( apologies to Terry Pratchett )


      Report this

      00

    • #

      I am yet to find any evidence of any culture throughout history that has a dominant view that the earth was flat. A 28 day view of the moon would not give this assumption. However the four corners of the earth presented in a 1800 American novel as flat is a term coined by the novelist. North South East West can explain more intelligence in the the past than the present.

      To sail off the edge of the earth and be serious has no more historical basis to it than actors breaking their own leg …. for luck. You only need to travel a few dozen km offshore to be no longer able to see land.

      Easy to mock the past if we are to ignorant and proud to understand it.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    jefftfred

    A suggested name change for the Royal Society – to The Royal Blind Society.
    Possibly they thought they needed a Professor of Psychology to explain to the public why they’re not freezing to death, that it’s just their mental state caused by Climate Disruption. – TIC.

    With apologies to our Royal Blind Society, who do wonderful work with people inflicted with blindness.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      I can see the blind leading the Royal Society and the Society basking in their ignorance. Sad as it is.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      gai

      I thought the name change was to the Royal Bull Poop Society.

      This event heralds the end of the Age of Enlightenment and the dawning of a new Dark Ages – a return to Feudalism aka Agenda 21.

      With luck enlightened people Like Jo can turn this direction around so it means the end of the Royal Society instead.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dave

    Where is Stephan Lewandowsky originally from?

    I can only find the following:

    1. BA at Washington State Uni
    2. MA Toronto?
    3. PhD Toronto?

    All degrees in Psychology, and then moved to UWA and now in Bristol?

    So his CO2 footprint is very large for an average human being. Travels more than Peter Slipper with a CabCharge voucher.

    Could his behaviour be analysed as some kind of psychosis that causes people to misinterpret or confuse what is going on around them and they have to relocate at regular intervals.

    [SNIP]


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Joe V.

    After making such a name for himself at UWA, did he jump or was he pushed I wonder ?


    Report this

    210

    • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I was wondering the same thing.

      Academics hate to see academia being publicly brought into disrepute, so there is a long history of problems being swept under the carpet, and people being sidelined. It is also traditional for people to be given a minor award or accolade so they do not notice that they are being buried.

      The University of Bristol, if memory serves, promotes itself on the strength of its Earth Sciences faculty. Bristol also has its own dinosaur – a Thecondontosaurs, no less. Lew should fit right in.


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        A dinosaur under the carpet? A novel concept.

        Modern science has reassessed the intelligence of dinosaurs. They were after all the most successful animals in earth’s history. I think it likely that the Thecondontosaurus specimen they have in the cabinet is as intelligent as Lewandowsky.


        Report this

        40

        • #

          Yeah, it must be getting pretty lumpy under that carpet. And to think, there must be similar lumpy carpets all over the world, found in universities everywhere!


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Bulldust

            Was I alone in reading ‘host’ above and making the association with the scientific term used in the study of parasitic behaviour? Perhaps it is a weird psychological condition on my part … perhaps Lew can help…


            Report this

            20

        • #
          graphicconception

          “I think it likely that the Thecondontosaurus specimen they have in the cabinet is as intelligent as Lewandowsky.”

          Even now!


          Report this

          10

  • #

    Given the very recent exchange between the Royal Society’s President Sir Paul Nurse and Lord Lawson of the GWPF, this grant could be viewed as a way of the world’s most premier scientific society saying “Up Yours“.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/global-warming-policy-foundation-accepts-royal-society-offer-meeting/

    Also relevant is Andrew Montford’s GWPF Report on the Royal Society.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/andrew-montford-nullius-in-verba-the-royal-society-and-climate-change/


    Report this

    110

  • #

    In the last couple of weeks, Lewandowsky has had articles or interviews in the New Yorker, Daily Beast, Raw Story, and Salon.
    It’s either a conspiracy, or he’s got himself an excellent literary agent.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Neville

    The RS are RS.

    O/T but very important .

    Another blow to the the positive feedback theory of AGW.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

    New NASA data shows that as co2 levels increase global water vapour content falls. See graph at link.

    Looks like we really are looking at a negative feedback in the system


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Backslider

      That’s really interesting.

      Dire predictions of global warming all rely on positive feedback from water vapor.

      I made a lengthy post the other day on the SkS Guardian thread the other day on dihydrogen monoxide. My point essentially was that human activity pumps BILLIONS of more tons of water vapor into the atmosphere than carbon monoxide.

      Naturally, I reeled all the S(k)S Brownshirts in like fish with that one, with them claiming that it would fall out of the sky as rain… they of course not clicking that the whole CAGW scam hinges on positive feedback in the form of extra water vapor…..


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Backslider

        BTW – now that the S(k)S Brownshirts and one of their top Commandants have moved over to the Guardian, you will find that the Guardian has become just like the S(k)S website.

        Posts are disappearing left right and center for supposedly not abiding by community standards. Most of these are not offensive posts, but rather just something that whoever is moderating did not like,


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Um…maybe because they also realise that it isn’t activity that releases water vapour that causes more water vapour content in the atmosphere, it is the heated atmosphere’s increased capacity to hold it, ie, heating of the atmosphere caused by a greenhouse effect enhanced by increased levels of greenhouse gases.

        They are probably being sensible if they are deleting posts that represent irredeemable nonsense.


        Report this

        02

        • #

          It’s probably a good thing not all blogs remove “irredeemable nonsense”, huh?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Backslider

          You are suggesting that the atmosphere at all times holds water vapor to its full capacity and needs to be warmed to hold more. I think you need to reconsider your own irredeemable nonsense!

          If this were the case, when I take a nice hot shower it would begin to rain.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            I think an atmospheric scientist would be a good place to go for the subtleties of atmospheric water content (constant pressure and temperature variations prevent the atmosphere from being saturated at all times, obviously), but it is a well-known fact that temperature is the basic driver of water content in our fairly-well-mixed atmosphere.


            Report this

            01

            • #
              Backslider

              it is a well-known fact that temperature is the basic driver of water content

              Well Margot, it has never rained in my bathroom while I have been taking a shower.

              What prevents the atmosphere from being totally saturated is a simple lack of evaporation. If there was more evaporation, there would be more up there… at least till it falls as rain or snow.

              Thus you totally miss the point: It is a fact that we pump billions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere, yet this is never ever suggested by warmists as causing “global warming”, yet supposedly more evaporation caused by CO2 (which would never ever match what we put up there) warms the planet.

              Please explain how one can possibly be different from the other?

              You talk nonsense about CO2 raising the absorption level of the atmosphere – sorry, but for that one you will need to provide proof.

              If I want to pump billions tons of water vapor into the atmosphere it will happily accept it, CO2 or not, simply because the atmosphere is NEVER saturated (and consequently does not need its absorption level raised).

              Put simply Margot, 2+2 != 3


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Backslider

          it isn’t activity that releases water vapour that causes more water vapour content in the atmosphere

          Really? So where does it go?…. let me tell you, I have watched it float off into the blue yonder.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    I suppose it’s only fair. I send my eldest son over to assist Australia, thus ensuring a steady growth in your GDP and you send an elder statesman to ensure that the UK slides, inexorably, back into the an age before the Enlightenment.

    The next time he asks to pop back for a visit (one of those visits lasted four years) I’ll welcome him with open arms. It’ll serve you all right as your economy plummets during his absence.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Dennis

    Hitler would have welcomed the spin Oz Green Union Labor creates


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I think even Hitler would throw up from that spin.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Dennis is right.

      The Nazi party started out in the 1920s as an environmental movement, that then became more politicised. Now where have I noticed something similar recently?


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        For the benefit of whoever downvoted you…

        There were plenty of fascist movements contemporary with the Nazis and one analysis reckons that by the 1920s all the fascist groups were into Nature-protectionism. However the various environmental movements actually started during the 19th century, well before the formation of the Nazis.

        The forestry conservationists began organizing at least 100 years before the Nazis:

        Resistance to clearances galvanized as German aristocrats established forestry schools in Aschaffenberg (1807), Tharandt (1816) and Berlin (1826). Forestry associations also sprouted; merging in 1872 into the Congress of German Foresters.
        … By 1900 the Congress of Foresters had 2,000 members.

        Volkisch conservationism appears in a pure form in Wilhelm’s Riehl’s The Natural History of the German People (1851-69). Riehl, an ethnography professor, denounced industry, urbanization, cosmopolitanism and liberalism. He also linked the well-being of the peasantry to forest protection.

        Crucially, the 25 point Program of the German Workers’ Party (1920) carries no mention of environmental conservationism that I can find, making only one vague reference to “land reform suitable to our national requirements” in point 17. Hitler was a co-author of that document. Conservation didn’t even make the top 10 on the Nazi Party’s to-do list.

        The Reichstag first debated a bird protection bill in 1876. But after WW1 the merging of social-Darwinian fascism and nature conservation was indeed becoming a bit obvious:

        In 1920 the leading bird lovers’ magazine squawked:
        “The individual must again understand that he is inseparably linked to the prosperity of the whole: the vermin who will not understand that must be so far repressed that they no longer can poison the entire organism.”
        The zealously pro-Nazi League for Bird Protection’s 1933 Annual Report crowed:
        “A miracle has occurred… Germany has pulled itself together… Joyously we stand behind the Fuhrer, vowing to use our entire strength for his high goal.”

        Gosh, and I always thought the bird watchers were the shy retiring types!

        I’ve found no evidence that “The Nazi party started out in the 1920s as an environmental movement”, however there is enough evidence that the form of fascism championed by the Nazis was already finding support in major German environmental groups of the 1920s.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I think the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was more left wing than Fascist.

          Stalin was having trouble with Trotsky, whom he accused of left wing deviationism. When Hitler came along he had to say H was a right wing deviationist. That doesn’t make Nazis right wing.

          Many astute observers in 1930/31 called the Nazis “Bolsheviks”. Noticed the ease with which communists switched to Nazis. See Patrick Leigh Fermor “A time of Gifts”.

          Stalin couldn’t believe it when Hitler invaded. Though they were allies against Capitalism.

          Besides, nasty as the Fascists were (and are) they kill tens of thousands. It’s the Left (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) that kill millions. Hitler fits in well on the left.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            You think Left Wing and Fascism are opposites? Sorry, you’ve fallen for the Left/Right false dichotomy.
            Seek assistance at http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq19
            Economically the Nazis were middle-of-road, a mix of both sides, and Left/Right is purely an economic distinction. The compatibility between the Nazis and the Communists was due to their shared political fascism, not due to economics in which the Nazis were almost Keynesian. Their shift to more direct national control over production happened closer to (and during) the war, just as it did amongst their enemies in the UK (as war tends to do that to everyone).

            Gillard evaluates as right wing, which certainly surprised me too. I expected her to be a lot closer to the centre, such as Hollande. Perhaps the authors of that evaluation were sucked into all the carbon “market solution” rhetoric. Plus Gillard is restrained on how far left she can afford to appear publically in spite of her own personal preferences. I suspect regimes at a comfortable distance in history receive a more honest appraisal than the animated incumbents.


            Report this

            00

  • #

    The Royal Society has been going down hill for a long time.

    They supported the Eugenics catastrophists too.

    e.g. “A Decade of Progress in Eugenics”, Proceeds of the Third International Eugenics Congress, 1932, p3

    http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf

    On October 18th, 1919, the Permanent Committee met in the rooms of the Royal Society, London. At this time, the invitation of American eugenicists to hold a Second International Congress in New York City was presented and decided upon affirmatively. Rules were formulated for the maintenance of the International Representatives on the Committee during the intervals between congresses.

    Lots of other interesting material in that document – for example, page 30-31 shows how similar some of the ideas espoused by the Eugenicists are to the modern Green movement.

    The outstanding generahzations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect

    Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;

    Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world-wide;

    Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of trans- port, replacing primitive transportation;

    Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;

    Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;

    Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Lew on conspiracy theorists in the Daily Beast:

    If people have a specific enemy, that actually gives them a sense of control in their response, instead of to a diffuse sort of threat. I think that’s what’s driving this, in part—the need to control your fear of random evilness. It’s much a better picture to have an enemy whom you can blame.”

    I guess that explains why CO2 gets all the blame.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    michael hart

    I am speechless.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Tim

    They don’t mind what people they sponsor; psychologists, palaeontologists – whoever, so long as they have science in their credentials they can be added to the ‘majority of scientist agree’ meme.

    An uninformed public will then swallow the bait.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Well not quite Tim. What they do is they co-opt from all those other disciplines any who make the right noises about Global Warming , then get them to publish something, any nonsense that some relates to Global Warming, then declare them a Publishing Climate Scientist.

      Look at how they ‘tuned’ an 82% consensus of responding Earth Scientists into a 97% consensus by successively disqualifying respondents until they had just 79 highly selected scientists left, classified as ‘Climatologists who are also Active Publishers on Climate Change.

      Doran Consensus Report

      Study the Table.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    TheInquirer

    Yet again we see that sites like Nova and WUWT are merely places where tribal Group Thinkers come to abuse and smear scientists. Don’t like the paper – publish a rebuttal that can be peer reviewed rather than just write a blog that is riddled with half-truths and deceptions for the purpose of allowing commenters to do the dirty work for you.

    What does your list of scientific publications look like, Jo? Maybe you can retrieve it from the new computer bought with the $ of your ardent followers? At least scientists are paid for doing science and not for doing smear.

    Denial doesn’t exist? Comes easy once you’ve done it once, eh?

    —————–
    Published so everyone can see the goodwill and standard of argument of the typical anonymous troll. Sorry if life hasn’t worked out well for you T.I. Hope it gets better. – Jo

    249

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      What does your list of publications look like, Mr. Inquirer?

      Put your money where your mouth is.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        TheInquirer

        What does your list of publications look like, Mr. Inquirer?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        I’m not the one claiming I know better than the published scientists. Jo Nova has bravely put herself forward to do her scientific work – by blog.


        Report this

        132

        • #
          graphicconception

          I don’t think it would be difficult to know more about climate science than Lewandowsky.

          Judging by the rip-roaring success of his recent papers, many people will know more honest ways of obtaining data for psychological surveys as well.

          Final point: “At least scientists are paid for doing science and not for doing smear.”
          Obviously, you have not read his recent papers about sceptics where science is minimal but smear is huge.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I’m not the one claiming I know better than the published scientists. Jo Nova has bravely put herself forward to do her scientific work – by blog.

          I’ve never seen Jo Nova claim to know more than anyone else. All she does is ask obvious questions that anyone with a will to read and understand could ask without any difficulty.

          Then the fun always starts because she gets:

          1. evasive answers
          2. obvious lies
          3. attacked by TheInquirer, not to mention a long list of others
          4. threatened
          5. etc.

          There’s a long parade of everything but straight answers, including outright abuse to which you have become a contributor.

          Now it’s time for you to go home. I think I hear your nanny calling. Looks like warm milk and cookie time before bed…

          Come back little boy when you can behave like an adult — about 10 more years should do it.


          Report this

          132

          • #
            Winston

            Roy,
            The nail has been hit well on the head with that observation. I have asked direct questions of JB, MattB, GeeAye and other warmists at various times over the years on this blogsite as to exactly what they believe in, and never yet received a straight answer to one direct question I have raised. But of course, we skeptics are obviously the intellectually dishonest ones- just ask them.
            Kindest regards,
            Winston


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Winston,

              I know the feeling very well. They run with the herd and with the big buck out in front they don’t need to understand where he’s going or why he’s going there. They just know it feels good to follow.


              Report this

              10

      • #
        Tim

        Jo, there’s an old US air force saying that applies here:

        “If you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.”


        Report this

        90

    • #
      gai

      Since many of those who comment at JoNova and WUWT are scientists, your argument falls flat on its face in the mud!

      From the personal information in the comments @ WUWT I come up with over 75 degreed scientists participating. That is about the same number as the highly selected scientists in the Doran Report.

      The CAGW Ponzl scheme has managed to keep alive only by twisting information or telling blatant falsehoods. Heck the IPCC and The World Bank both make it clear it is all about squeezing money out of the poor and middle class.

      The IPCC mandate states:

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
      http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

      So The whole goal was to convict the human race of changing the climate. The World Bank then tells us WHY it is important to convict the human race.

      World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
      The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

      Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)

      “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
      ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

      “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing
      them on the climate models.”
      ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

      The Bankers, CEOs, Academics, and Politicians know exactly what they are doing, and that is the complete gutting of western civilization for profit. The lament “it is for our future children” has to be the vilest lie they have ever told. since their actions sell those children into slavery.


      Report this

      320

    • #
      philjourdan

      Real “scientists” do not make up data to support a predetermined conclusion. But then I do not expect a religious adherent to know what “real” science is.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I’m not the one claiming I know better than the published scientists. Jo Nova has bravely put herself forward to do her scientific work – by blog.

      Lets just ignore the appeal to authority as just being idiotic, and focus on what “publication” means.

      Does publication mean being printed? Will electronic media not do? Must it appear in one of a number of specific scientific journals? Will other scientific journals not do? How are the appropriate journals selected? Is it determined by the reviewers, and if so, how do we know that they are not self-serving?

      And what is the point of peer review, anyway? Is it to ensure that the new material is consistent with and supportive of material already published? Is the science so settled, that there can be no points of dissent? Or is it intended to question the current consensus, by presenting contrary evidence or differing opinion?

      By publishing ideas on a blog, Jo is opening herself to criticism from anybody who has a contrary view. The only rules are, that these views be presented in a way that is cogent and polite. If any of the dozens of practicing scientists who come here disagree with what she has written, then they are free to say so, and sometimes do.

      That is the essence of peer review, and it is a much more valid and honest approach than the one orchestrated by the much vaunted “peer review process.”


      Report this

      171

    • #

      You mean peer-reviewed by a group of scientists supporting the theory and promoting it in journals. If you own the ball, the bat, and the field, you control the game. That does not make it science–it just makes it control. Then you are angry when those who would not play along get their own bats, balls and a field. You lost your control. Get over it.


      Report this

      150

      • #
        TheInquirer

        Ah, the corrupt science process conspiracy theory. Agree with this, Jo? Let’s see the evidence please. And, please, if it relies on the Climategate proven non-event – don’t bother.

        (When are you going to read the blog post and comment on it?) CTS


        Report this

        327

        • #
          TheInquirer

          The irony of these comments in relation to Jo’s post is very amusing. Conspiracty theories abound…

          (When are you going to read the blog post and comment on it?) CTS


          Report this

          316

          • #

            What abounds are mindless accusations of “conspiracy theory”. It’s the new name-calling term used by people who don’t have an argument.


            Report this

            204

            • #
              Backslider

              The S(k)S Brownshirts have been inducted into the belief that peer review makes something as being true science. If it has not been peer reviewed, it is not science. If it has been peer reviewed, then it is true science. This is the very sad thing that they religiously believe.

              Thus we find things like statistical analysis being labelled as “science”, when in fact statistical analysis is not science, it is only a tool used by scientists (or only should be) to help them determine where they should look. Climate models are not science, yet their results are published as such and the World at large is led to believe that it is science.

              But, if peer reviewed is all they wish to look at, why then do they neglect the great many peer reviewed papers that disagree with CAGW?

              “Name-calling” is the primary tactic used by the S(k)S Browshirts. Ad hominem is always their first defense (due to a lack of science) and “conspiracy” is their favourite. Dare to mention a fact, such as people making a lot of money out of climate alarmism and you are immediately branded as a conspiracist and of the same ilk as moon landing deniers, 911 conspiracists, Princess Di conspiracists, Roswel etc. etc. etc…..

              Here is an example: Al Gore made a hellava lot of money out of alarmism. Conspiracy or fact? Its a fact, yet mention it and you are immediately name a conspiracist.

              Statement of facts or questioning is not conspiracy and should not attract this kind of name calling. Lewandowsky (Quiz) would do well to learn this.

              But, if we listen to the Brownshirts, we quickly come across true conspiracist ideation – they regularly label skeptics as being in the employ of Big Oil. We all hear this over and over again. If however we look at the facts regarding Big Oil, we find that they invest heavily in renewable energy, since they are quite intelligent and know where there is a buck to be made…. and they sponsor climate research. My own solar panels proudly display the BP logo.


              Report this

              112

              • #
                Eddie Sharpe

                Isn’t SkS another of those outfits with ‘science’ tagged on the end to dignify their pretensions (just in case we wouldn’t otherwise have noticed) ?


                Report this

                60

          • #

            They abound on believer sites, too. So maybe you don’t read any sites? Just make this stuff up???


            Report this

            10

        • #

          What would prove this? Would you accept any data whatsoever that showed you were wrong? Seems doubtful, doesn’t it?


          Report this

          90

        • #
          Heywood

          “corrupt science process conspiracy theory”

          No conspiracy theory at all. It’s just that ‘climate science’ has become so inbred that they simply can no longer be truly independent and peer review rapidly becomes pal review.


          Report this

          111

    • #
      Backslider

      The more I see Quiz around here, the more I think that he is Lew. Certainly dumb enough to be him.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    JohnB

    When a farmer is “out standing” in his field, he probbaly isn’t getting much work done.

    Is that true for CCPs (Climate Change Psychologists) ?

    (ot to be confused with CCP – Soviet Socialist Republics – or am I confused?)


    Report this

    130

  • #
    meltemian

    What’s that?
    Lewandowsky’s moved to Bristol?
    I demand you take him back immediately!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Apparently it’s just a sabbatical. So you can have him back , when the embarrassment subsides.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        meltemian

        Thank Heavens for that!
        We’ve got enough idiots of our own without importing any more.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        JunkPsychology

        Nope, it isn’t a sabbatical after the professor in question gets Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award.

        To keep getting the money, he has to stay in Britain for five years, after which he’s expected to keep a permanent position at the same British institution where he has been residing while on the award.

        Folks in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland may address their heartfelt thanks to the Royal Society and to the Wolfson Foundation…


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          The Beast. Referred to it as “” Lewandowsky telling them from Bristol University in the United Kingdom, where he is on sabbatical from his academic chair as a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia. “

          Perhaps they haven’t told him yet that he cann’t come back.
          You have just killed any sense of hope for the Four Nations of the UK there Junk.

          It’s only a matter of time , I expect, before he’ll be expounding his ideated wisdom for the Guardian.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          A big thank you Junk,

          I wasn’t going to comment on this thread given the distaste I feel for the entire thing.

          * The person itself.

          * The Universities dealing in Power Plays based on CAGW funding

          * “Learned” Societies showing total disregard for the Objectivity which they are supposed to embody
          and recognise in others.

          * Graft and corruption in spraying taxpayers money around to benefit only those with connections.

          I’ve really had enough of those things but , you bring a ray of sunshine.

          Your news of the detail is most welcome as it seems his behaviour has brought some attention that has led to “consequences”.

          Admittedly he seems to have fallen on his feet but he is running out of landing space, and this seems to smack of Warmers taking care of their own. It wont go on forever and he has been a very lucky lad. This time.

          Jo’s blog, possibly , has played some part in Mr L moving on.

          This gives us hope; maybe we are having an effect.

          KK :)


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Winston

            Jo’s blog, possibly , has played some part in Mr L moving on.

            KK,
            It would definitely appear that dark and sinister forces have been colluding behind the scenes to denigrate and delegitimise the work of the good professor. Big Oil funded right wing pressure groups and denier blog sites have formed an unholy alliance to undermine the good name of cognitive science, and besmirch the otherwise spotless reputation of a fine researcher, whose groundbreaking papers objectively examining the intricacies and vagaries of the denier mind would otherwise have surely garnered a Nobel Prize, such were the compelling insights derived from his work. One can only hope that one day we might live in a more enlightened age where such luminaries may once again flourish at the forefront of academic thinking. Sigh.


            Report this

            141

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Winston:
              you left the sarc/ tag off.

              Some of the less intelligent readers might think you were serious.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                G3

                The sarc tag is for those occasions when the facts are a little unclear or unresolved.

                A man of this renown needs no introduction and the tribute is taken as meant.

                Good sarc is composed of many interwoven factors that must be weighed and balanced by the writer and this contrib above is a very well balanced item that is immediately open to the correct interpretation!

                KK :)


                Report this

                30

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              I was going to say that there were no words to describe the Lewandowski Phenomenon

              but there, I have been proven wrong.

              A wonderful tribute to a very talented Academic and gentleman of the world.

              Well done Winston.

              KK :) :)


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I tip my hat to you. Very well done.


              Report this

              21

            • #
              crakar24

              I have watched 4 of 5 episodes of Ancient Aliens (read Ancient Astronauts/visitors) and found these episodes are founded in more logic and common sense than anything Lewbmypolsky has ever done.

              Good riddance to fool i say, now we just have to get rid of Flannery, anyone got any ideas?


              Report this

              52

              • #

                I think Ancient Aliens probably does more than blog surveys to come up with the theories. :)

                Actually, the show is a good exercise in understanding how the same data can be used to come to very different conclusions. While it sounds very off-the-wall, you can learn a lot about how to develop theories which may help in understanding how climate science achieved the level of deception it did. I would note, too, that someone pays the people who come up with the alien theories. I always wonder who. Seems academia is wasting money all over.


                Report this

                10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What does it take to be “outstanding”?

    Apparently it could be as little as being out standing in the dark looking for a useful vocation. But to be truly outstanding you must be a farmer. Then you can be out standing in your field legitimately. Lew, unfortunately, will never be seen getting his hands dirty with honest work.

    To his credit, he’s consistent. ;-)


    Report this

    40

    • #

      “Outstanding” means you agree with the experts and the party line. Like you agree with ACC so anything you do makes you outstanding. If you don’t agree, you can never be outstanding since you are obviously wrong. :)


      Report this

      40

  • #

    Oh thanks a friggin bundle.

    The last thing we need is a(nother) lunatic pop psychologist.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      ursus augustus

      Sorry DougS, I think the damage was done a while ago. If they think Lewny is a fine catch they have completely lost it which is very, very sad. Its a bit like Grandma getting dementia.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    DougS

    Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”, gives him money, loses more scientific credibility

    It beggars belief. The Royal Society is fast becoming a laughing stock!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    London Calling

    You would think in the absence of any warming for 16 years, it might be more timely to study the pschopathology of climate alarmists and catastrophists. But no, as the wheels come off the trolley of the global warming gravy train, it becomes more important than ever to smear their critics. The appointment of Lew by Bristol is evidence of a deep-rooted fear they are being found out. You don’t have to be a psychologist to understand that.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    RealOldOne2

    “Contact the Royal Society here.”

    I would urge caution. They may send him back to you!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    Oh well, I suppose it’s pay-back time for all those criminals we sent you over the decades!
    ;-)


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Mark D.

    Wait a minute, Loony Lew left Perth after all the heat about his stupid paper on skeptics?

    I’m smiling! He’s on the run.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    • #
      cohenite

      Nice post Pointman.

      I see Hamilton has again recommended civil disobedience to get the AGW message across.

      Given Hamilton’s ilk currently run the government, effectively control the msm, the unions and academia and the school this would seem to be gilding the lily.

      But it also raises the counter-argument that the AGW exponents and institutions should have “civil disobedience” used against them.

      Since the elctoral process is ‘dammed’ and there is little chance of legal redress is it a legitimate option to picket the department of climate change or various uni campuses?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    thojak

    I really do enjoy your blog Jo, it’s kind of an addiction to read [all] the interesting stuff/threads you + all others offer to be read. So, of course, I’ve ticked you on the blog contest. :-D

    Brgds from Sweden
    //ThomasJ


    Report this

    62

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Thomas

      Don’t just sit there

      Say Something!

      KK :)


      Report this

      20

      • #
        thojak

        Hi KK

        What would you like to hear? ;)

        Brgds/TJ


        Report this

        10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hello Thomas,

          Sweden is one of the places I have not visited yet.

          Here in Newcastle we are set up very well and have hot summers and mild winters, but I suspect that in your country there may be times of the year when getting around in the snow is bit difficult.

          Is this the case?

          What is the best time of the year to see S and what is the most interesting thing to see.

          KK :)

          Sorry ; rushing.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            thojak

            Hi KK,
            Is that Newcastle upon Tyne, (UK)? If so, you’re not that far away from where I sit… ;) here on the B(w)estcoast of Sweden – look up the island of Tjörn on Google Earth & there Skärhamn and you’ll get somewhat of a picture..
            Sweden is certainly well worth visiting as a tourist, I’d suggest best time of year is mid June -> end August, that is as long as one prefers some warm and light(!) summerdays/-nights (although not 100% midsummernights down here, it’s ½-dark only for some short while in June/beginning July). Yes, winters can be/are rather tough, especially the last three of them have been that with this last winter (March especially) on record for all time in terms of low temps and a ditto extensive growth of ice in the Baltic sea (as reported from the icebreakers).

            However, living here is getting more and more depressing (think it might be an idea to consult the ‘dr’ Lew on this… ;) ?), as we are ‘governed’ by a kind of elite-type of persons who is pushing this country over the ‘tipping-point’, economically, societally, politically – nobody trusts anyone any more and least of all are the politicians trusted. This with very good assistance from the EUssR.. :( I.e. Sweden is the only EU-country that has written the EUssR-membership into its constitution and this w/o any form of referendum, not as much as a pieps about the elites plans of doing so two years ago… A bit different from what one hears/reads about what’s going on in the UK… Cameron and ‘our’ Reinfeldt are [supposed to be] of same political colour, and they’re likewise spineless, arrogant, no-gooders, hypocrits…, and much more, not suitable for naming…

            But the country as-is is still there. It’s vast with lots & lots of varying kind of landscapes, long coastlines, mountains, lakes, vast forest-areas, the soil is full of minerals, as a matter of fact areas in the north are regarded as being among the top in the world in terms of different minerals found. Mining is also one of the backbone industries here, togehter w forest industries.

            People are [normally] rather nice and service minded and English is spoken broadly so there should not pose any problems to ‘get around. The SEK (=Swedish Krona) is [still] regarded being a stable currency and thank God that we did not go into the pit of the Euro. There are appr. 6,5 SEK to a US$ and a beer, pending on where you are, costs you 40 to 65 SEKs.
            Overnight costs (hotel) are in the major cities (Stockholm, Malmö, Göteborg), central, around 1.200 to 2.000+ SEks per night, however you can find good and priceworthy places outside these cities at 350 to 700 SEKs/night. Roads are in good condition, not as good as in Germany though, and we have speed-limits all over with cameras in almost ‘every corner’, fining drivers w more than 110 or 80 km/h on main-roads, 50/30 km/h in living areas. Fines are rather high 1.200 SEKs for speeding 5 km/h and/or not wearing safety-belt. Alcohol limits are strict at 0,2 promille [at wheel] which also is valid at sea on leisure boats above 6 mtrs and/or 15+ knots speed capacity.

            So, if you’re planning a visit to S I’d recommend that you take good time for the visit, i.e. min 3 weeks in order to ‘get-around’ a bit, of course it’s all pending your interests.

            I’d be happy to answer and/or info you more ‘off-list’ and you can contact me under:
            tjthomasj [at] gmail [dot] com

            Brgds/TJ


            Report this

            40

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              hello Thomas,

              I’m taking a break from work here at home.

              Notice that your home town has some unusual islands that are 2 to 4 metres above sea level and that 20,000 years ago people could have walked across to the top of Denmark!

              Fortunately, weather-wise, I live in Newcastle Australia and if you google it and look at the beaches you will see the best three beaches in the world: Bar Beach, Dixon Park and Merewether.

              In summer, you will get sunburnt, in winter the water in the pipes doesn’t freeze in winter until you get away from the coast , out near Cessnock.

              Further south there is Glenrock Lagoon where the area was mined for coal in the mid 1800s.

              The scout camp has to be one of the best located facilities in the world. Am I boasting.

              The bush around there has black bush turkeys, Coachwhips, Red belly black snakes, diamond pythons and lots of lizards catching a few rays in the sun. No kangaroos.

              Further south is a spectacular cliff with a couple of spots where it is possible to climb down to the rock platform at sea level. A large Aboriginal midden made up of oyster shells is at the bottom of one climb.

              Altogether a spectacular place to live and so far a lot of it has escaped being taken by politicians.

              Politically Sweden sounds a lot like the rest of the Western world, ripe for revolution after having been abused and enslaved by political crazies.

              KK :)


              Report this

              10

              • #
                thojak

                Hi KK, and txs for yur reply!
                Sorry for missplacing your Newcastle… ;)
                Looks great on Google Earth – fantastic ‘thing’ actually.

                Well, the ‘unusual islands’ around here are IRL, although I doubt they were for any use to walk over to Denmark 20ky ago…

                Never been to your part of the World, closest yet is the Seychelles, but I know there are some Scandinavians/Swedes living/moved to/ OZ & NZ – a friend of mine has a rather large estate in the vicinity of Cairns.

                Have a nice weekend (we, as ‘socialists’ have May 1st as a ‘red day’)

                Brgds/TJ


                Report this

                10

  • #
    ursus augustus

    I am just delighted the loon is out of the country. I wonder what Phil Jones et al will make of him. New best friend or too weird even for them? Whjo knows, who cares – they all deserve each other.

    Bye, Bye Lewny!, Bye! Don’t y’all come back now. Stay there as loooong as your career suggests and then just keep going. Maybe UEA will offer you something.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    The Royal Society has joined hands across the decades with Lysenko.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    JunkPsychology

    Excellent commentary from Slate Star Codex.

    I’ve paid close attention to the recent Public Policy Polling results because they give a rough idea of what conspiracy theories presently have a following in the United States.

    For instance, lots of people regardless of political leaning believe or want to believe that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. While the old one about fluoride in drinking water messing with our precious bodily fluids has fallen on evil days; it’s no longer a specifically right-wing conspiracy theory, either.

    I took the percentage endorsing the alien lizard people theory as an estimate of the percentage deliberately providing the automated pollster with ridiculous answers.

    Same goes for the percentage claiming to swallow the Paul McCartney death rumor.

    And for the percentage of self-proclaimed Obama voters endorsing “Obama is the Anti-Christ.” (Although we might want to add some of the self-proclaimed non-Obama voters to that percentage… I’ve heard some pretty wild claims about Barack Obama from people who don’t like him, but this PPP press release gives the first mention I’ve seen of any that drags in the book of Revelation.)

    PPP found 7% who endorsed the fake moon landing theory, which is on or just above the likely noise floor. Lewandowsky et al. couldn’t turn up that high a percentage.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ace

      “Same goes for the percentage claiming to swallow the Paul McCartney death rumor.”

      Maybe he didnt die before SGt Pepper but some kind of “brain death” needs to be considered if we are to explain how such brilliant pieces as “Fool on The Hill” were written before then and after that time we were left only with that grinning idiot “Sir Paul” knocking on the door.

      The one conspiracy I might consider is that Sir Paul never had a hand in any of it but the whole lot was written by Lennon. Its a bit like the conspiracy theory that Mendelsohnns greatest hits were written by his wife. Speaking of which, what kind of buffoon names his son Fanny.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    • #
      KinkyKeith

      After watching half of this video there is a tendency to gag.

      Any university which accepted that the crap he was talking was in any way related to Psychology is in serious trouble.

      How did he get away with it for so long?

      But then the UWA also has Emeritus Professor Carmen amongst its elite staff so?

      KK


      Report this

      30

  • #

    I do not deny there is global warming or global cooling. The problem is: there is not one piece of empirical evidence that links human activities to the climate. Not, One.

    The global warming crowd points to anecdotes (which are not traceable to anything), computer projections (which never back check using old data), and FrankenGraphs (fantasy charts which cobble proxies together, usually over very short time periods, using very limited data, such as, pine cone bristle YAD061, for example). These are feable excuses, not proof.

    Deny this: (a) for 6E8 years there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature, (b) according to ice core data, the CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases, (c) for the last 150 years there is no correlation between fossil fuel use and CO2, (d) temperatures were 4 times higher during the Medievil Warming Period based on pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures, 6 times higher than the Roman WP, and 8 times higher than the Minoan WP.

    Planetary mechanics controls the Sun’s tides, circulations, and cyclical magnetic intensity and irradiance. Planetary mechanics is the elephant in the room of Earth climate change. CO2 is the flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride. Case closed.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Otter

      I just clicked on your name, and I THANK YOU VERY MUCH for that link.

      We’re fighting wind turbines which will be placed within a mile of our home- there will be 8 within two miles and 77 across the area.
      Another lawsuit just went thru FOR the plaintiffs against another wind project. It will help us.
      Bookmarking your site.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        I have a website on wind and a blog. Click on my name and I can send you the links (email listed in lefthand column). This is not the blog my name links to since we are usually discussing climate change here.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I recommend this article on wind power and the comments by a retired power systems engineer “nzrobin”.

      Most enlightening …


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Chris B

    “What does it take to be “outstanding”?”

    Not much for farmers who are outstanding in their fields.

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee, now that he is officially ensconced in a foreign institution he can come back to Aus & sit on Tony Jones’ panel next to Germane & do a double act of condescending “erudition”.( with enthusiastic support Tim Flimflam, Adam Bandt , Simon Sheikh & Greg Combet)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    The Royal Society’s motto seems to have morphed into “respect the facts” i.e. respect our facts i.e. respect our authority.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3357/


    Report this

    20

    • #
      graphicconception

      My Latin is based entirely on that used in climate blogs, for example: argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad verecundiam.

      However, the Royal Society’s new motto should probably be: “alicuius in verba”. Take anyone’s word for it!


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Greg House

    “None of the so-called researchers can explain what scientific observations a climate denier, denies.”
    ================================================

    Well, my guess would be that this probably includes at least 2 things.

    First, denying the impossibility of reliable scientific calculations of so called “global temperature” so that any reliable scientific conclusion on “global warming” was possible.

    Second and the most important thing is denying of physical impossibility of the so called “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC (warming by back radiation). Warming of the source by back radiation is physically absurd, because it must lead to an endless mutual warming without an additional input of energy, if the source is initially at a stable temperature.


    Report this

    31

    • #
      Backslider

      physical impossibility of the so called “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC

      Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the alarmists say that MOST of the “greenhouse effect” occurs in the troposphere, where of course they is very little water and all that nasty CO2 likes to reside… and there is all this “scattering” of infra red radiation, or “back radiation” (all the way down to the deepest depths of the ocean).

      This is very easily disproved by a very simple experiment:

      1. Go into a nice dry desert in the night time – you will freeze your sorry butt off!

      2. Go into the same dry desert on a cloudy night.

      Conclusion – Whatever is happening in the troposphere is sweet bugger all. A cloudy night is significantly warmer, so we know its all happening in the lower atmosphere due to water vapor.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        crakar24

        BS,

        This is not quite correct, back radiation is Infra red (near or far i am not sure) in either case back radiation cannot penetrate the oceans so back radiation can only affect the 30% that is not water. Which of course makes the theory even more stupider than you originally thought :-)


        Report this

        42

        • #

          So, thousands of clever physicists are wrong, including all the world’s institutions of science.

          Or…just maybe….Crakar and Backslider are wrong.

          How would a bookie offer odds on that one, I wonder?
          [Three lines of text, and three logical fallacies] -Fly


          Report this

          12

          • #

            Only the ones pushing the ACC. The other thousands who say the theory is extremely lacking are right. Want to go for bookie odds on that one? We should not even get started on academics, considering the subject of this thread.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            1/ Do you go to your plumber for advice about your upcoming heart surgery?

            [If my plumber says my heart surgeon is hiding evidence, and adjusting the data, I listen to the plumber and ask another heart surgeon. What do you do? - Jo ]

            2/ Crakar has provided abundant evidence here for the fact his opinions far outstrip his knowledge, and Backslider is denying the basic physics of the Greenhouse Effect.

            3/ When assessing the credibility of sources, you are conducting an exercise in probability.

            [Not at all. We are judging their credibility by their reasoning and evidence, and not by some official "certificate". It's called thinking for yourself. Argument from authority is always a fallacy even though sometimes authorities are right. Sometimes they're not. Some people are gullible fools who believe everything they're told. Others are skeptics. - Jo]


            Report this

            12

            • #

              Nobody accepts a non-expert’s claim to authority when a genuine authority is available. It would make no sense whatsoever. It is a vanishingly small likelihood that your plumber is privy to any science that your heart surgeon has missed.
              (Having said that, doctors are one class of people to be enormously sceptical of – 50% of what they have to say is arrogant nonsense. But that’s a different story).

              “It’s called thinking for yourself.” You can’t think for yourself outside your area of expertise. You have no choice but to accept the information provided by the relevant authority. You minimise the risk by obtaining information from as many authorities as required to satisfy yourself that the information is sound. That’s basic research.

              Back to the point: Crakar and Backslider are contradicting textbook physics. Textbook physics might be wrong, but judging by the evidence presented here, that seems like the less likely option.
              Hence my punting analogy.
              (Although I am hugely sceptical of gambling and do not indulge in it, ever).


              Report this

              11

              • #
                Backslider

                I see that you are incapable of replying to my question as to what I supposedly said that is wrong. Thus I can only conclude that your posts are ad hominem and nothing more.

                If however you wish to argue a specific point, then please do so…. otherwise you really have nothing at all to say.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                You’ve got it real bad Margot.

                I have a degree in Metallurgical Engineering which included a lot of work on Modelling.

                So far I haven’t seen anything put out by Warmers which stands the test of being a model.

                All I see is computer simulations which in engineering parlance are known as “computer Simulations”.

                Global Warming is a scam and no scientific evidence or mechanism involving CO2 is available for us to discuss let alone find any confirmation from.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                You can’t think for yourself outside your area of expertise. You have no choice but to accept the information provided by the relevant authority.

                Are you quoting?……… let me guess…. Hitler?


                Report this

                20

            • #

              Why is the human brain limited to “area of expertise”? How do you determine your area of expertise? If the janitor can sit down and right code for a computer because he taught himself, is he not supposed to do that because it’s not his area of expertise?
              If someone reads and goes through the same data as a PhD scientist, shows the same level of understanding, but did not pay 100,000 dollars to get the letters behind his name, how is he any less intelligent or any less of an expert? How does a PhD make you smarter than others if they study and understand the same data?

              I also agree with Jo–if my plumber made a good argument that my cardiologist was wrong, I would go to another cardiologist and see what they said.

              I have found that the mantra “you can’t think for yourself outside your area of expertise” is often a great way to avoid being wrong. People quote experts and if it’s turns out wrong, it’s the expert’s fault. Fear of actually thinking for oneself is actually quite common, as is the need to have someone else to blame for errors.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Sheri

                So much of the rubbish written by PhD students or actual PhDs on Global Warming is associative junk and based on the Authority of the writer.

                Paradoxically most of the controversial material is speculative and written by Phds who want to use their qualifications as a guarantee of accuracy.

                Academic posturing.

                KK :)


                Report this

                10

          • #
            Backslider

            So nice of you to come here Margot. Things are a little quiet over at S(k)S these days, are they not?

            Crakar and Backslider are wrong

            If you are going to say that somebody is wrong, then please state your case otherwise I will ask the moderator to simply remove your inane posts – they serve no purpose whatsoever.

            Are you suggesting that dry desert nights are warm? Have you ever even been in a desert?

            The thing is this Margot: If CO2 really was doing what the alarmists suggest, then dry desert nights would not be cold. Its that simple and its that simple to prove how wrong the supposition (which is all it is) is.

            Would you not agree that water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas? If it is not, then what is it?


            Report this

            20

            • #

              If CO2 really was doing what the alarmists suggest, then dry desert nights would not be cold. Its that simple and its that simple to prove how wrong the supposition (which is all it is) is.

              http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/global_extremes_for_jgr.pdf

              Over 70% of the global land area sampled showed a significant decrease in the annual occurrence of cold nights and a significant increase in the annual occurrence of warm nights.

              Or, in pictures:
              http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/TN10.2103.png
              or
              http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/tmin/0112/aus/1970/latest.gif

              This is precisely the predicted effect of increased CO2. 150 years after this prediction was made, we are now in a position to observe it. Which we have.


              Report this

              02

              • #

                And the Urban Heat Island effect would also create warmer nights as kilometers of tarmac releases stored heat all night long.


                Report this

                21

              • #

                Margot you provided a link to BoMs trend min temp map of Australia.
                That map shows central Australia Tmin trend in a nice hot pink shade.

                How do you suppose that occurs when BoMs own data for (for instance) Alice Springs (desert) Tmin shows a flat trend.

                Or Mt Isa (desert), shown in the “hot” pink at your link. But a look at the data for Tmin shows a declining trend.

                Oh!! hang on, sorry Margot, I misled you. I just saw the note under those graphs. The notes say “Data may not have completed ‘quality control’.
                Nudge nudge wink wink. The activist ‘artists’ at the BoM haven’t yet got to these places to excercise their “homogenic” pasteurization techniques.

                I must get in touch with Nifty Nicholls and Kaz Braganza at the BoM to remind them to make sure their special brand of “homogenizing” is applied to Tmins of these desert places. We wouldn’t want people to think CO2 emissions haven’t yet effected central Australia


                Report this

                30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Well done Baa

                Why are these people still on the loose and not in goal?

                KK :)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                VinceWhirlwind

                Watts’ assumptions about poorly-sited stations ans the UHI were proven wrong: the effect turned out to be a *cooling* bias at those stations.

                If Baa Humbug doesn’t even have data, what on earth is his basis for claiming BoM’s is wrong?

                My trust is in identified professional people who occupy official positions where they are responsible for what they say and where any errors will obviously be corrected when brought to their attention. I am almost entirely sceptical of random people on the internet who propose assertions that contradict those officials – if these random people were correct, they would be explaining to BoM why BoM were wrong, and BoM would correct their errors.

                So, to me, two things stand out:
                1/ Baa Humbug isn’t trying to explain to BoM what their error is, that needs correcting.
                2/ There has never been any substantiation of his claim nor even any attempt to make his case through the official channels, but we keep having to read about them in places like this. That’s what I consider “tedious”. If it’s true, stop talking about it and sort it out. If it isn’t true, stop talking about it and sort yourself out.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                It seems the charts I posted on my comment at 40.1.1.1.2 are no longer there, rendering my comment useless.
                Link to the Alice Springs data
                Link to Mt Isa Data

                An explanation (if there is one) as to what happened to the charts I posted would be appreciated.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        Streetcred

        There’s no detected ‘hot spot’ of warming in the troposphere that is supposed to ‘prove’ their theory.

        Qvak! qvak! qvak! … the call of a Viking farmer’s goose in the winelands.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Backslider

          There’s no detected ‘hot spot’ of warming in the troposphere that is supposed to ‘prove’ their theory.

          The chronology of alarmist arguments is quite interesting:

          1. It began with all that nasty CO2 in the atmosphere causing all this extra heat. This was quickly disproved as being very minimal at best.
          2. Then they came out with “forcing”, with whatever CO2 does causing more evaporation of water and thus from that an enhanced greenhouse effect >> nasty warming. Why they invented the tropospheric hot spot is beyond my understanding, however I am sure its there to give substance to this forcing. Shame that they cannot find it (although the S(k)S Brownshirts swear black and blue that they have found it).
          3. Now that we can see 16 years of no substantial warming and an absence of the tropospheric hot spot, the heat is now supposedly in the deep depths of the ocean, where also it cannot be found. I guess its too difficult to send weather ballons down there to disprove the assumption. How this heat got way down there defies reason, yet they swear black and blue it is there, supposedly from “back radiation” in the troposphere – yes, they assert that most of the GHE occurs way up there and not the lower atmosphere (very easily disproved).


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Jo. Help. I have a Mac. my version of safari has just declared your site persona non grata on RSS. any ideas?


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Ben Cubby is at it again.
    Run! The sky is falling! CO2 just past the tipping point!
    A whole 0.04 percent! Just the weight of it alone will collapse the sky.
    Maybe, just maybe, since CO2 has lagged temperature for an eternity, it is a mere coincidence that the LIA started about 800 years ago?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      handjive

      The stupidity and lack of logic of the gullible global warmer is displayed in Cubby’s crap.

      If the last time CO2 levels reached the symbolic milestone of 400 parts per million in the atmosphere, and temperatures rose 3 to 4 degrees, and sea levels were between 5 and 40 metres, why isn’t the earth like that today?

      Obviously, CO2 IS NOT TO BLAME.

      If CO2 was to blame, temperatures would be 3 to 4 degrees higher, NOW!

      And sea levels would between 5 and 40 metres higher. TODAY!
      .
      Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal.


      Report this

      50

      • #

        The 3 or 4 degrees won’t be reached until equilibrium is reached – ie, when incoming radiation is balanced by outgoing. Heat accumulates in the meantime.

        Heat currently accumulating is progressively causing the oceans to expand and ice to melt.

        I don’t know what your “now” is all about, but it isn’t about reality.


        Report this

        03

        • #

          So precisely when can we expect to reach equilibrium? Climate science is settled, so I would expect a very precise answer to this. If we know where all the heat goes and what CO2 does, this answer is just simple math.


          Report this

          10

          • #

            Sheri, my understanding is that only a charlatan would pretend the “science is settled” on this issue – the issue of climate sensitivity.

            You could read Wikipedia for an overview – that’s what I did.

            It appears that the research scientists agree that if we increase CO2 by 280ppm, we will get something like 3 degrees of warming, plus or minus 1.5 degrees (which is a huge uncertainty, needless to say).

            So far, we have increased it 120ppm.


            Report this

            02

            • #

              Wikipedia is not a source I use, since anyone can write anything on there. I notice the section on settled science replaces a previous one, due to inaccuracies.

              Part of the problem is distinguishing “the science is settled” from “there is consensus”. Especially since consensus is used to demonstrate the great accuracy and demands everyone accept the truth of the science. Consensus implies no one should question.

              I agree that research scientists seem to agree on the 280 ppm number and it’s good you understand that the margin of error is very large. My confusion comes from the activist scientists who it seems do care about the truth and just toss out certainty where there is none. In reality, I do find that most research papers are woefully misrepresented when presented in the media or on blogs. I do agree that only charlatans would present this idea, but the charlatans seem pretty loud out there at the moment.

              Scientists do NOT jump in and shout the science is NOT settled. They allow the media to push this idea. Mann and Hansen further push the idea, though carefully avoided the word “settled”. This should be a very important issue for climate scientists–to make sure people understand the science is not settled. I continue to wait for these scientists to come forth and demand they be accurately represented.


              Report this

              00

        • #

          Oh, no! Not another one of these.

          …..and ice to melt.

          So tell us Margot, what will all that melting ice do?

          Tony.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Frankly Sceptical

    Sir Isaac Newton president of the Royal Society (1702 –1727) has just turned in his grave. He has just sent a message “ The Royal Society has now lost the last vestige of credibility and has become the laughing stock of all true scientists around the globe”


    Report this

    80

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Glorious quote by The Leopard in the Basement on BishopHill extracted from ‘Antifragile’ by Nassim Taleb.

    “As I was writing this book, I overheard on a British Air flight a gentleman explain to the flight attendant less than two seconds into the conversation (meant to be about whether he liked cream and sugar in his coffee) that he won the Nobel Prize in Medicine “and Physiology” in addition to being the president of a famous monarchal academy. The flight attendant did not know what the Nobel was, but was polite, so he kept repeating “the Nobel Prize” hoping that she would wake up from her ignorance. I turned around and
    recognized him, and the character suddenly deflated. As the saying goes, it is hardest to be a great man to one’s chambermaid. And marketing beyond conveying information is insecurity”
    Whether this is a reference, or not, to the incumbent President of the RS, Sir Paul Nurse is not directly stated but from what I have heard from this pompous prig it doesn’t seem a million miles away!
    Perhaps we have a comedy duo in the making? The Paul and Stephan Show. I’m sure Speedy could provide them with some hilarious scripts.
    Here’s the BH page with TLITB’s post

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/28/paul-and-the-pug-dog.html#comments

    PS Joe. I was in two minds whether to vote for you or not; your site shares a great deal of blame in Lew having to leave town and force himself on us in the UK.
    PPS – I voted for you anyway as a small measure of thanks for the entertainment, education and edification ovr the years.
    Good Luck.


    Report this

    71

  • #

    It is a relief to know that Lewandowsky is not in Australia anymore but far away in Bristol. Good luck, Bristol.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    I’d like to give some credit where do here. Thru her own hard work, Jo developed this lead well over a month ago. As it was just that – a rumor – she chose to sit on it until it could be confirmed. A number of others chose the same path.

    That is the mark of a professional – and outlines the difference between people like JO and the rest of the skeptic community, and those like Lewandowsky et all, who will stoop as low as necessary to attack those who dare disagree with them.

    Ethics and professionalism – along with integrity. Something Lewandowsky et al have no seeming concept of.

    Excellent work Jo.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    Wolfson has CAGW form:

    UEA Climatic Research Unit
    The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences…
    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.[7] The UK Government (Margaret Thatcher) became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    The UEA-Wolfson Molecular Structure Centre
    Its name too has changed, to the UEA-Wolfson Molecular Structure Centre in recognition of the generous support of the Wolfson Foundation for the Centre. The aim of the Centre remains the same, however.
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/chemistry/people/faculty/mooreg/rescentres


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Quack

    ‘Other posts on Lewandowsky’s Achievements’

    wow JoJo this guy seems to be giving you a lot to write about

    you should thank him for keeping you employed!!!


    Report this

    15

  • #
    MadJak

    The Average IQ of Australia Just Increased

    The Average IQ of the UK just dropped

    Globalisation at work. Excellent stuff.

    Can we send a few more back to the home country? Some of these people down here just haven’t worked out. We want to return them for a better quality product please.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Lank liked Bristol

    Bristol??? I hope he enjoys cold weather.
    According to this forcast the next month is expected to be much colder than average for this time of the year…..

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/bristol/bs1-2/april-weather/327328

    I’m sure Lewandowski will be able to psychologise this ‘expected’ cold into evidence for global warming.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***”avoid political interference”??? LOL.

    28 April: Business Spectator: Australia’s carbon market challenge
    by Erwin Jackson is Deputy CEO, The Climate Institute.
    This article was originally published by Reuters Point Carbon
    The European Union’s recent decision not to bolster credibility in its carbon market struck a chord in Australia’s political debate…

    ***Policymakers could, of course, choose to ignore the situation as a short-term blip and decide it is better to avoid political interference in the market…
    If Australia can increase ambition at little cost why would it not, given that the country has accepted that ambitious emission reductions are in its national interest?
    Business could also find this scenario more attractive if it brought forward the shift from a fixed to floating carbon price.
    However, this scenario risks undermining the domestic low pollution transformation now underway, unless key policies like the Renewable Energy Target are retained at full strength…
    The government could also consider delaying the link with the EU market and extending the fixed price period towards 2020. The upside of this is that it would give the EU time to get its house in order, while providing greater revenues to the Australian government and a stronger investment signal to projects that reduce emissions…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/29/carbon-markets/australias-carbon-market-challenge

    not the Govt’s fault?

    28 April: Adelaide Advertiser: Natasha Bita: Power giants’ extra staff cost more than the carbon tax, report says
    Australia Institute says extra admin costs driving prices up
    Extra 54,000 desk jobs created but only 23,000 tech workers hired
    Over 6,000 in sales alone for major power companies
    POWER giants are employing too many pen-pushing desk staff, driving up household electricity bills by more than the carbon tax, a new analysis claims…
    Electricity prices have surged three times faster than inflation over the past 15 years, it shows…
    It found power prices from publicly-owned utilities have risen an average of 134 per cent over the past 20 years, compared to 182 per cent for privatised power utilities…
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/power-giants-extra-staff-cost-more-than-the-carbon-tax-report-says/story-fncz7kyc-1226631151605


    Report this

    21

  • #
    pat

    “climate protection”?
    ***a threat at the end of this piece?

    29 April: Business Spectator: Reuters: E.ON urges action to save European carbon trade: paper
    Europe’s effort to protect the climate faces “a decade of stagnation” without quick action to save the EU carbon market, the chief executive of German utility E.ON said in a newspaper interview on Saturday.
    “European emissions trading is a patient on his deathbed; either we cure him quickly, or he dies,” Johannes Teyssen told Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
    “And that would have unpredictable negative consequences, not only for climate protection,” he added…
    In the interview Teyssen denied that his stance was in part aimed at making energy from brown coal, such as that produced by rival utility RWE, more expensive.
    “Nonsense. It’s not about hurting the competition. We are all having a hard enough time as it is,” he said.
    ***”Carbon dioxide must have a price and if emissions trading is irreparable, then we will need a tax that countries can introduce on their own,” he said, adding that the UK was already moving in this direction.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/4/29/policy-politics/eon-urges-action-save-european-carbon-trade-paper


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Sonny

    Congratulations Lewandowsky!

    I must commend you on your cutting edge research exposing the climate change “skeptics” for what they are – conspiracy kooks and magical thinkers.

    They are people who hide under a false innocence, “we are just asking questions” they say, but in reality they are ideologically corrupted by far right wing extremism.

    How many times do you hear their paranoid assertions that climate change and “Agenda 21″ are socialist tools to restrict individual freedoms and “rob them of their civil liberties”.

    Haha hilarious!!!

    Their general mistrust of the government and the media as well as possible funding from right wing think tanks is what keeps the climate denial gravy train chugging along.

    Unfortunately it is out great grandchildren who will inherit a world in which temperatures are soaring, oceans are rising and failure to form a global task force to deal with sustainability means that we are still raping our delicate and fragile world of its precious resources.

    (And yes, I’m being sarcastic)


    Report this

    33

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No, just stupid.

      Don’t you realise that according to AGW theory the temperature is rising and we will hit “the tipping point” about 2018. The rapid heat rise from then on will mean your great grandchildren won’t have time to come out.

      Anyway the funding from right wing think tanks wasn’t evident when Jo needed a new computer. Perhaps what keeps the climate denial gravy train chugging along is the lack of any evidence in favour of the theory. And please don’t come back with that line about 97% of scientists (selected from 3000) being in favour. 100% of the members of The Flat Earth Society believe they’re right.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    jefftfred

    While doing a scan and cookie cleanup on my computer this morning, made me think of our “own” J. Cook of Skeptical Pseudo Science.
    Surely Bristol would also like the presence their own Cookie, imported from Aus.
    Just a thought – total cookie removal.


    Report this

    80

  • #
  • #
    dp

    In any other industry hanging with that jackass would be career death. It takes climate science, an already disgraced endeavor, to feel comfortable in the presence of his ilk. And I realize I’m giving all you ilk out there a bad name, but it is what it is. Lewpy is a crazy man hell-bent to rejuvenate the glory days of Lysenkoism. And of course turn some coin of the realm along the way. More proof that tax payers need line item veto.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    crakar24

    I pinched this, lock stock and barrel from Bolt as i wanted to ensure all would read it. This is a clear example of the stupidity of our PM, read this and understand why we are in the debt we find ourselves in.

    To explain why she won’t cut spending even though she admits the good times are gone, Julia Gillard offers an analogy which makes exactly the opposite point to the one she’s attempting:

    Imagine a wage earner, John, employed in the same job throughout the last 20 years.

    For a period in 2003 to 2007 every year his employer gave him a sizeable bonus. He was grateful but in his bones knew it wouldn’t last.

    The bonuses did stop and John was told that his income would rise by around five per cent each year over the years to come.

    That’s the basis for his financial plans.

    Now, very late, John has been told he won’t get those promised increases for the next few years – but his income will get back up after that to where he was promised it would be.

    What is John’s rational reaction?

    My bet is that 99 voters out of 100 would say the rational response is for John to cut his spending. Who’d believe a promise that his income will one day soar again? Who believe such a promise – when the person making it promised the bonuses would go on forever?

    But this is what Gillard thinks is a rational response from John:

    What is John’s rational reaction?

    To respond to this temporary loss of income by selling his home and car, dropping his private health insurance, replacing every second evening meal with two-minute noodles.

    Of course not.

    A rational response would be to make some responsible savings, to engage in some moderate borrowing, to get through to the time of higher income with his family and lifestyle intact and then to use the higher income to pay off the extra borrowing undertaken in the lean years.

    Hands up anyone who thinks their own response to a cut in their salary is not to cut their expenses but to borrow more on someone’s say-so that some years from now their income will go up?

    My God, but this woman has a tin ear.

    And lousy budgeting skills.

    PS

    To make Gillard’s analogy even crazier, note how uncertain Gillard actually is about revenue ever returning to what she fondly hoped:

    We can’t assume this will change soon… Australia will not go back to the extraordinary revenue peaks of “mining boom mark I” from 2002-03 to 2007-08.

    Jesus f%$%&&*%#g wept

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_gives_john_advice_on_how_to_go_bankrupt/


    Report this

    42

    • #
      MadJak

      Crakar,

      She lost me at this line:

      Imagine a wage earner, John, employed in the same job throughout the last 20 years

      Stopped reading at that point.

      In what Effing century is someone in a job for 20 years realistic?

      Holy Crap – what kind of planet is JuLiar on?


      Report this

      41

    • #
      MadJak

      How Does this sound,

      Imagine John, employed in the same job throughout the last 20 years.

      His employer took advice from some lawyers who owed some activists and unionists some big favours. As the GFC hit, these lawyers advised Johns employers to keep spending and not lay anyone off (helping the unions). They then also forced Johns employer to use the most inefficient and expensive suppliers because it would please the activists.

      As Johns Employer became more concerned about the debt the business was getting into, the lawyers said not to worry, because a motherlode of income is about to come in because they had negotiated it all. They said the annual debt repayment looked much smaller with the debt terms pushed out to 10-15 years instead of 5. Johns employer didn’t like this at all but by this point didn’t have a choice. Trust us they said – this is what Greece Pty has been doing and they’re still a part of a large economy.

      Sure enough, the motherlode never came, and Johns Employer went broke.

      John and all his colleagues were all laid off, and to make matters worse, they discovered the same lawyers had advised all the other businesses around and many other people were laid off as well.

      Good luck with trying to get another Job John. Just remember it was the ALP that got you there.


      Report this

      50

  • #

    Vote in, by the way, thought “creative writing” was their speciality. You must be so pleased to offload Lew, bit like having a gallstone removed. I predict it won’t go that well for him though. God knows that country has it’s fair share of intellectual red traffic lights but there are more than a few very perceptive and ruthless intellects who will do some serious bewildered double takes. His timing is lousy because there is a growing realization of the sheer scale of this deception, he’ll only be preaching to the converted which I suspect is now a minority. He’s now a politician, amongst the ranks of the least trusted professions. Tick, tick, tick…to infamy and beyond!! (Sorry, I have kids…it all gets stuck in you head like an earworm)


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Dave

      Ceetee,

      You say “He’s now a politician, amongst the ranks of the least trusted professions.”

      Most likely true, but I think he is now being used as a punishment against badly performing Universities – kind of like:

      “The Wooden Spoon Award”

      Everyone else has a chuckle, except the Uni involved and Lewandownsky, who unfortunately don’t get the joke.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    JEG is excusing her governmemt spending, revenue way more than Howard, and cannot achieve a surplus.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dennis

    DEBT soon to be by June $300 Billion plus hidden off budget NBN Co debt


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dave

    Lewandownsky should go to California:

    They believe all the bullshlt printed by the local GreentechSolar website –
    They say first:

    Last year, the Solar Foundation issued a census of the solar industry showing 119,016 jobs spread around the country.

    Then they say:

    The U.S. solar industry installed 90,000 solar systems last year

    How stupid are these CAGW warmists over there? So 119,016 people installed 90,000 solar systems last year. Each person installed less than one solar system each per year.

    Yup – really good article Greenie idiots, can’t do solar, can’t even do maths.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Pat K

    Still can’t understand why psychology is accepted as a science or why psychologists are expected to behave in a scientific manner. The object of their study (human behaviour) is unlikely to ever be predictable within any reasonable bounds of certainty.

    BTW. You Never know. Perhaps the move to Bristol may have something to do with certain complaints to the Ethics Committee at UWA. I suppose we can live in hope.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Pat

      Unfortunately the Lewandowski scandal has given people the wrong impression about psychology.

      Legitimate Psychologists study How people think not What they think.

      They also study deviations from what is seen as “normal’ behavior and in theory this is where his analysis of Skeptics is supposed to come from. It is however nothing but a loosely put together pseudo analysis that has no credibility.

      Lewandowski is using his qualifications to claim authority or skill that he does not have.

      He is speaking from authority and not from erudition or learning.

      He is NOT speaking as a Psychologist.

      KK :)


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Yonniestone

        KK, from your insight into Leandowskis’ mindset why would he stop at climate science? he could easily turn his biased viewpoint to any subject or profession.
        He is now wading into the depths of “megalomania”.


        Report this

        30

      • #

        I posted on my blog what Lewendosky would have done if he had followed the proper procedure for psychological research (If Lewendosky were a real scientist). People need to understand that psychological research does–or did, anyway–have actual rules and a very strict procedure. What Lew did was in no way science and he makes a joke of the field of psychology.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Politicians lie so that they might attain or retain power, we all expect that.
    Above all, I expect all university disciplines to seek an understanding of how the universe(s) work. i.e. seek the truth.
    Academics who deliberately lie and obfuscate should be removed from universities and placed in either a gaol (or a parliament). Such people slow the advancement of our understanding and thus slow the the advancement of humanity.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Ace

      Wow do you not understand universities!
      They exist to make a profit for their share-holders exactly the same as any other business. If dumbing down helps, then they will.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Well, hopefully that’s one bit of garbage that won’t be coming back.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sean

    The Royal Clown Society strikes again…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Cambo

    So by making a joke of psychology, Lew’s reward is more praise, more money, more prestige. Is this what the Royal Society considers a prudent thing to do? Who is running these institutions? Perhaps that is the real question that needs to be asked. Who’s in charge of this continuance of anti-science.

    Will these charlatans ever be called to task for the blatant crimes that they’ve committed, or is it all to be swept under the table and ignored while they begin to perpetrate the next scam?


    Report this

    20