JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?

John,

Thanks for the invite to assist with the crowd sourced online survey.

Unfortunately I just can’t see this working.

1. The survey is profoundly anti-science, it’s exactly the kind of thing I debunk on my blog. Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science. Science is not a democracy, and we don’t vote for the laws of physics, which are either right or wrong and not “97% popular”. Hence, any answer you get in this survey (and it appears you already have the answers) has got nothing to do with understanding the climate of Earth. It may possibly be helpful in psychosocial analysis of groupthink in modern science, or the effect of monopsonistic funding on scientific progress, but that brings me to problem 2, even if it were useful for that, you are not the researcher to study that. See point 2.

2. You still refer to us as “deniers” in much of your work. You admitted there was no such thing as a “climate denier” a few months ago (albeit after five years of using the term), but you have not adopted a more useful name, or apologized for abusing the English language. Clearly you think skeptics are run by their lizard brains, unable to think, prone to burying their heads in the sand. (Didn’t you put that on the cover of your book?) So in the end, if skeptics are deniers, and they are so incapable of thinking, it’s not rational for you to want deniers to “help” with this fallacy of a survey, because irrational dullards would be bound to do a bad job. It appears more likely that that what you are trying to achieve is a new way to survey people who disagree with your scientific opinion. That would make this a form of confirmation bias for the purpose of PR and not science. (See also point 1).

If this is what John Cook thinks of skeptics, why would he ask them to “help” his research?

3. Your recent work with Stephan Lewandowsky has rather vaporized any small remnant of trust or goodwill most skeptics feel for you. Hence, as commenters are already saying on threads related to this, what skeptic would bother giving you 10 minutes of their time? One term I heard was “barge-pole”.

4. Lastly there is the question of honesty. You’ve given each skeptic blogger a different survey link, so presumably you can track responses to certain blogs. Yet in the email you tell me that the responses are anonymous and you don’t disclose that each site was given a trackable link. That’s dishonest. (It reminds me of the time you insisted you hosted a professional research survey on your blog and when you couldn’t find it, said improbably, that you’d deleted it, except it was never on your blog in the first place was it? There is a peer reviewed science paper that justifies itself because of that imaginary post of yours, why don’t you correct it? Are you interested in the truth, or just “The Cause”?)

I think that’s got it covered: It’s anti-science, illogical, run by the wrong man, and you haven’t been honest.

But if you can fix all that, then send me an email.

Thanks,

Jo

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (236 votes cast)
Dear John, you want "deniers" to help you do a fallacious survey eh?, 9.6 out of 10 based on 236 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/d5ukahx

155 comments to Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Geez Jo, you sound a bit “skeptical” of Mr Cook,
    so to help him understand the mindset of this particular skeptic/denier I’ve composed a quick quiz to help him start.

    John, if you were to insult someone then ask their help a normal response would be,

    1- Go to hell or somewhere warmer.
    2- Are you on medication?
    3- Belt it up your clacker.
    4- Did you eat lead paint as a child?
    5- All of the above.

    604

    • #
      Yonniestone

      John, I have given you the required time (according to ability) to choose an answer,
      which is 5- All of the above.
      Yes all those responses are perfectly normal for a person who has been personally attacked (note for future human interaction)
      Now part 2 of my quiz.

      John, if you were to assert something exists, that didn’t, would this be considered,

      1- Antecedent.
      2- Method and manner.
      3- Evidence disposal.
      4- Post-offense behavior.
      5- All of the above.

      60

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I believe we all need to look from time to time at alarmist sites like SkepticalScience. Why? Because it is always a good idea to know how your enemy ‘thinks’.

        A brief review of his site will reveal arguing black is white is one of John Cook’s most noticeable characteristics.

        Censoring any adverse comments is another, which means his posts have a tiny fraction of the number of comments typically seen here at Jo Nova or at WUWT.

        Could you trust a survey undertaken by John Cook? Answer: Only if you are a bolt-in-the-side-of-the-neck, fully paid up, Global Warming cult member.

        So what is the purpose of the survey? Clearly the intention is to deceive and mislead in classic Lewandowsky style. The problem is by not responding, sceptics are potentially walking into a potential trap of being accused of “not being prepared to review the real science”.

        So, the only conclusion to be reached is that it is better to leave the Trogan Horse outside the gate rather than bringing it in, no matter how pretty and innocuous it may look.

        100

  • #
    cohenite

    Cook, goose cooked.

    304

  • #
    WhaleHunt Fun

    A religious belief is not one subject to persuasion by argument or torture. Your respondent cannot be corrected by either method. Twere best you simply ignore him.

    280

  • #
    Richard The Great

    Warmist loserd gets chewed up and spat out. Maybe they need to raise the bar a tad. This is too easy.

    352

  • #
    banjo99

    John Cook- “Pull my finger!”
    Sceptic – “No”
    John Cook- “AWWWWW!Puh-lease!”
    Sceptic – “Grow up”
    john Cook- “Pleasepleasepleeeeease Pull my finger”
    Sceptic – “You tried this before…it all ended in tears”
    John Cook- “If you don`t i`ll hold my breath `till i faint!”
    Sceptic – ” i might be able to help you with that.Now,GO TO YOUR ROOM!
    the grownups are busy”

    110

  • #
    Glenn

    I think this post is counter-productive. Jo, don’t feed the troll!

    77

    • #
      Joe V.

      It’s true he will cite the recognition shamelessly & you can be sure he’ll claim that every skeptic blog was aware of his latest exercise on constructing a consensus.

      90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Only because he “asked” them to respond.

        If Jo, and the other bloggers, had just ignored it, he would just claim that they were too frightened to take part.

        Now at least the world will know that they were too disgusted with the bad science, and the obvious attempt at manipulation, to be bothered to take part.

        I think it is a great response. Lets hope he learns something from it.

        481

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Sadly; that’s all it is, “constructing a consensus”.

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Glenn,

      Always a couple of ways to look at things.

      If we ignore him and others like him we can avoid getting distressed and upset by the conflict, true. problem is his propaganda, as Rereke says, goes unchallemnged.

      To challenge him publicly means effort, possible confict and elevated feelings, anger and disgust come to mind, but in the end I think we will all be better off to push for a “consensus” on what Science and Good behaviour really involve.

      KK :)

      130

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        If we ignore him and others like him we can avoid getting distressed and upset by the conflict, true. problem is his propaganda, as Rereke says, goes unchallemnged.

        To challenge him publicly means effort, possible confict and elevated feelings, anger and disgust come to mind, but in the end I think we will all be better off to push for a “consensus” on what Science and Good behaviour really involve.

        KK,

        To ignore or not to ignore… We have no way to come out better off either way. His presence and the presence of those like him is pernicious and infects more and more people, no matter what happens.

        So in the end I think it will come to blows, hopefully political and fought out at the voting booth. But the other alternative is also possible.

        I have given up hoping that it will go away or give in to persuasion. It all depends now on what the remaining critical thinkers do.

        100

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Roy,

          I agree but there is a ray of hope.

          Money always has the last say and the cost of these extreme climate schemes is becoming very annoying to taxpayers and consumers.

          It will come to blows, hopefully at the ballot box.

          KK :)

          90

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            That would be a good outcome. In fact it’s probably the preferred outcome of everybody on this blog.

            But it would also require politicians to make such a stand, and for the people to understand the difference (hell, or even care).

            20

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            It looks like the money is running out already. May should be a very interesting month in Australian politics.

            00

    • #

      I put this early at Steve Goddard
      Agree with those above- John Cook has no scientific qualifications, he is a psychologist who needs psychological help from someone who knows more than Freud’s Oedipus complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex) or Jung’s theories..
      No one should complete the survey and give him any reason to stroke his ego or phallic imagination

      ———————
      [Not so. Cook has done Physics, not Psychology. But I measure his scientific ability by his reasoning and evidence and not his qualifications in any case. What kind of scientist thinks opinion polls are evidence about the climate? An unskeptical scientist. - Jo]

      121

      • #

        Must have misheard a presentation (podcast) he gave to Engineers Australia Queensland. He presented himself as interested in attitudes and psychology. The web site of GCI Qld Uni which is led by the failed forecaster of gloom & doom Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has John Cook as a research fellow in media and communications. In the podcast mentioned above he gave no signs of understanding physics, repeated exaggerations and bad modeling of the IPCC and derided skeptics including Lord Monckton and some other named persons.
        He has praised Lewandowsky and is co-author with him of one of the withdrawn papers.
        I still say John Cook needs psychological help to control his egotism and obsessions.

        100

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Woew, that’s a Dear John letter and a half…..

    272

  • #
    Bob Campbell

    Oh dear, John.

    142

  • #
    llew Jones

    Of course the CAGW warmists deny, against increasingly strong indications, that post IR warming is more likely the result of normal climate variability than any human activity whether that be land clearing or the combustion of fossil fuels. If we forget the Nazi holocaust implication perhaps Denier is more appropriately the correct description of warmist propagandists like John Cook.

    222

  • #

    Getting John Cook to do this survey is like getting an alcoholic to look after the drinks cabinet.
    However, even with an unbiased person, there are issues with this survey, which I commented on elsewhere.

    But there are broader issues here, that can completely undermine the results of the research.
    First, is that if funding of research within climatology has been highly skewed towards supporting the AGW hypothesis, and the journals have a strong selection bias, then the sample will be meaningless.
    Second, is if not all scientific papers are equal. As any undergraduate course will show, relative importance of papers is extremely highly skewed. If the first point is true, then the average non-consensus paper needs carry more weight than the average consensus paper.
    Third, that relative importance changes over time. I hope that no university would say that you should treat the papers of twenty years ago on an equal basis to the latest research.
    Fourth, the consensus can shift. For instance, compare the size of the medieval warm period in the original Mann hockey sticks with Esper et al 2012, (or the withdrawn Gergis paper), and you will see a distinct movement.
    Most importantly, any significance of the research is totally undermined if science does not progress by consensus, but by new insights that sometimes totally undermine current views. John Cook’s research is trying to infer quality and truth of science is equated with numerical support.

    311

    • #
      Ian

      John Cook is employed by a University (UQ). The essential criterion of academics is publish or perish. As the methodology is questionable, whether the survey will add anything of substance to the sum total of human knowledge is debatable but it will certainly add to Cook’s curriculum vitae. This I suspect is the real reason for the survey

      120

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      “I hope that no university would say that you should treat the papers of twenty years ago on an equal basis to the latest research.”

      Methinks you are wrong.

      You’ve lost the plot. Try again.

      00

  • #
    nzrobin

    Talking about group think and associated thoughts, I came across this in a comment at Bishop Hill.
    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/5/ukip-scotlands-climate-spokesman.html

    “…This video does explain what could actually be behind the whole charade:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4yOAadmUcU
    Please be patient with it; the dull start hides a powerful truth.”

    Cheers
    Robin

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Kiwi Robin, I am amazed.
      This self-flagellation is the guilt that feeds not only the climate activist groupthink, but the entire Left!
      Thanks for sharing that URL.

      30

    • #
      Bulldust

      This tendancy to polarise people is strongest in the field of politics. I find it endlessly amusing how the two dominant political parties try to posture and position themselves as far apart ideologically when, in fact, they are not all that different. The Greens are the outliers as they try to convince the populace that we must atone and self-flagellate for crimes against Gaia.

      It is somewhat lonely in the middleground for those speaking rationally as bloggers tend to race to the extremes trying to outdo each other for the perceived cause.

      50

    • #
      Niff

      Thanks for that nzrobin..indeed the guilt imposed on everyone by the greens needs to be challenged. I doubt many realise they are being lulled into not thinking for themselves. It also explains why I am such a pain in the arse, unpopular guy……too many of my own opinions.

      40

  • #
    Athelstan.

    Blimey Jo, I thought that the whole world agreed with John?!

    Little man, in a very small bubble – eventually, someone will pop [the bubble] John Cook.

    ————–
    *edited for clarity. – Jo

    70

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    jilted John

    50

  • #
    Andrew

    Is he the same “John” in Gillard’s story? The one who blindly acted in reliance on pre GFC income forecasts, blew his household budget, ended up with spiralling consumer debt and had to think about eating noodles? Or is that a different “John”?

    110

    • #
      Bulldust

      I doubt it … he is handsomely rewarded by the Laborites for preaching the message. Remember the prize for science ‘communication’? I couldn’t let that slip without quotes…

      Then there was the money Gillard set aside for NGOs spruiking CAGW … he would have gotten a slice if that juicy pie for sure. Hmmm makes me want to do a bit of research…

      80

      • #
        • #
          Bite Back

          The so-called ‘Twitter-bot’ is the brainchild of Australian webmaster John Cook and software developer Nigel Leck, and is part of an armoury of tools Cook has developed to rebut common myths and inaccuracies about climate change.

          If that’s his claim to fame he’s got no claim to fame at all. Let’s see if his ‘bot’ can debunk this — climate change is BS; it looks like BS; it smells like BS; it attracts flies like BS and it repels straight thinkers everywhere.

          The typical response of the hard core believer is very much in evidence — when you can’t defend your position because it’s indefensible, call your critics names; commit character assassination; belittle them and make a fool of yourself in the process.

          There are some people I’d really like to tell off face to face. And John Cook is one of them.

          BB

          70

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Yes, Bite Back,
            The debunking is proceeding. Here is an example from our very one 8 cents a day. Please pardon the length.
            From: The Lab
            Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:46 PM
            To: ‘Geoffrey Sherrington’
            Subject: RE: Scientific misrepresentation alleged

            Dear Geoffrey,

            Thank you for your comments on the opinion piece by Dr Paul Willis.

            You may not have noticed that readers have the ability to post their own
            comments below the story.

            Also, you may not have noticed that Dr Willis’s article was not about the
            connection of CO2 concentrations to Global Warming, but about how easily
            graphs can be used to misrepresent complex information.

            However, since you take exception to the comparison of CO2 levels to average
            air temperatures, you might want to consider whether that is indeed a
            meaningful metric. Why do such graphs ignore temperature rises in the
            oceans? And why is the observed decline in Artic sea ice and Antarctic ice
            mass never considered?

            Well the answer is that all of these factors have been taken into account by
            the scientific community, and the conclusion accepted by every reputable
            scientific body in the world is that the Earth’s heat balance is changing in
            a way unprecedented in the last 10,000 years, and that the rise in CO2
            levels caused by releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere is the primary
            reason for that change. The physics of how CO2 prevents heat from radiating
            back into space has been well understood for almost a century.

            Of course, all science is subject to revision, but to date there is no
            evidence to suggest the science is wrong. There is of course, plenty of
            political argument about what we should do (if anything) given the scenario
            the science is telling us, but that is not a question that can be answered
            by science.

            Kind regards,

            Ian Allen
            For ABC Science Online

            —–Original Message—–
            From: Geoffrey Sherrington [mailto:sherro1@optusnet.com.au]
            Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2013 4:27 PM
            To: The Lab
            Subject: Scientific misrepresentation alleged

            comments: Dr Paul Willis wrote about graphs here:
            http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/04/29/3740590.htm
            There is a graph in his article showing a version of global average
            temperatures and Mauna Loa CO2 concentration, 1880 to 2006. Dr Willis uses
            this to illustrate what he describes as a valid correlation. He is
            incorrect, since cause and effect are not known as to which precedes which
            in the real world and indeed there is no single, accepted publication that
            even makes a quantitative, reproducible equation with predictive ability
            between these 2 parameters.
            Dr Willis makes an unforgivable error, one which he should know about. If he
            does not know about it, then his credentials are inadequate to write the
            article in question. The error – global temperatures from 1997 to 2012
            inclusive do not correlate with CO2 concentrations as Dr Willis maintains to
            be the case before 2006. Indeed, temperature seems to be falling while CO2
            is rising at a measured record rate. There is some room for argument about
            which statistical levels of confidence should be used in making this last
            statement, but the picture tells the story, which is one of the points made
            by Dr Willis. See picture at end of this note.
            The problem of cherry picking of start and end dates in time series data is
            very well known, but nonetheless this very sin is committed by Dr Willis.
            I here make a formal request for a corrigendum to be published with
            prominence and placement equal to that of the original article.
            There are many references to this error. One follows.
            http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017744c78f72970d-pi

            100

            • #
              Heywood

              “Why do such graphs ignore temperature rises in the
              oceans?”

              Yes. A travesty that they don’t. If they ever find that missing heat I am sure it will be plotted on the graphs.

              10

            • #
              cohenite

              And there you have it; this abc fool regurgitates unthinkingly all the lies and mantras of AGW; for instance:

              Why do such graphs ignore temperature rises in the oceans?

              No doubt this fool has taken on board what Trenberth has written about in his latest paper.

              Trenberth is famous for admitting in the CRU emails that:

              The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

              The ‘missing heat’ refers to the fact that the estimates of energy by AGW theory predict more heat in the system than is being reflected in temperature. The most dominant explanation is that this energy/heat is being ‘stored’ at the bottom of the ocean. Trenberth couldn’t find it there before but in his new paper, after reanalysing the same data he can now find it.

              This is problematic. Accurate measurements of the heat in the ocean, OHC, only occurred after 2003. These measurements show that OHC to a depth of 700 meters is not increasing, or at least the unadjusted post 2003 ARGO data is not increasing as Tisdale shows in his comparison of the unadjusted, adjusted and model predictions of OHC post 2003.

              SST is also decreasing since 2003.

              The issue is, how can heat be accumulating at the bottom of the ocean from atmospheric warming when both the upper part of the ocean and the ocean surface are cooling?

              Roy Spencer has discussed this issue. Spencer describes what may be happening:

              Warming of the deep ocean originally caused by radiative forcing of the climate system cannot literally bypass the surface without some effect on temperature. But that effect might be to keep some cooling process from causing an even steeper dive in temperature.

              For Spencer the deep ocean appears to be warming because the top 700 meters of the ocean and surface is cooling. Heat isn’t being stored at the bottom of the ocean; the cooling hasn’t yet reached there.

              Trenberth says an increase in global wind speeds is sufficient to explain how atmospheric heat is transferred to the ocean bottom, by-passing the surface and the upper ocean.

              Are global winds increasing?

              The abc is a disgrace and this Allen fool is a fool.

              40

            • #
              Bite Back

              Geoff Sherrington,

              Ah-h-h-h-h-h, consensus. I understand completely.

              If you wonder why I chose the name I did it’s because Bite Back is in keeping with my intent when commenting. I fully intend to make strong and sometimes biting comments. For the reason, well, look no farther than John Cook. They need to hear our contempt for their position, their science, their little fantasies and their failure to ask important questions.

              BB

              10

        • #
          Backslider

          Well, that was hard to win… only one entrant.

          20

      • #
        Bulldust

        Wow it is scary when you start looking at the ‘projects’ funded by government… here’s how I went down the lucre rabbit hole this morning:

        First stop – where a lot of the Fed Gov ‘initiatives’ are listed
        http://australia.gov.au/topics/environment-and-natural-resources/climate-change

        Second stop: Googled “climate change grant australia”
        http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/about/grants.aspx

        Interestingly I don’t see John’s name on the list, but his University sure is:

        Third stop: Wow! That’s going to be $40k and change well spent:
        http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/about/grants/2013-04.aspx

        I wonder if this went to his mate, the very serious looking,
        Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg:
        http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=26021

        Meh too depressing tracing all the waste…

        60

        • #
          Backslider

          Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

          Researches ocean acidification…. something that does not exist.

          40

          • #
            Mattb

            lol again. or is this more of your deadpan comedy?

            09

            • #
              Heywood

              G’day Matt,

              From a previous thread..

              “methinks you do not understand the role of a local government councillor.”

              Sorry. I just found it hard to tell the difference between part time and half arsed. If you are anything like my council, it would be the latter.

              40

            • #
              Backslider

              Show me Mattb where in the World the ocean is acidic?

              30

              • #
                Mattb

                Ahh yes I forgot you are a fan of literal interpretations.

                Did you know I can warm something up from a “cold” temperature to a “warmer” “cold temperature” and it is still called warming up.

                If you are stuck on arguing that “acidification” is not a perfectly acceptable term for making something “less basic” just because it still ends up as a non-acid… well then you are a pedant.

                03

              • #
                Backslider

                The term “acidification” used in this context is clearly alarmist, inaccurate and inappropriate, as is your analogy.

                Think boy, think…. then go look up the word in a dictionary.

                10

              • #
                Mattb

                alarmist: nope
                inaccurate: nope
                inappropriate: nope
                as is your analogy: nope

                00

              • #
                Backslider

                Ahhh… another warmist denier.

                Alarmist: Yes. There is no such thing as an acidic ocean

                Inaccurate: Yes. To “acidify” means “to make acidic”. There is no such thing as an acidic ocean

                Inappropriate: Yes. See above

                Bad analogy: Yes. To warm something is to make it warmer, yes, even though it may still be (relatively) cold it has been “warmed”.

                To acidify something is to make it acidic. If it is not acidic, then it has not been acidified. You cannot acidify something without making it “more acidic”. Since the ocean is never acidic, the analogy simply does not fit, nor does the term “acidification”. It is alarmist bunk designed to inspire horror that our oceans are turning into acid pools.

                10

  • #
    Stacey

    There is a consensus that cook has the morals of a floating t**d.
    That’s the way the cookies crumble?

    130

  • #
    Dennis

    Dear John, Juliar says that you are not getting a bonus and need to borrow money to maintain your family lifestyle. She is wrong and has no clue as to how finance works or living within means. She is so fiscally challenged that she signed up to the collapsing EU emissions trading scheme, now almost extinct. Her economic vandalism is legend now, we are heading toward a new nation being created, Tastralia, an extreme Green land of failure. She and her Comrades have created debt that will take at least 4 decades to retire with interest. Meanwhile the retirement ageing burden is on the increase adding to budget problems. Vote extreme Green Union Labor and young people are at risk of financial future failure and related low economic prosperity prospects.

    We older people survived Whitlam Labor, and even the recession we had to have according to Labor, you young people will face far worse conditions, maybe the Coalition will help you.

    160

    • #
      Backslider

      We older people survived Whitlam Labor

      Now wasn’t that something? How soon people forget, or never actually learned just how awful this was… we still feel it to this day.

      120

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yeah – the pain of Whitlam! Free university. Medibank. Engaged with China. The emergence of an Australian film industry that was more than Skippy and Chips Rafferty.

        But don’t worry, we are slowly moving back to full fee paying universities. And if you need any health problem fixed before you die you’ll need private health cover. So its ok, we are heading back to the 1950′s.

        BTW, it is interesting to note that wealth inequality in Australia reached a minimum in the late 1960′s, and has been increasing since then. Maybe that is Gough’s fault too?

        121

        • #
          crakar24

          Jb,

          I take it you do not like Gillards new education policy then? I do not see the logic in claiming to improve our education system by defunding TAFE and UNi do you?

          Agreed Whitlam does get the blame for a lot of things unfortunately he was a bit before my time so i only have folklore to make an assessment.

          90

        • #

          Just two words John.

          Tirath Khemlani

          Tony.

          80

        • #
          manalive

          Yeah – the pain of Whitlam! Free university … The emergence of an Australian film industry …

          Menzies introduced the Commonwealth scholarship scheme in 1951, to cover fees and pay a generous means-tested allowance for bright students from lower socioeconomic groups … ( Wiki ).
          The scholarships were awarded based on matriculation scores.
          John Gorton, Prime Minister of Australia from 1968–1971, initiated several forms of government support for film and the arts … He also fostered an independent Australian film industry and increased government funding for the arts…. ( Wiki ).

          40

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            John,
            when I went to University (on a Commonwealth scholarship) there was concern that nearly two thirds of students came from private schools. I saw recently that there was concern that (for those educated in Australia) nearly 90% of new students were coming from private schools.

            How is that levelling opportunities?

            50

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Graeme,

              The level of discipline in State Schools is now so bad that poor kids who may once have flourished in state schools are now finding it hard to get a good education.

              Leveling of Opportunities is here with us now. Everyone is Equal in the State system and if you aspire you will be leveled soon enough.

              Everybody has aspirations for a life on Soc Sec so why bother.

              KK

              30

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Gough never personally had to worry about “Wealth Inequality”.

          20

        • #
          Backslider

          Dear John…. you are such a SNAG.

          00

  • #
    Dennis

    Former Howard government treasurer Peter Costello has warned that the $300 Billion plus hiddem off budget federal government debt will take more than 40 years to repay …. worry young people, be warned that your future is at risk, extreme Green Union Labor have created your worst nightmare scenario

    180

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      And they’ll conveniently try blaming it on Abbott for repealing the Carbon Tax.

      90

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      your worst nightmare scenario

      :P Oh really? [youtube]

      10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      We know that some of that money went to the UN and some went to the “mates” building much needed futuristic infrastructure like School sun shades and Desalination plants.

      If there were 1 million mates, that works out to be a wonderful windfall of say $30,000 each.

      Ain’t egalitarianism wonderful.

      KK

      40

  • #
    Joe V.

    Every time I see that attempt at humour on the cover of Cook’s “the books” alarmist’s Handbook, I am reminded that the ostrich would need to be something of a contortionist to get its head where Cook’s brand of science is at…. where the sun doesn’t shine.

    110

  • #
    Dennis

    Question: does that woman need help?

    10

  • #
    Jack Savage

    Too polite a response….

    20

  • #
    Chris Schoneveld

    Joanna, beautifully put!

    60

  • #

    Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-snailbats-halsays-scarems-lewpapers-and-dickpols/

    Pointman

    150

  • #
    Bob Cherba

    I participated in the survey and received a feedback email. The post-survey email I received purported to summarize my answers. But . . . the summary was completely wrong. It said I found all or nearly all of the abstracts neutral or questioning climate change when I found exactly opposite.

    I emailed J. Cook with the information and he responded saying that I had misinterpreted the survey categories. I don’t think so.

    170

    • #
      Joe V.

      Not much of a survey if the categories are so open to being misrepresented. Oops, did I misspell that?

      70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Bob Cherba,

      Welcome to the world of John Cook. Never believe he is anything but dishonest. :-)

      101

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Bob Cherba,
      Then why not mail him to say he misrepresented your response to his survey? Then ask him for a public correction?

      50

  • #

    [...] Dear John [Cook], you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh? (JoNova) Rate this:Share this:Google +1TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:Like Loading… This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged Psychological Science, Skeptical Science, Skepticism, Stephan Lewandowsky. Bookmark the permalink. ← Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions [...]

    21

  • #
    john robertson

    Thanks Jo, you nail the shyster nicely.
    I am wondering if Cook’s intent is attention, any attention, I suspect given the foulness of his aptly acronnimed site, SS, that traffic there is limited.
    Would a before and after shot of traffic there, reveal any patterns of interest?
    After all with govt funding under threat, it is hard to justify funding for a site visited only by its operators, even to university admin.

    80

  • #
    Jaymez

    Until the methodology issues which were highlighted by Jo in her series of detailed posts listed below are addressed; and they haven’t been to date, why would anyone consider participating in more of surveys of a similar ilk?

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

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

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

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

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

    100

  • #
    gregjxn

    We just don’t have folks in the US that can do polemics like that. What fun!

    40

  • #

    He is a cunning little C(r)ook John is. He’ll somehow contort this to his advantage.
    We’ll wait and see.

    100

  • #
    Snotrocket

    Oh boy!! What a beautiful post! That was English language in full flow – and used to a good purpose. It’s a post that makes me feel there is a [name your deity] in [name your paradise]. Well said! Let nothing more be…

    150

  • #
    Bite Back

    Joanne, stomp the bunch of them into the ground!

    What a useless bunch of fools they have become.

    70

  • #
    Phil Ford

    Jo, as you have so eloquently shown us, the only effective way to deal with common purpose climate trolls is to troll them right back, with a sunny smile and good manners.

    Well done. This is why I happily contributed to your new PC. Keep it up!

    130

    • #
      Jon

      If you expose Norwegian trolls to sunlight they either explode or turn into stone? So I think exposing them could be fruitful?

      40

  • #
    Ace

    Very well written Jo. I would just disagree with one thing. One thing which I must say I disagree with very strongly. So strongly I must protest the point: you cannot accurately call a spineless, lying [snip] a “man”.

    80

    • #
      Ace

      [snip - Jo]

      30

    • #
      Peter Champness

      [snip about snipped]

      20

    • #
      Ace

      ~Aw come on…snipping stufff makes it look like I used a term of abuse.

      I didnt…did I!

      A bag of lard is a grocery item.

      11

      • #
        Ace

        …and the same is true of a sack of lard.

        11

        • #
          Ace

          …How exactly is referring to someones wanton obesity less legitimate than saying they are spineless and cowardly…or untrustworthy come to that?

          20

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            Obesity may not be indicative of character.
            Then again, can poor character have a medical cause?

            00

            • #
              Ace

              Weight may not necessarily be a reflection of character but it can be. Gluttony and sloth are character defects with manifest effects upon weight.

              Reductively speaking, all character traits can always be reduced to something either hereditary or environmental of which we have no control. All our actions, perceptions, experiences, sensations andopinions can ultimately be attributed to external factors. “Character” is therefore an illusion but so is “identity”. None of “us” really “exist”, we are just emergent properties of coincident events and no more substantive than an optical illusion. Unless of course you do believe in a metaphysical dimension.

              On the other hand Existentialists may not believe in the metaphysical but do believe we are the sum of our actions. Kind of amounts to the same thing in a way? Except they think everyone always has free will. So no blaming those external factors.Whereas Christians believe we are all inherently sinners. Which actually sounds more like the inevitability of hereditary and environmental factors. Odd that, Christian belief sound more in keeping with a scientific view of character than that Existentialist version held by atheists.

              This also, I suppose, underpins Christian forgiving. Because hereditary and environmental factors dictating bad character amounts to original sin and that “they know not what they do”.

              We could rabbit over this til the cows came home. But as Msr Sartres housekeeper said to the phone caller who asked if he was free: “Hes been thinking about that for a few years”.

              Perhaps its wrong of me to express contempt of a guy because hes a loathsome lying slug. I should be forgiving of his actions on the assumption that he is a victim too. I am a beginner at forgiving. I have to develop it.

              But that will never justify his actions.

              10

  • #
    Joe V.

    Another dose of climate realisation for digesting with their Sunday Lunch. David Rose puts the boot in after the ruling Conservatives took a beating on Thursday’s UK local elections.
    The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

    30

  • #
    pat

    5 May: UK Telegraph: Simon Johnson: Scottish wind farms paid £1 million to shut down one day
    Wind farm companies operating in Scotland were paid more than £1 million to shut down their turbines for a single day last month, it has emerged
    The money, which ultimately comes from electricity consumers’ bills, was given to wind farm companies to compensate them for not producing power during periods of high generation and low demand…
    Murdo Fraser, a Conservative MSP and a prominent wind farm critic, said: “People struggling with rising electricity bills and growing levels of fuel poverty will be astonished to learn that millions are being paid to companies for power which isn’t even being used…
    According to the REF figures, enough wind-generated electricity to power 10,000 homes was “dumped” by the National Grid last month. A total of £3.6 million of constraint payments were made to wind farm companies in April, the highest monthly total since September 2011.
    EDF charged between £89 to £149 for every megawatt hour (MWh) of energy that was not produced, compared to £50 per MWh the company would have received for selling it…
    A spokesman for the National Grid said the payments spiked while maintenance was carried out…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10038598/Scottish-wind-farms-paid-1-million-to-shut-down-one-day.html

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      That makes as much sense as paying farmers to not grow crops. And we’ve been doing that for decades. Go figure.

      How can they not understand that this will eventually collapse?

      30

  • #
    Simon Hopkinson

    Quite right, Jo.

    I’m a little concerned that some sceptical blogs are presuming to have the measure of what Cook is up to this time, when doesn’t seem clear at all. My view aligns with yours, that knowing what we DO know of Cook – an abundance of indisputable evidence of data misrepresentation and statistical abuse – the ONLY way to proceed is to DENY (fnarr!) Cook ANY of the data he seeks, by actually not GENERATING it. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he simply cannot be trusted with it.

    80

    • #
      Joe V.

      But it’s effical. The rubric at the bottom of the survey says so.

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        But it’s effical [sic, did you mean ethical?]. The rubric at the bottom of the survey says so.

        Yeah! And I’m the Pope.

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Nah, it effical, cos Joe speaks english like wot the Queen duz.

          70

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Sorry then. I guess I need the Australian version of the text reader so the accent will be correct. ;-)

            00

    • #
      john robertson

      Not to worry, based on past behaviour, John Baby is gonna make up data to suit.
      The answers were writ before his deceitful approach to these successful,honest & sceptical sites.
      So answer, don’t answer its all the same when JC’s credibility is involved.

      60

  • #

    It looks as if I’m going to have to work harder. I didn’t get an e-mail.
    Still, if I do I’ll pop in here and paste Jo’s response in my reply.

    It’s not copyright material is it Jo?

    70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    But if you can fix all that, then send me an email.

    Can he fix even a small part of it? ;-)

    40

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    A brilliant response Jo. My sort of response would have involved only two words and a hyphen…..but then again, it might not have been printed

    50

  • #
    ianl8888

    With Lewanclownsky and Cook-the-data, only one response is intelligent:

    complete silence

    Do NOT feed the trolls

    21

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    And how typical is it that he uses a false anaology on the cover of his book of falsehoods.

    Ok sorry its Wiki, but its pretty widely accepted that ostriches do not in fact bury their heads in the sand

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich

    Its like a guy I argue with pretty regularly sent me a link to the site on “logical falicies” and diected me to the “false causes” one. Which states that climate change is caused by lack of pirates, because climate wasnt changing when there were more pirates in the world. It was soooo typical because like so many of these groupthinkers, he had utterly failed to think through his own logic. As I pointed out there are provabley more pirates in the world today than at any other time in history and if you include the notion of online piracy, then most of us are pirates at one time or another. So basically… think again genius…

    Finally you have to love the bare faced hipocrisy of calling sceptics “funded by oil” etc when all of these parasites are publishing and selling books on their own garbage withe sole purpose of making money from their flocks.

    50

    • #
      Gbees

      SG66.

      I guess you heard about the AGW believer who reckons the Japanese earthquake which initiated the tsunami was caused by global warming?

      He said global warming caused an iceberg to break loose from Greenland and it bumped into a continent thus causing the earthquake.

      That’s some of the mentality we are dealing with.

      50

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      ’66, You are correct – Ostriches do not do as the cover shows. I was surprised also to see that cover. Here is a site if you wish in the future to have something better than the Wiki site:

      http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3303/do-ostriches-bury-their-heads-in-the-sand

      Perhaps information from National Geographic, San Diego Zoo, and ABC Science can be believed. It appears John Cook is not to be believed about anything.

      40

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Jo, completely off topic, but I trust that you will like this -

    phitw123
    … but it should be pointed out that Stephan Lewandowsky is an anagram of “What Lysenko Spawned”

    70

  • #
    crakar24

    Has this been mentioned?

    Why dont we fill out his survey but answer each question posed in an opposite way, this way he gets his precious information but the information is useless for its intended purpose.

    I am just glad my son does not attend the same Uni and is far removed from this sub standard level of acedamia.

    31

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Its just opportunism. If the topic of the day was alien abductions, people like John Cook would have a book out on it somehow claiming to be the only person with the right ideas. An exhibitionist and parasitic personality, desperately seeking a topic.

      50

      • #
        Ace

        ~Ha~Ha
        ~Alien abduction~!
        John Mack makes even Lewandowsky look scientific by comparison!

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Why did you have to mention alien abduction? Are you TRYING to attract Lew’d behaviour here?

        00

  • #
    pat

    has anyone looked at this?

    5 May: ScienceDaily: Brighter Clouds, Cooler Climate? Organic Vapors Affect Clouds, Leading to Previously Unidentified Climate Cooling
    University of Manchester scientists, writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, have shown that natural emissions and humanmade pollutants can both have an unexpected cooling effect on Earth’s climate by making clouds brighter…
    “We discovered that organic compounds such as those formed from forest emissions or from vehicle exhaust, affect the number of droplets in a cloud and hence its brightness, so affecting climate,” said study author Professor Gordon McFiggans, from the University of Manchester’s School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences…
    “More cloud droplets lead to brighter cloud when viewed from above, reflecting more incoming sunlight. We did some calculations of the effects on climate and found that the cooling effect on global climate of the increase in cloud seed effectiveness is at least as great as the previously found entire uncertainty in the effect of pollution on clouds.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130505145839.htm

    20

    • #
      crakar24

      “We discovered that organic compounds such as those formed from forest emissions or from vehicle exhaust, affect the number of droplets in a cloud and hence its brightness, so affecting climate,”

      We need a new tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      51

  • #
    Jon

    What political parties are funding this new low on science and democracy? And don’t vote on these political parties next time?

    30

  • #
    John Brookes

    I don’t quite know why a survey is needed. You can collect data directly from the blogs. Say we take a random comment from this post:

    This tendancy to polarise people is strongest in the field of politics. I find it endlessly amusing how the two dominant political parties try to posture and position themselves as far apart ideologically when, in fact, they are not all that different. The Greens are the outliers as they try to convince the populace that we must atone and self-flagellate for crimes against Gaia.

    It is somewhat lonely in the middleground for those speaking rationally as bloggers tend to race to the extremes trying to outdo each other for the perceived cause.

    Now I read this and it makes sense. It shows no sign of conspiracy theory. It could have appeared in any blog. So this comment does not support the case that readers of “skeptic” blogs are raving nutters.

    Just analyse enough randomly comments from all different sorts of blogs, and see what conclusions you can make.

    111

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And how do you ensure consistency in your analysis and demonstrate that you have removed all of your personal bias?

      How do you ensure that your analysis is repeatable by other people, in other places, at another time?

      Analysing prose, to extract the underlying intent of the writer, is one of the hardest things to do, if you want to produce something that is totally impartial.

      However, if you are looking to prove a point that reinforces your opinion, then that is another matter entirely.

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I guess if you come from a camp that sincerely believes weight of agreement on a position equals that position being true, then your suggestion makes sense.

      00

    • #
      Ace

      Never mind John Mack………….John Brookes makes even Lewandowsky look scientific by comparison!

      Still about as scientific as John Mack though.

      00

      • #
        Ace

        ~John Mack…haha……………….if we are supposed to believe CAGW cos some “Climate Scientist” says so…then “Climate Scientists” should all believe mental illness is widely caused by alien abduction…because John Mack says so, and hes a senior professor of psychiatry!

        The uktimate answer to the ridiculous notion of “scientific authority”.

        By extension, Lewandowsky should for consistancy with his own dogma that those who dont bow down to “scientific authority” are nutters, either conclude “deniers” have all been abducted by aliens or concede himself to be one of they “deniers”!

        See that..see what Ive done…its circular, he cant get out of it!

        10

  • #
    dp

    It is almost criminal that this guy – wait, it is criminal that this guy is trying to recreate “The People of Walmart” in climate science. TPW is a very insulting attempt to present a false notion that a large shopping chain is hopelessly associated with the 10th percentile of developed brains in the US. What elites might call the bottom feeders of society. It is in fact nothing but a strong and damning example of cherry picking and the results are as worthless as is the intent and premise behind it. Lewy and Cook are quite a pair. One can only hope their brains end up in an apothecary jar so people can study the physics of flawed thought for years to come. I can imagine a Crook-Lewandowsky disease being named for compulsive abuse and disregard of scientific processes. Mad Cow is taken.

    70

  • #

    Jo? That was a pleasure to read. Beautiful! :) :) :)

    20

  • #
    gai

    I figure this is a WIN-WIN for Cook.

    If skeptics take the survey he skews the data to say what he wants it to say.

    If we tell him to take his marbles and go home we don’t want to play, we have provided “Proof” that Lewandowsky did send his original survey to skeptics and we ignored it on purpose.

    I am sure this is why he came up with the survey because at this point, with Lewandowsky’s Bafflegab a hot topic, you are not going to get decent results no matter how the survey is worded.

    The Hawthorne Effect is a well-documented phenomenon that affects many research experiments in social sciences.

    It is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied. This is one of the hardest inbuilt biases to eliminate or factor into the design…

    Many types of research use human research subjects, and the Hawthorne effect is an unavoidable bias that the researcher must try to take into account when they analyze the results.

    Subjects are always liable to modify behavior when they are aware that they are part of an experiment, and this is extremely difficult to quantify. All that a researcher can do is attempt to factor the effect into the research design, a tough proposition, and one that makes social research a matter of experience and judgment…..

    10

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      If we tell him to take his marbles and go home we don’t want to play, we have provided “Proof” that Lewandowsky did send his original survey to skeptics and we ignored it on purpose.

      No, they would have ignored or declined the surveyor, perhaps because he’s got form.
      That’s the only honest response if you have no confidence in the survey, don’t participate.

      Anyway, he’s not surveying you, he’s asking you to survey the papers for him.
      It rings to me as another exercise in self affirmation such as that woman, what’s her name polemicist thingy tried a few years ago.

      Thinking you can skew the results is futile as he holds all the aces. All you can productively do is starve him of the input, that you believe he’s going to misrepresent.

      His participation in Lewandowsky justifies such a stance.
      Don’t feel compelled to participate, he’s just playing on another human trait.

      20

  • #
    gai

    Steven Mosher, a Warmist, has a comment over at the blackboard that is interesting:

    (Comment #112361)
    May 3rd, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    “Gary (Comment #112335)
    May 3rd, 2013 at 8:15 am
    So, this actually is an exercise to measure bias in published climate science research. Very clever, even if not the intent.”

    No. It looks like the scientists have already rated the papers. The test will be how well various readers can match what scientists think.

    If the abstract says “Global warming may cause warts”

    is this neutral to the cause of global warming or does it implicitly attribute warming to man.

    basically it will show that sceptics cant even read abstracts without seeing demons

    So that is the real reason for the survey. Talk about a heavy built in bias! Only the answers that promote CAGW are correct so as expected it is more fuel for the medicalization of dissent. Anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy can be sidelined as igmoramuses or just plain crazy.

    40

    • #

      I somewhat agree. My belief is the goal is to find a way to write the abstracts so even skeptics will be talked into believing them and to increase the probability that believers will find further justification for their beliefs. It’s a marketing survey–how do we sell AGW to people using the abstracts as a further way to bolster the arguments and support the “authority” argument.

      00

  • #

    Lucia of the Blackboard is using some strong language after corresponding with John Cook on his survey. Lucia says

    I tried. I tried to be generous. I tried to find some technical issue for why John Cook’s latest survey would not produce a random sample of the 12,000+ papers in his database. I tried to find some innocent programming mistake we could all understand.

    John Cook

    I use an SQL query to randomly select 10 abstracts. I restricted the search to only papers that have received a “self-rating” from the author of the paper (a survey we ran in 2012) and also to make the survey a little easier to stomach for the participant, I restricted the search to abstracts under 1000 characters. Some of the abstracts are mind-boggingly long (which seems to defeat the purpose of having a short summary abstract but I digress)

    Lucia

    In other words, when John Cook e-mailed people claiming to invite readers “to peruse the abstracts of” “around 12,000 papers,” it wasn’t true. When he posted on Skeptical Science saying people are “invited to rate the abstracts of” “over 12,000 papers listed in the ‘Web of Science,’” it wasn’t true. And when the survey says:

    You will be shown the title and abstracts (summary) for 10 randomly selected scientific papers, obtained from a search of the ISI ‘Web Of Science’ database for papers matching the topic ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ between 1991 to 2011.

    It isn’t true. In fact, it seems John Cook lied every time he’s told people what the survey is. Only, he doesn’t seem to believe he’s lying.

    30

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      .

      I restricted the search to only papers that have received a “self-rating” from the author of the paper (a survey we ran in 2012)

      If he’s already got a rating from the author’s. So what’s the point in asking skeptics to rate the same papers again ? The weasel is clearly up to something. A new rating system , based on deviations from the author’s own ratings perhaps ? Wonder what that could be measuring. Time will tell.

      00

      • #
        Lars P.

        “wonder what could be measuring”

        Justin put a post at WUWT:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/john-cooks-new-survey-lots-of-questions-no-answers/#comment-1296865

        “Cook et al. (2013) reviewed nearly 12000 climate abstracts and received 1200 self-ratings from the authors of climate science publications.Using both methodologies, they found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate science literature that humans are causing global warming. There appears to be a gap in the understanding of the climate between experts and the lay public, and a common denominator between all the examples reported here and in the supporting material is that they all represent a contribution towards the agnotology associated with the climate change issue.”

        “I expect Cook to draw a comparison between the survey from scientists with the survey contrasting AGW believers with skeptics to be able to apply the denier label to skeptics.”

        I think he is right what Cook is about – conclusion already there. And I guess this is why he sent separate survey links to separate sites to make cross-comparison of the sites readers. Now knowing his record of honesty and his non-partisan position you can be sure the survey will be of same quality. Expect fulminating posts peppered with lots of gracious thank you for your participation.

        00

  • #
    Lars P.

    Thank you Jo! Somebody had to say it, loud and clear and it “happened” to be you.
    Nothing more, nothing less was needed, up to the point, clear and understandable.

    00

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    What exactly is the point of this survey?

    They already have 97% of scientists that agree that AGW is real.
    Every right-thinking person knows it’s true.

    What is this exersize all about?

    02

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Its a bit like the notion of mental delusion in general I think.

      If your delusion is that you are Napoleon, your probably going to need quite a bit of assistance from others to sure up that delusion in your own mind. If however you suffer a delusion affecting a large group, of which you are a part, any additional snippets of information supporting your delusion may not be required, but they would be welcome nonetheless.

      In this case I think its a little of both. The delusion is about as likely to be correct as if you thought you were Napoleon, but it is also a delusion shared by a lot of people. One of the main sources of mental security for these people is the notion they are “not alone”, lets face it almost all of them point to someone else when questioned in detail. They almost dive in to the logical fallicy traps of either “bandwagon”(97% of nutjobs beleive X) or “appeal to authority” (but 2000 climate scientists beleive X) when pressured for facts.

      I guess every little bit helps them feel better no matter how thin or flakey it might be.

      00

  • #
    Backslider

    OT, but fallacious.

    Tim Flannery’s assertion (without a scrap of evidence) that the Aboriginals killed off mega fauna has been debunked:


    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-change-killed-off-megafauna-study/story-e6frgcjx-1226636215851

    It was actually climate change, of all things :roll:

    10

  • #
    Skiphil

    This can use some serious ‘Fisking’ for those so inclined:

    (h/t Ruth Dixon at Bishop Hill)

    Scientific Amercan blog spouts Lewandowsky propaganda

    “…Unfortunately it’s not easy to disabuse people of a conspiracy mindset since as the article notes, presenting evidence to the contrary only makes them more convinced of the diabolical success of the supposed conspiracy. The one thing we can do is to at least point out to climate change denialists how their beliefs are in fact conspiratorial. Demonstrate the features that climate change conspiracies share with 9/11 denial and Pearl Harbor revisionism….”

    10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    I know I am late reading this, but I have to say – Ouch! A perfect reply, and done with a great deal of tact.

    30

  • #
    tckev

    That the problem with natural cycle deniers – their head is firmly wedged between their buttocks.

    10

  • #

    [cross-posted from WattsUpWithThat]

    The truly stupid (as in ironic) thing is man-made climate-apocalypse alarmists are the ones who believe the climate is meant to stay the same, more or less, for now anyway.

    However, those who doubt the AGW hypothesis believe that the climate can and does change, a lot, due to natural cycles. Most of us believe it is changing now, as we speak (to a cooling trend, based on the data that shows despite higher CO2, warming has paused, and also based on analyses of other forcing factors). Not only do we believe it changes, we believe we are unlikely to be able to stop it from changing.

    In fact, we find that idea bordering on absurd.

    And yet you geniuses came up with the term climate change deniers.

    Which is irrational on its face, and well-illustrates your thought processes.

    00

  • #

    AFTERTHOUGHT: The hockey-stick graph shenanigans, etc., were designed to make it seem as if climate doesn’t change much.

    It does.

    00