Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More Deben conflicts | Main | More bad news for greens »

More Lew

Interestinger and interestinger.

I noted yesterday that McIntyre had unearthed an invitation to take part in the Lewandowsky survey. However, there is much about the survey that still appears problematic. Firstly, the invitation was sent on 6 September 2010, but upholder blogs like Deltoid had received the link more than a week earlier on 28 August.

McIntyre received a reminder two weeks later. Just three days after that, Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results in public, which seems rather odd.

But there's more. In the comments at Lewandowsky's recent post on his "conspiracy theory" article, Steve McIntyre wonders why the survey he was told to complete was different to the one that was sent to Deltoid.

1) the link attached to the email to me HKMKNI_9a13984 was not the same as the link as at the Deltoid survey HKMKNF_991e2415

2) the number of questions noted up in comments at Deltoid was 40, while only 31 were reported in the article. In addition, the project description at UWA mentions questions concerning "life satisfaction" but these are not listed in the APpendix. What happened to them?

Another commenter notes the presence of another survey, number HKMKNG_ee191483, as well.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (123)

Leopard, thanks for that link. I had posted an item with link (re Lewandowsky) on the Retraction Watch page for one of the editors, Ivan Oransky, but hadn't looked to see whether they had already covered the Sanna paper. Nice to see they were all over it. Hope they take up the issue of withdrawal or retraction for Lewandowsky now!

Given that RetractionWatch has seen a lot of problems in psychology journals, one hopes that RW will pursue this one closely. Lewandowsky is an ideologue and will not want to act, but pressure may become hard to resist.

Geoff, I assume that Lewandowsky will dig in deep for as long as he can, but the pressure may mount. This seems like an exceptionally awful paper with risible methodology and lack of rigor, so it will be interesting to see if he can continue to do a Michael Mann and pretend there are no problems.

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Sep 6, 2012 at 4:20 AM | Richard Drake

Yeah that DeSmog passage is an archetype of the alarmist response:

Because rather fittingly, no sooner had Lewandowsky's paper begun to make headlines than the world's loose, nimble and definitely-not-conspiring network of climate skeptic blogs began to construct their own conspiracies about Lewandowsky's research.

The idea that anyone criticising a paper claiming conspiracy ideation are themselves quite clearly guilty of conspiracy ideation is appearing like a rash all over the moron-o-sphere ;)

You can see why, it is so neat and easy to do.

See SKS and even Lewandowsky himself. Apparently it is “ironic” that anyone could criticise the paper. As I said before this is a new meaning of the word ironic to me.

This is one of those moments where I wish had the patience and some writing skills because from following this saga quite closely I can see there is quite a simple non-conspiratorial and quite damning story that could be written up.

My brief summary:

L writes a story in May 2010 that associates climate “skeptics” with a raft of conspiracy theories by mere innuendo but surprisingly at the time can cite not a single academic item of literature to explicitly associate the mind-sets. This gets a satisfying near 900 comment response on the Oz ABC site.

A couple of months later - for some reason - he decides to start a study to provide proof of this hypothesis in the academic literature, which he must have felt sure could easily be done.

He asks his mates, whom he has primed with articles and correspondence, and who explicitly hat tip their readers, to participate.

He later asks some “skeptics” to also contribute - waits 5 minutes - and then decides they are so anti-science they haven’t responded* and then goes ahead and puts up a slide show showing this new proof.

Nobody notices or asks to see his raw data but are however suitably impressed with his “latent variable modelling” and accept the “Skeptics=Loonies” premise.

The survey finally appeared a couple of months ago and gets a headline in the usual places and garners a flurry of chatter but most people are inured to this background hum of shonkiness and we soon forget – it’s just another example of political academia masquerading as science.

However, the fact it had a second bite in the Telegraph is a key point - when some Oz stringer, who was at a loss what to write, but on hearing of Neil Armstrong’s death quickly remembered the crazy climate skeptics= Moon-landing deniers piece doing the rounds a while back, and sends that off to the Torygraph and goes back to chilling out on the beach ;).

Someone actually asks to see the raw data.

And the rest is history

As DocBud said above
"an embarrassment to social science" I didn't know such a thing was possible.

*Note: this “fact” of the skeptic rebuff gets a loving mention in the subsequent paper

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:29 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

headed slightly OT but relevant to thinking about need for retractions of bad articles, etc:

I realize the specific issues vary a lot, but this may be a good time for many of us to push for relevant climatology journals to re-assess their standards and handling of issues with Mann, paleoclimate, etc. This guy Simonsohn (link below) has made quite a splash getting various psychology papers withdrawn over bad data and analysis. The journals "Nature" and "Psychological Science" have recently noticed problems with some psychology papers:

The data detective: Uri Simonsohn explains how he uncovered wrongdoing in psychology research.

It is long past time for journal editors and climatologists to recognize what Steve McIntyre and others have been showing about problems with various climate articles, proxies, etc.

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM | geoffchambers

Don't expect the retraction to come from the author. Desmogblog, in the article linked by Leopard above, has spoken to Lewandowsky. He talks about: "His paper, to be published in the journal Psychological Science.." So it's presumably passed peer review and been accepted.

I don't know if you are being mischievous there, but that DeSmog guy is clearly an idiot who has been following the story at the shallowest level that fits his required mindset. He heard the paper was appearing and no stinking "denier" can say otherwise. The world can't be any other way to him ;)

My sober mind thinks the paper certainly can't appear with the same title, and if, as some believers think, that its remaining "big result" of the free-market = climate sceptic remains the face saving result , then that would suit me fine as a laughable compromise :)

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Neat summary, Leopard.

I tried to point out at SkS that chucking around the "conspiracy" word was nonsense in the context of climate since conspiracies are, by definition, covert whereas the whole green trainwreck has been embarrassingly & brazenly public.

Sadly they've gone into "conspiracy hysteria" over there, with a sort of sanctioned "sock puppetry" where the duty mod decimates or deletes critical posts for alleged infringement of the (ever changing) rules - and then cheerleads the rabble in repetitive chanting of "look another conspiracy theorist!".

It's a bit like when, as a tourist, you're allowed to watch some primitive tribal ritual - but warned not to make your presence known.

Meanwhile, I've been (fairly) politely reminding Adam Corner on Twitter that, as the professional academic who brought the Lewandowsky magnum opus to the wider world - he should state his position on the controversy by answering my question on his Talking Climate blog.

Apparently the intensive work load at the "climate psychology" coal face doesn't allow time for such trivia.

He seems to be getting a bit tetchy though:-

Maybe Geoff could employ his legendary charm & tact to get an answer out of him.

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

September 's must be out soon?

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods


This is one of those moments where I wish had the patience and some writing skills because from following this saga quite closely I can see there is quite a simple non-conspiratorial and quite damning story that could be written up.
Well you have and you just did.
Sorry to have been so naive as to take desmog at face value. I always start off by believing what people say. It's a very bad survival strategy, but it forces me to listen carefully.
I think the SkS thread is great fun. I haven't heard from Adam for a while. Time I did some grovelling.

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM | geoffchambers

Heh, I think it's quite possible I'm the one being naive here, but if Psychological Science plough ahead with this paper with no changes then I'll be a happy naive bunny ;)

It's just that in an article with a lot of active quotes I took the noticeably detached statement "His paper, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, is titled..." to be just a re-iteration of the official line.

I always believe what people "say" but I have a tendency to question what they could know ;)

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

60# bluebottle seems upset..

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Barry Woods

yeah there are a couple of funny people there :)

I like this demand that Steve Mc should answer:

4) Is there an attempt by certain interest groups and individuals to try and undermine the credibility of scientists, or to try and undermine their results, or to fabricate and inflate doubt, or to intimidate and harass them?
5) If your answer to #4 is "yes", can you name any such groups and/or individuals?

No come on, that is ironic isn't it? ;)

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

It's a bit like when, as a tourist, you're allowed to watch some primitive tribal ritual - but warned not to make your presence known.

I was just passing through and I thought, "now, there is some food for me and me tribe". ;-)

Geoff Chambers:
I haven't heard from Adam for a while. Time I did some grovelling.

For that effort you too get a wink, comrade.

BTW, I asked Ed Yong to task thus:

"Dear Ed Yong,

I've followed with some interest your posts about cases of scientific fraud in Psychology, and I've been meaning to ask whether you also show the same interest in cases or alleged cases of misconduct in other scientific disciplines, Climate Science, for example.

Well, Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist from University of Western Australia, has a paper to be published soon in which he finds ... well, not very nice things about climate skep..., oops, deniers.

What's worse is that his data and methodology seems to be worse than any of the cases of misconduct by psychologists that you've talked about in the past.

I wonder what you think about all this and whether you'd be kind enough to ask Uri Simonsohn about his opinion too.

I also left a comment on this Bishop Hill thread (Sep 4, 2:08 AM) talking about your interest in cases like Lewandowsky's, but I also speculated that because you and Lewandowsky are on the same page with regard to global warming 'deniers', you might not be too keen to look into the alleged case of outright fraud by Lewandowsky.

What do you think?"

I was Mr Charm himself, yet not good enough for Yong's discriminating taste. The thread I posted the question on still says "No Comments".

Sep 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

A couple of videos of Lew got posted up at WUWT. Interesting watching...

It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Lewandowsky simply isn't very bright -- and is not far off what I would read as a satire. Who would be daft enough to fail to spot the obvious politicking in these complaints about politicking? Lewandowsky either massively overstates his own faculties, or he underestimates the rest of the world's.

What's harder to understand is who he thinks he is speaking to.

I have felt slightly uncomfortable about the Lewandowsky-bashing that's been going on. But this video helped me draw the conclusion that it's all for the better. If it is to mean anything to be honoured with the title of professor, imposters like Lewandowsky, and the degradation of the institutions which elevate such mediocrity to such heights deserve all the scorn they get. Academics who wish to intervene in the debate, to use their elevated statuses to influence public and global policy, really ought to be able to offer much better arguments than this, and be able to withstand hostile criticism. Lewandowsky can't. And that is why he must belittle the public in general and sceptics in particular.

Sep 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile

We may all be mistaken in thinking the Lewandowsky paper is about us. The presentation he gave at Monash University, in which this research figured fleetingly, was largely about using psychological techniques to get people to “do the right thing” (what has become known as “nudging”).
There’s an article about it in today’s Guardian by Lord Krebs, a zoologist on the Climate Change Committee. I naively thought he was there to look after the interests of butterflies threatened by increasing heatwaves, but it’s more likely that the government is interested in his ideas on how to get us to do what it wants.
The Lewandowsky paper would have been a nice weapon in the nudger’s armory - “Don’t believe in climate change? You’re like one of those conspiracy theory nutters”.
It hasn’t worked, so now they’ll have to try something else - “Climate sceptics smell bad”?
I’ll have to ask Adam.

Barry’s really got Bluebottle in

Just curious? Oh Barry, you're being much, much too kind. When such widespread ridicule, sneering and baseless allegations of fraud and academic misconduct are being bandied about as freely as they are, I think "upset" is as polite as I can be about it...the roles played by some prominent sceptics/denialists/contrarians have been utterly shameful in my view. One saving grace of it has been to see the anatomy of a conspiracy being pieced together before our eyes. It is astounding.

Sep 6, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Geoff, Kreb's nasty article gives the lie to the claims that 'nudge' was ever about being nice:

Likewise, persuading us to leave our cars in the garage and take public transport, walk or get on our bikes requires a massive shove rather than a nudge.

The idea behind all this is a simple one, like Lewandowsky's: that you and I are too simple-minded to be able to make decision about which form of transport we choose, and thus need to be coerced.

That's why I'm not over the moon about the reshuffle, yet. The government hasn't distanced itself from 'nudge'. It needs a much bigger shove back.

Sep 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile

I really don’t care what his IQ is. Lewandowsky knows how to do stuff with statistics that I don’t, so I can’t play the intellectual superiority card. His paper is just shoddy, in every possible way.
The best demolition is by Tom Curtis at
particularly comment #108.
In reply to a SkS colleague who more or less accuses him of letting the side down, Curtis replies

My reputation at SkS has been built on reasoning in exactly this style, but with "skeptical" arguments and comments as the target. The only difference now is that my target is somebody closely associated with the defense of climate science. It appears, then, that my reputation with you has been built not on my analysis, but on my agreement with your opinion.
Tom Curtis’s comments have been snipped by the moderator. The SkS gang are turning on each other, and upon one of their own who dares to stand up for scientific standards. I think the boys from Bishop Hill can take some credit for this.
Your point about academic standards is being made strongly in comments at Joanne Nova’s,
because Australians are ashamed of him and what he says about their education system.
I have felt slightly uncomfortable about the Lewandowsky-bashing that's been going on.
OK, the reasoning hasn’t always been of the highest order, but there’s a feeling of moving in for the kill, and we can’t always play it like a Socratic dialogue. Goodness, we’ve been perfect gentlemen compared with some of the stuff at

Sep 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Sep 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM | Ben Pile

Oh boy thanks for those vid links. Any possible latent sympathy has easily been washed away from my mind.

I am really surprised at how badly he comes across there.

What a strange, disingenuous little man he is. No better than, well er, any other silly little conspiracy theorist.

I mean FFS, for instance, he quotes some anonymous commenter - not a named author or Exxon chairman - an anonymous commenter - and Lewandowsky concludes from this commenter in hushed tones:

"In other words they know what they are doing"

Good God! Oooh! watch out for "they".

Lewandowsky is so obviously projecting here now it is unreal.

Lewandowsky clearly has his nosed pressed up too close to the glass, trying to influence the brownian motion of the climate debate, that he gets nothing but pain from what he mistakenly sees as "they" taking away the shaping of the debate from him.

He's clearly the one living in an unreal fantasy world.

Sep 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Geoff, why not invite Tom Curtis for a private chat, I'll just it.
Irony of him being snipped for that insightful comment is high

"It appears, then, that my reputation with you has been built not on my analysis, but on my agreement with your opinion."

Sep 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The Lewandowsky paper is yet another example of a single group claiming a monopoly of the truth - and failing spectacularly. I recommend that people read to "The Debunking Handbook" available from to see what I mean. The conclusion I reach is that people will always doubt the truth if they are exposed to falsehoods as alternatives. All what Lewandowsky sees he is doing is protecting us from falsehoods.

Sep 6, 2012 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterManicBeancounter

I just watched Lew's videos - Jeeeeesus ( Sorry Richard)

He comes over like one of those dodgy evangelists with their own cable TV channels in the US.

"Surely the might of the Lord will smite the sinners!!" - unless they send ten bucks to the following address.

Has anybody said "Lewpapergate" yet?

Sep 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Lewpapergate... Lovely. I was looking for a nice title ;-)

Sep 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

just = host (in the above)

Sep 6, 2012 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry 4.38pm

Sep 6, 2012 at 5:34 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Lewandowsky himself seems quite pitiful, but I recognize that the story is important for a variety of reasons, not least for what it suggests about the squalid quality of "research" in at least some areas of academe. However, he strikes me as just another 4th rate academic trying to punch above his weight.

Still, the good efforts of others to examine and now un-mask this vapid academic poseur are much needed.

If anyone wants to see how clear his own "motivated" biased reasoning is toward such bad research, there are items on that "Shaping Tomorrow's World" website in which Lewandowsky displays shoddy reasoning, reckless misuse of data, and a moralistic certitude which should embarrass any real (social) "scientist" with genuine scientific aspirations:

Lewandowsky on Historical Responsibilities: Carbon Emissions in Context

Lewandowsky is a motivated academic activist for CAGW policies, not some independent objective analyst.

Sep 6, 2012 at 6:11 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

It would have been interesting to see the responses to a question such as "Fossil fuel companies fund dissemination of climate change misinformation." I wonder why that wasn't on the survey.

Sep 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Lewandowsky co-authored "The Debunking Handbook" with John Cook of "Skeptical Science" infamy..... i.e., Lewandowsky is no spectator to the climate wars he is an activist participant with his own highly biased agenda:

Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook are close allies and collaborators

Perfect guy to scientifically study "motivated reasoning" by his perceived enemies....

Sep 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Perfect guy to scientifically study "motivated reasoning" by his perceived enemies....
Sep 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM Skiphil

Yes - I remember warning Adam Corner, on his Talking Climate blog when he first promoted the Lewpaper, that Lewandowsky was an activist first and scientist a long way second.

I linked to his extraordinary defence of Gleick , where he said:-

Revealing to the public the active, vicious, and well-funded campaign of denial that seeks to delay action against climate change likely constitutes a classic public good.

I don't think anybody with serious academic aspirations came out so blatantly in defence of theft, fraud, libel and forgery.

Clearly Stephan thinks faking & lying for "the cause" is fine.

So he does.

Sep 6, 2012 at 7:56 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Lewandowsky has posted part 3.

I don't want to contaminate his ongoing experiment but I can't resist mentioning his coining of the word "versiongate" ;)

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

The Lewandowsky video linked by Ben was bad, but it led me to others by Marcus Brigstocke and Bill Maher. They frighten me more. As Ben said once, I’ve been out of the country too long. I’d no idea what we’re up against.

Sep 6, 2012 at 8:58 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Icarus, Icarus, not Daedelus; methinks Lewandowsky's wings are melting.

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Sorry Geoff - I think we just had another post collision at Lew's place.

He's really getting into his James Bond villain mode now isn't he - I can see him in his underground lair with his white pussy and Cookie mini-me - "So you thought you could outwit me Mr Chambers!"

Sep 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Daedalus was Icarus’s dad who made the wings, so I think we can let him off on that one

What in Gaia’s name is a Cookie mini-me? As for the white pussy, I don’t dare ask. As I said, I’ve been out of the country too long..)

Sep 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Sorry Geoff, I forgot for a moment that you exist on a higher cultural plane than we common folk.

It was a James bond villain reference.

I used a bit of artistic licence to conflate two of his evil paranoid enemies (one didn't seem enough somehow).

Sep 6, 2012 at 10:46 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Sep 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM | geoffchambers

Daedalus was Icarus’s dad who made the wings, so I think we can let him off on that one

However I'm pretty sure Lewanowsky was thinking of Icarus because he said "let's wait till it [versiongate speculation] gets a little closer to the sun."

However if you told L he got it wrong I think he could retort "No! I meant Daedelus because Daedelus was crushed by the loss of his son Icarus - just like you will be crushed by the loss of your theory!" Cue Dr Evil Muahaha! Muahaha!;)

Or he just sees himself as Icarus. Freudian slip?

Sep 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Geoff - I'm worried about Adam.

He's stopped rising to my twitterbaits - I think he might be pining.

I think you should reach out to him and bring him back into the circle.

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:09 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose


Sorry Geoff, I forgot for a moment that you exist on a higher cultural plane
You can be very hurtful sometimes. What have I ever done to deserve that?
I wrote to Adam a while ago but he is spurning me. I am redirecting my attention towards John Cook, who is most assiduous in his attentions. Are his intentions honourable? Time will tell..

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

guys - your calm, measured responses to the hysteria shown by the Catastrophists is exemplary. Please keep it up. Tyger, Bluebottle, Millicent and even Barry Bickmore are clearly running out of ammunition, as long as you keep the tone polite. They have even resorted to going to Rabett Run to try and pick up attack points from the retarded denizens of that place. John Mashey has been called in - and he knows a conspiracy theory when he can imagine one...but can anyone understand it from his horrible prose? It is all hilarious. Where is the conspiracy...can someone remind me?

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

David O's comments nis a gem - I mwonder how long it will last:

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

mmm blockquotes refuisng to work

/blockquote cite

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

David O at 08:13 AM on 7 September, 2012
Prof Lewandowsky,

I find your research very interesting. I was wondering, have you done any research on condescending, dogmatic professors with extreme bias that conduct 2nd rate surveys with predetermined conclusions who then play loosey-goosey with the facts and cat and mouse games with those that are only seeking an honest answer to many unanswered questions? Thx in advance.

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

and starngely, no one appears to defend the survey - instead someone refers to Poe's Law. It is all as Ben Pile says - these catastrophists are chilkdren, incapable of argument other than saying you are fat and pimply.

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Prof. Lewandowsky, you are evidently too ignorant and incompetent to know what a big word like "epistemology" means so look it up.

The only impoverished epistemology on display here has been your own.

The concerns about where the links were posted have to do with the evident failure to find a genuine, scientifically valid sample of "skeptics" to fill it out. Whether your assistant in fact incompetently failed to get "skeptic" sites to notice or host the survey is quite secondary to the facts that your sample is crap, your data is crap, and your "analysis" is incompetent. That is what you are trying to divert attention from with such whining.

What's at stake is not whether there is some "conspiracy" about this survey, but whether it is a competent, scientific, rigorous survey in design, method, administration, and analysis. The co-authors have yet to provide sound reasons to answer yes, and the gross flaws are obvious.

Lewandowsky, you are in defensive mode, speaking like a sniveling adolescent and not like a scientist.

Sep 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Keep it up guys, the level of maturity and rationality shown in your comments on Lews' blog compared with the defence team, is both enlightening and persuasive. We're all following the discussion, just don't want to get in the way.

Sep 7, 2012 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterHyperthermania

I am redirecting my attention towards John Cook, who is most assiduous in his attentions. Are his intentions honourable? Time will tell..

Sep 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM geoffchambers

Did he ever answer your question?

I almost asked his little friends at SkS - but was afraid my comment might be ruled in contravention of Blog Policy 7/9/2012/93a and mercilessly butchered.

It's a bit worrying that people there, with IQ's which must at least bordering three figures, have to be carefully protected against opinions from the outside world.

It's a bit like these terrible hostage situations where innocents are kept locked in dungeons for years by psychopaths.

Does Cook have any Austrian connections do you think?

Sep 7, 2012 at 12:19 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

included for control, purposes:

I find your research very interesting. I was wondering, have you done any research on professors with extreme bias that conduct surveys with predetermined conclusions who then play cat and mouse games with those that are only seeking an honest answer to many unanswered questions? Thx in advance.
Moderator Response: Part of this comment has been snipped due to violation of 'No profanity or inflammatory tone or ad hominem attacks' part of our Comments Policy. "

Sep 7, 2012 at 12:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Like many of the others here, I’ve been following events closely. Stirling work by the Leopard and the Foxy/Geoff double act has been superb. Full of good humour and wit as well as penetrative questioning. Well done to all three of you. I’ve even been to SkS for the first time in ages. How you guys can put up with the, frankly, ridiculously juvenile moderation there is beyond me. Whenever I click the link to go there I’m never quite sure whether I’ve actually gone to a blogsite, accidentally plonked myself at a desk in my local primary school or inadvertently stumbled into the local chapter of the Holy Order of Benedictine Monks. You’re better men than I am. At least the STW site seems to be allowing all comments, although I notice one or two have been snipped a little. That is a wicked little comment by David O :)

Geoff, re your little peccadillo with JC - Don’t go falling for his seductive charm and roguish good looks. You know you’re going to wake up in the morning feeling used. Keep your hand on your ha’penny.

Skip, I too noticed the SL/JC collaboration on “The Debunking Handbook”. When I saw it, it triggered a vague memory of them actually writing a paper together recently too, but I can’t remember the details and I haven’t had time to track it down. Perhaps if you get five minutes?

Sep 7, 2012 at 5:38 AM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs

Lew in his latest post:

"You know, it's like this: when a link isn't posted on a blog, then that blog could not have contributed data, however long one waits. But don't let me stop anyone staring at that shiny object, it's been approximately 666 + 45 days since Mr McIntyre ignored my email, and the cube root of 666+45 is, after all, 8.925307759554336."

Someone ought to check that calculation.

Sep 7, 2012 at 5:40 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx


What’s the Austrian equivalent of Cook? It wouldn’t be Koch would it? OMG!

Sep 7, 2012 at 5:53 AM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs

He has a new post up:

He's not doing himself any favours.

Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs

Two pages of self-congratulatory conspiracy theorising does a lot to support Prof Lewandowsky's paper.

Then again, his pages of *skeptic* baiting are doing a lot to rubbish it.

From an external observer, the nicest thing that can be said is that you are all as bad as each other.

Sep 7, 2012 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterDave

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>