Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
H/t to Foxgoose for coming up with Lewpapergate.
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
Excellent! Sid James would be proud, especially if you'd signed it WC Boggs... :-)
Funny. I lol'd. I like the ellipsis after question B the never ending sentence that is so rewarding ... ;)
Conspiracy theory: I project the theory that the word we are cruelly denied seeing the rest of, on the wavy absorbent stuff, is CBAB. Isn't it?
Josh....... how did you know thats how I answered questiona A ??????
That's superb Josh!
Got to fess up though somebody else did "Lewpaper" - I just added the "gate".
Cruel. How much further does he have to go in self-ridicule before we all start to feel sorry for him?Foxgoose says at the end of the last Lew roll
The more we see of Professor Lew - the more disturbing it gets.I'm sure there must be a known category in psychology for people whose idea of debate is to make self-glorifying rhetorical declarations, laced with veiled threats to their enemies and secret messages - followed by silence.That, together with his chillingly egomaniacal blog title "Shaping Tomorrow's World" - makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that he should be seeking help from some of his academic colleagues. Perhaps he could take a leaf out of Sigmund Freud's book and embark on a programme of self-analysis..
A smidgen of pooOn the fingers of LewWould be a further clueHis paper belongs in a loo
Lewpaper(gate) is really choice. As a left-side-of-ponder, i didn't get it on first read, Loo not being common usage here, but then ...
Might Bogpaper identify the sedimentation studies?
"There's none so blind as those who will not see!"
But Andrex are doing their best to show Lew Roll the way to go:-)
"Get your paws on me to help us train puppies into guide dogs"
Sep 8, 2012 geoffchambers
I think group therapy is called for
I think what you are witnessing is the product of group therapy
An image search for "Dana Nuccitelli" is interesting.
House remodelling anyone ?
I’ll say this for Stephan. He lets me say things about John Cook on his blog that I could never get away with at SkepticalScience.I sense that all is not well at the tree house. I hear the sound of rattles being thrown out of prams, and detect the odour of couche culottes being filled. (Cue for another Lew roll).
There must be great joy back at The American Sociological Review,
http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf and Sociological Focus, 41, 337-57 ,2008
to see Gordon Gauchat's prophetic thesis so stirringly fulfilled in the Bishop's pages.
Presumably they realise that if they delete some people, some people, have avenues to publicise, that they are deleting things and can make them look silly.
Or more hopefully, that blog is run by a bigger team of people that ate intellectually honest.I note that Lewandowsky has never responded/discussed in the comments. Too used to lecturing captive students perhaps? A sure way to develop poor debating skillsvin the face of serious questions.
To delete or not must be a dilemma, as seen in the comments, the regulars don't seem used to people coming back with strong arguments, little realisng that people probably did, but just hot deleted. Happened to me at EV, and elsewhere.
“passive conspiracism” consists of accusing others of accusing oneself of being a conspiracist.
There is also the - readily believing one's opponent of being involving in conspiracy which then eases the burden of one's own conspiracies.
EV = RC. Realclimate
I jut got my knuckles rapped at Supreme Leader Lewandowsky's blog for profanity - so I took a look at the comments policy.
It includes the immortal words -
For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted
One for the "you couldn't make it up" file I think.
Sep 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM Foxgoose
For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted
Are you sure it did not finish with "and will be saved inorder to influence thought patterns whilst writing subsequent papers?
Jeez, what's the world coming to if you can't use public money to slag off at climate sceptics without everyone getting all precious?
@ Barry Woods
U serious, bro?
Steve McIntyre is back, with a superb dissection of Lewandowsky's incompetent and mendacious blatherings:
Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam
I wondered how long it would take.
Btw, don't miss, in the same piece Steve M. openly throws down the gauntlet on the Peter Gleick affair, specifically accusing Gleick of the forgery of the ridiculous "strategy" memo.
Lewandowsky (and many of his peers) often act out of sheer emotion, so they go off and pull dumb stunts like these, without being able to comprehend that there might be adverse consequences.
Their self-awareness is so low that it is only when they have been condemned from all sides as shills and frauds that they try to back away under cover of insincere apologies and a smokescreen of irrelevancies.
This applies to Gleick at Heartland, the 10:10 people, and many others in a very sorry crew.
Sep 9, 2012 Skiphil
Yup just read though and noted:-
specifically accusing Gleick of the forgery of the ridiculous "strategy" memo.
"The Man" unravels the Lew roll, sheet by sheet!
Methinks there is more to come?
looks like Steve McIntyre re-published the Lewandowsky article to correct the posting date, so the link above broke.
WUWT has published the Lewandowsky test questions and invites you to take them
@Barry Woods Sep 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Barry, I think it’s more a case of them never having had so many comments on that site before. It’s overwhelmed the mods and they don’t know what to do. I’ve been reading some of their previous stuff and they never get more than 5 comments on any one post and none of those of the disagreeing sort. Reading some of those previous posts, they seem to be a pretty naïve little bunch who, until now, have had the luxury of living in their own little world. I think they all believed Cookie when he told them us deniers were a bunch of Neanderthals that communicated through a series of sounds based on the word “ug”. Never mind, I’m sure that within the next day or so, teams of SkS mods will be sent over with sharpened scissors in their holsters to restore peace and tranquility :)
Steve’s article has a couple of interesting scatter diagrams, and an attempt to distinguish between “normal” sceptics and “skydragons” and to estimate the number of each in the survey, and from that to derive an estimate of the number of false respondents. Nonetheless, I can’t help feeling that the whole thrust of his article is misguided. There’s simply no way of interpreting Lewandowsky’s data properly because of the lack of background information, the terrible questionnaire design, and the even worse survey technique. An outsider coming to this story via Climate Audit will see an unresolvable dispute between a professor who doesn’t know how many sceptics he’s interviewed and a mining engineer who doesn’t know how many of them are sky dragons. The real scandal of this paper is thus obscured.
Latimer, whilst I understand the reasons Anthony would want to do it, it’s a pointless exercise and a big mistake. Any result now is going to be just as gamed as the Lewpaper one. Worse than that, it’s just going to make us look silly and childish.
' it’s just going to make us look silly and childish'
Au contraire mon/ma brave. Publication of the original questions and the wider circulation that WUWT brings serves only to illustrate the intellectual inadequacies of Lewandowsky and his acolytes to a bigger and more critical audience.
I commented elsewhere that this survey was barely better than Lisa Simpson (age 8) could manage. But on reflection that was unkind to Lisa. It is, of course, barely better than Homer would do.
Nonetheless, I can’t help feeling that the whole thrust of his article is misguided. There’s simply no way of interpreting Lewandowsky’s data properly because of the lack of background information, the terrible questionnaire design, and the even worse survey technique.Sep 9, 2012 at 8:42 AM geoffchambers
Sep 9, 2012 at 8:42 AM geoffchambers
Getting involved in any detailed discussion of this ghastly paper, other than to expose its fundamental flaws, is simply turd polishing.
The paper isn't science and was never really intended to be science - it's simply one disturbed individual's attempt to legitimise his personal prejudices.
The most telling bit of Steve's piece was his link to Lew's May 2010 article, extract -
Why would anyone believe that Prince Phillip is running the world drug trade? Why do some people believe that NASA faked the moon landing? Why is the internet abuzz with claims that 9/11 was an "inside job" of the Bush administration?.........Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of modern life and some people clearly find their allure irresistible.........Likewise, climate "sceptics" obsessively yelp at the alleged frailties of the surface temperature record and accuse respectable scientific agencies of "fudging" data, oblivious to the fact that multiple independent analyses of the temperature record give rise to the exact same conclusion.
Lew had his conclusions decided before he started gathering the data - he even published them!
At least Mann, Hansen, Jones et al were smart enough to keep their mouths shut while they tortured their data to fit the result they needed.
I certainly hope you're right and I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
The survey is far worse than one Homer could devise. At least if he did it, free beer and doughnuts would come into the equation somewhere along the line.
Oh, and it's mon. Laurie is short for Laurence :)
The Mad Professor has just snipped my attempt to join in the knockabout humour he seems to favour.
Will I be excused if I repost it here unbutchered?
(restored text in italics)
Foxgoose at 07:34 AM on 9 September, 2012
Dear Professor L
It's a couple of days since your last piece of comedy gold and your acolytes are getting restive.
Like delphic supplicants, they're milling around the temple gate - desperate for your next pronouncement.
While we're all waiting, I thought it might take the edge of the suspense if we reviewed one of your greatest hits:-
After watching this again, I'm beginning to see some real future promise.
I think, after you've finished your world-shaping and finally put the last of the deniers to the sword - you might be a natural for the post of Supreme Planetary Leader.
You've got the unwavering, slightly creepy stare and the monotonous voice with the barely concealed hint of menace - you've also got the 1950's Politburo dress code down to a tee.
Your could even have a catchy slogan better than Orwell's:-
"Uncle Lew - is watching YOU"
Moderator Response: Part of this comment has been snipped due to violation of the 'No ad hominem' part of our Comments Policy.
Brilliant. Inspired thinking once again ably illustrated by the inimmitable Josh.
Should the paper have UWA embossed on it, for anyone who might need help thinking what to use it for ?
Lew's toy survey has now been awarded a thoughtful McIntyre piece AND a skewering from Josh ... either one being far more that it deserves.
So, job done. Time now perhaps to let this seedy issue ooze back into the obscurity it so richly deserves.
Let's not be harsh on these folks. It's just arrested development. About sophomore. In case you missed it:
One side effect not noted in the article is the simple fact that sophomores are, well, sophomores and do sophomoric idiotic things as their brains adjust to reality. Toss in the choom and bong club and you've just created the Greenies, Greenie Scientist and the Mad Global Warmer-- all of which are easy prey to the Left politicians. It's as if they believe Animal House is rea.
Poor chaps indeed.
I don't understand the point of the WUWT "replication" exercise. Publicising the questions is one thing but claiming to be running the study again is just dumb. Oh well, it just helps as another confirmation that sceptics don't operate together with a coordinated slick PR machine ;)
Nice post sir! I watched your favourite video of him but disagree with your positioning of him as Supreme Planetary Leader. I see him more as auditioning as a story teller on Playschool. I think there is every chance that he would have been thrown through the arched window.
This hasn't slowed Lew down - his latest missive - A Cabal of Bankers and Sister Souljah
They are now retrospectibey snipping comments, where I merely quoted Tom Curtis (from Skeptical Science) concerns about the paper..
I added this comment(lets see how long it lasts):http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=56&&n=160#comments
57# on another article I quoted Tom Curtis from the Sceptical Science blog..http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc1.html#comments
yet now find the quotes removed, because I have 'copied and pasted comments against blog policy. YET they were fine for the last several days (a new policy, to spare blushes/criticism perhaps?)
So it would now seem impossible to quote anybody.. this seems to be censorship of emabarrasing questions.
May I ask how it is possible to QUOTE anybody accurately, if you have this policy, please reinstate my 'quotes'.
Those who are following the Lewpaper debate may be interested to know that Adam Corner has now posted a response to the questions I raised, on his Talking Climate blog.
Basically, everything is the fault of the Guardian or Prof Lew - nothing to do with Adam.
New theoretical concept in psychological science:
A Lewandowsky Complex"
Named in dishonor for any academic combining extreme grandiosity, self-importance, condescension, obtuseness, combativeness, inability to rationally consider critical and dissenting views, ignorance and carelessness, and delusions of competence.....etc.
I realize that many academics may be strong candidates for an annual "Lewandowsky Prize" but the mn himself should get the first award.
I wonder what Katharine Hayhoe, a "climate communicator", and some of her followers, for instance Jonathan Overpeck, are trying to achieve on Twitter with their insults. Do they want to provoke "climate deniers"? Has anyone ever heard a more stupid term than "climate denier"? Or do they or you think that is a meaningful concept?
Do they perhaps think because there are comments on a blog post concerning a weird paper they can cover them with insults? Does the tweet shows respect for communication by claiming that "bloggers" are "denying" they would be just "garden-variety conspiracy theorists"? Or are Hayhoe et al just complacent, boastful or haughty?
Difference is one is a comedian and the other is Rowan Atkinson.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.