Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« That WSJ column | Main | Revkin does low climate sensitivity »

So you don't have to

Ben Pile glances at Lewandowsky's new "paper" so you don't have to.

Ultimately, ‘research’ of this kind will bring the academy down with it, because drawing attention to, and publishing Lewandowsky’s work means demonstrating to the world the fact that quite often, academic researchers are as petty-minded, ‘idologically-motivated’, and pig ignorant as the worst of online commentary.

More so, I would have thought. And all paid for by you, gentle reader.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (61)

Oh Bish!

I feel soiled just reading about it third hand.

Feb 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

A beautiful one line precis:

The thrust of Lewandowsky’s paper is ‘I picked a fight on the Internet, and this is what people said about me’,

Feb 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

That was my name before I changed it. Sorry couldn't resist.

Feb 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Dover

"Lewandowsky’s own recent work can perhaps be best described as a unique combination of Mannian statistics and Gleickian ethics." (to quote Steve McIntyre).

Feb 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

"Blognitive Dissonance"


Feb 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Lewandowsky practices 'projection' on a epic scale .

Feb 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Lewandowsky is obviously out of the academic loop. He seems to portray counterfactual thinking as a negative while his colleagues have studies showing it be a positive:

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeC

It does all have the feel of those childhood arguments where every comment was returned with ‘I know you are but what am I?’ Even when it didn’t remotely fit with what you’d said. Finally your Mum made you stop arguing with him/her before they 'got over tired and had one of those funny turns’.

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Just one example of how slovenly Lewandowsky et al. are in trying to smear with the phrase 'conspiracist ideation' against myriad blog criticism: Lew et al. cites a Condon 2009 post during Climategate I (where Condon maintains that FOI requests sought to enable analysis of how CRU went from raw data to adjusted data), in order to support the blanket assertion that (all, presumably) 'temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments' when in fact Condon had specified that his focus was upon scientific reproducibility and transparency. [emphasis added]

Lewandowsky et al. (2013)

[Lewandowksky el al.]

"Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009)...." (Lewandowsky et al. 2013, p. 5)

[Condon 2009 actual words]

"The reason that people are so interested in global temperatures is that the large positive adjustments to the records provide most of the signal in the GISS global temperature record. In the case of the case of the more popular, higher slope CRU record, we don’t know what ‘adjustments’ were made to these records."

Voila, the reckless language of Lewandowsky et al. (2013) pretends that Condon (2009) was alleging a conspiracy over all temperature records showing warming 'only' due to adjustments, when Condon's actual words state that

(1) 'large' adjustments in a different (GISS) set of records provide 'most' (not all or 'only') warming recorded, and'

(2) of the specific set of CRU records that were the subject of FOI requests under discussion, Condon says 'we don't know what 'adjustments' were made to these records.'

See how dramatically Lewandowsky et al. (2013) altered the words and ideas of Jeff Condon? Jeff argues that he needs to see raw data to assess the adjustments made by CRU and that 'we don't know' what adjustments were made by CRU.

Lewandowsky et al. (2013) transform this into 'conspiracist ideation' that the 'only' existent temperature records of warming (conflating ALL temperature records with CRU, the object of the FOI requests in question) are produced by 'systematic adjustments' (which Jeff Condon explicitly did not allege).

No doubt Lew and co. can find some skeptics who reject all temperature records as unreliable, but that is not what the Condon (2009) said. This an example of the grossly careless procedures exemplified by Stephan Lewandowsky and his collaborators (oooh, is it 'conspiracy ideation' to note the fact that Lewandowsky has fellow researchers and co-authors who help him to produce such gaseous effusions?).

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

You should read the whole thing. They identify Montford, MacIntyre and many others as deniers, and define “denier” as someone who denies the science, which is clearly counterfactual, to use one of their favourite words, and therefore potentially libellous, I would have thought , since it might harm their reputation.
I get a mention as the originator of one of the conspiracy theories, so if anyone’s considering any kind of protest action, including calling in the lawyers, please count me in.

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

In references to the latest paper, it is recorded that last summer's foolish effusion is still "in press" (no publication year provided!):

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing|therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science.

When will Adam Corner and other PR publicists for Lewandowsky begin to be bothered by the fact that they flogged a paper last summer which still is not published???

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Skiphil, yes, the falsehood regarding Jeff was the first thing I noticed. This is particularly bad because they did exactly the same thing to Jeff in the first paper, and Jeff wrote to them to point it out!
See this post from Jeff.

Everyone please note that anything you write here is liable to appear in the next piece of "research" by these activists.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I don't know what you'd all expect from the guy.

He is, after all, and like that other paragon of intellectual rigor Naomi Oreskes, a 'social scientist'.

And the reality is that whatever else you might care to call it, 'social science' is rarely science.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

This paper, “Recursive Fury...” was received by the journal “Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences” on 5th November. Since Steve MacIntyre’s most recent post on Lew was on October 15th, they must indeed have been working furiously, and no doubt recursively. That’s what it’s like working on the frontier of science, I suppose.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:06 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

I’ve said this a thousand times and I won’t stop now. Without social science, we have no means of analysing the likes of Lewandowsky and Cook, and the hold their views have over our media and politics. OK, psychology and sociology aren’t physics, but they’re all we’ve got.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Sign of an idiot talking? They refer to Lewandowski in a credible manner. I'm tempted to move to Australia and sign up for one of his courses, just for the fun of challenging him and watching him spin up.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

The article is nothing more than the kind of sneering, playground bullying that has transferred itself to Facebook. The science/geek community is very guilty of it. Scientists today are too stupid to understand politics and too frightened to tell the truth. They hunt in gangs like Realclimate.

Lovelock on CRU scientists

They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out.

This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won't speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

"OK, psychology and sociology aren’t physics, but they’re all we’ve got."

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:11 PM Geoffchambers

We've got common sense. The best psychology and sociology is based on it and seeks to formalise it. The worst psychology and sociology seems to be based on the mental disorders of those who come up with the theories.

The public put little store by these things. Businesses and politians seek to use them to game the system. The usefulness varies but one thing is for certain - they're never going to win the CAGW war by using them.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

The denier meme is a classic emotional psy-op created by the oil companies and passed on by corporate scum like George Monbiot. The idea is to get readers to stop thinking and start hating. Lewandowsky's article does the same.

Opposing Views on Global Warming: The Corporate Climate Coup

by Prof. David F. Noble - York University, Toronto, Canada

At the same time it hyped the global climate issue into an obsession, a totalistic preoccupation with which to divert attention from the radical challenges of the global-justice movement. In the wake of this campaign, any and all opponents of the “deniers” have been identified – and, most importantly, have wittingly or unwittingly identified themselves – with the corporate climate crusaders.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:43 PM | geoffchambers

It seems to me that your suggestion of calling in the lawyers will prove to be the only effective response to Lewandowsky. I doubt that he can focus on the details of his arguments or criticisms of them. It seems to me that criticisms of his work will reveal that he is something like a Tar Baby from "Br'er Rabbit" stories.

Feb 5, 2013 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Just discovered I am quoted too

This apparent failure to locate the “skeptic” bloggers led to allegations of research misconduct by LOG12 in blog posts and comments. Those suspicions were sometimes asserted with considerably {sic} confidence; “Lew made up the `5 skeptical blogs’ bit. That much we know” (

...thus demonstrating Lew is simply not intelligent enough to understand what people say and why...

Folks, he's just another victim of being exposed to the whole wide world.

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:01 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Geoff. Why not just ask the editor of the journal Psychological Science, when the original moon paper will be linkages, so that you can make a formal response to the journal with you criticisms if that paper.

Pointing out that Lewandesky, is responding to criticisms, by attacking those that made those criticisms with the new paper.

Whilst using and citing the journal Psychological Science. Try the moon papers is in press

Explain, that this is unacceptable, and demand to know when if the paper is to be publidhed, if request a statement if the paper is not to be published. So that you can respond in the sprtopriste academic manner.

Ie a response to a published paper in a journal

Leeandiwsky is using the prestige of the Psychological Science journal, to attack critics of his work, denying his critics an appropriate response in the journal.

Irretrievably unacceptable behaviour of an academic

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

So Lewandowski is not a character from Little Brittain? I could swear....

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterHoi Polloi

Feb 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM | TinyCO2

Just the sort of thing going on in the comments here:

I know I shouldn’t but find it just too irresistible.

(Would help if I was good at debate, though – mind you, perhaps it is my own vanity to think that responses are appropriate.)

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Dang! Posted the above comment there. Now is that dumb or what?!

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Lewandowski's "Nasa faked the moon landing" paper may still be in press, but Lewandowski is already citing it in yet another "in press" paper at Nature Climate Change:

This one appears to go beyond "lung cancer danger" to HIV, lead in water, obesity as indices of "wrongthink" as determined by "free market orientation" but my head hurt when I tried to read it.

Feb 5, 2013 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterbetapug


that's the supplementary information - no wonder you got a headache!!!

the actual paper is here:
paywalled, so email one of the authors for a pdf reprint

Feb 5, 2013 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterQ

you can't polish a turd

Feb 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM | Registered Commentermangochutney

Tiny CO2

We've got common sense. The best psychology and sociology is based on it and seeks to formalise it.
Agreed wholeheartedly
The public put little store by these things... Politicians ... are never going to win the CAGW war by using them.”
Why not? They’ve already won. Too many here, and particularly at WUWT, are arguing that because Lew and Cook are idiots, we can safely ignore them. Where have we heard that before?

Feb 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Beware of overjargoning the debate. One of the plus point for sceptics is the ability to use language and concepts the public (and politicians) can easily grasp. Apart from using 'anthropogenic' too often we're really good at that.

"Conspiracist ideation" is the language of intellectual idiots. It's what makes Lewandowsky read your very sensible comments and fail to receive 'we don't think there's a conspiracy, we think you're just not very good at what you do.' He can't understand that message because he's always looking for a deeper meaning that fits his world view.

I'm even resisiting the temptation to look up 'ideation' in case I ever try to use it. I would have to slap myself.

Feb 5, 2013 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

“Why not? They’ve already won. Too many here, and particularly at WUWT, are arguing that because Lew and Cook are idiots, we can safely ignore them. Where have we heard that before?”
Feb 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM geoffchambers

Yes and no.

The first part of the war was won before most of us ever thought about AGW and we’d probably have been on the other side at the time.

They certainly aren’t winning because all indicators are that global warming frenzy is dying. The Lew papers are exactly the sort of thing that turns the public off and are a measure of defeat, not success. The best way to counter Lew and Cook is by speaking plainly and clearly about what is wrong with the papers.

My preferred dismissal of Lew's first paper is to tell people it was the research equivalent of posting a survey on female sexuality next to the urinals. You might get plenty of responses but nothing you should publish outside a porn website. Of course many see CAGW as climate porn ;-)

Feb 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2


They certainly aren’t winning because all indicators are that global warming frenzy is dying. The Lew papers are exactly the sort of thing that turns the public off and are a measure of defeat, not success. The best way to counter Lew and Cook is by speaking plainly and clearly about what is wrong with the papers.
No one is reading the Lew papers except you and me and Adam Corner. In thirty years’ time I’ll be dead and Professor Sir Adam Corner will be training the next generation of climate psychologists (or “climpsys” in Newspeak).
My preferred dismissal of Lew's first paper is to tell people it was the research equivalent of posting a survey on female sexuality next to the urinals.
Well, I feel like that too, and I talk like that, in my ruder blogposts. But the wider public who know nothing of the debate, will see it as potty talk, and dismiss it as the ravings of an obsessive - an assessment which is only half wrong.
You can only believe we are winning the argument if you think that the social sciences can run on nothing stronger than common sense.

Hey! I‘ve just discovered that I’ve been found guilty of Nefarious Intent, alongside Steve McIntyre, Joanne Nova, and Anthony Watts - and in a peer-reviewed paper! I’m fairly glowing with pride!

Feb 5, 2013 at 9:22 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

As Ben Pile intimates this new paper is basically a continuation of a flame war under the auspices of an academic publication.

We suggest that conspiracist ideation, like most other psychological constructs (e.g.,extraversion), represents a continuum that finds expression to varying extents in theories of varying scope.

So basically Lewandowsky’s is doing a nyah, nyah, saying he can lump any criticism of the last paper together as clearly showing evidence of being pathological behaviour within a “continuum”.

He gets to make up tables of of varying criticisms of his work emanating from this "continuum", and claims this he does this as neutral, academic work:

We remain neutral with respect to the question whether the remaining hypotheses presented valid criticisms. The issue of validity of those hypotheses or indeed the validity of the conclusions of LOG12 is orthogonal to the psychological question at issue here, viz. whether the response to LOG12 constituted conspiracist ideation.

Our decision not to address the validity of any of the hypotheses also helps allay one important remaining issue: Two of the present authors also contributed to LOG12, and the present analysis may therefore be biased by a potential conflict of interest.

So they get to select the items and heap them together and juggle them about as "evidence" of the pathological behaviour of their critics, and at the same time excuse themselves of being biased - in fact claim they are neutral! - because they claim some "orthogonality" of this data!

However Cook and Lewandowsky go further and have the hubris to clearly think of themselves as brave by airing any criticisms no matter how obliquely by saying of this paper. place[s] several criticisms of LOG12 into the peer-reviewed literature that previously had been limited to internet blogs.

I accept there can be good work done in studying human behaviour at varying degrees, but I think any reasonable fan of social science must admit that the self-control to be rigorous in avoiding inserting the effect of ones own personality should be a tendency to avoid with the utmost effort. However, on the contrary, Lewandowsky is effectively here making a virtue of his own personality and influence on the subject - whilst bullshitting us that the complete opposite is the case!

In Lew’s latest blog post he says of the original LOG 12 paper:

The article also generated data.

Data, because for social scientists, public statements and publically-expressed ideas constitute data for further research.

His emphasis above.

I.e. anything he and his chums rummage and select from the blogs is called "data". To me that is just f*cking laughable! :)

One favour he did was reference the ACM FOI post that highlighted the dubious* nature of how the UWA "ethics" committee approved the go ahead for a paper with one description and his finessing a huge change of purpose via a functionary under the auspices of the same approval.

Otherwise I reckon Lewandowsky's efforts here should one day stand as a text book example of the all the things one should avoid in the field of social science. ;)

* Ooh, err! I used the word dubious in connection with an author of LOG12 - I've ensured myself a place in row 4 column 6 of the "data" in his next recursion ;)

Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Geoff - No one is reading the Lew papers except you and me and Adam Corner.

Not sure about that. The idea that conspiracy theory 'ideation' is correlated will run on, as do many other headlines from reports, which cascade through the literature. For e.g. the '400,000 deaths a year from climate change' -- which wasn't even an academic research article. Or the 97% of climate scientists claim, which was a poorly-conceived masters thesis.

And that's the point. The method, the statistical significance, and the caveats and cautions -- never mind the criticism -- get forgotten in the game of Chinese Whispers that climate academics have invented. All that matters to such promiscuous 'academic' exercise is the slogan that can be generated from the research. It's not a subtle enterprise.

Feb 5, 2013 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile

Not subtle at all, but desperately precious.

Feb 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Here's a funny thing then... From

Lewandowsky: One contributor to the pages of The Australian also recently stated on a New Zealand website and I quote, 'to win the political aspect of the climate debate we have to lower the Western climate establishment's credibility with the layperson'. The strategy is to undermine the credibility of the establishment climate scientists. That's all. There's nothing special science-wise. In other words, they know what they're doing. And it's not science.

Conspiracy theory ideation?

Feb 5, 2013 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile

Now that we have a recursive paper, does it mean that we'll get them ad infinitum?

Feb 5, 2013 at 11:12 PM | Registered CommenterAndy Scrase

A quick look at this new "scientific" paper does not confront the fundamental questions raised about Lewandowsky et al 2012. That is, how can the thesis that "climate deniers sceptics tend to believe in cranky conspiracy theories" be demonstrated when
- The sample was biased through only being on pro-AGW blogs?
- There were no conspiracy-type questions that pro-AGW blogs promote, like big oil or tobacco funding of skepticism?
- There was only a highly specialized statistical technique used for correlations, and no summary of the responses to relate those results to data?
There was no attempt in either paper to acknowledge that there might be quite strong, legitimate reasons to reject some or all of the global warming hypothesis. These can be statistical, or scientific, or something more basically human. If you exclude, denigrate or misrepresent views with which you disagree, then people holding those views will not be won over. If you dogmatically state your views are being the only truth possible, or fail to acknowledge error when it is there for all to see, then people will start distrusting every word you say.

Feb 5, 2013 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterManicBeancounter

Lewandowsky reminds me rather of a toddler with a cut knee, running around howling at the top of his voice in order to get some sympathetic attention.

Feb 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Feb 5, 2013 at 11:12 PM | Andy Scrase

Now that we have a recursive paper, does it mean that we'll get them ad infinitum?

With any luck Lewandowsky will disappear up his own a*sehole!

Feb 6, 2013 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

Who were the people who most 'engaged' Lew in the comments, after his previous 'paper'? From memory, geoff, Barry, Brandon Shollenberger,...

Feb 6, 2013 at 2:05 AM | Registered Commentershub

The main response by the blogosphere to the so called "LOG12" was that L et al didn't understand experimental design or the scientific method and hence their conclusions were rubbish.

The most straightforward explanation was that they are just incompetent, but that's hard to believe. Hence the blogosphere seeking alternative explanations that related to their motives is hardly surprising.

Me, I think L. is out of his depth in experimental science, and a wind up merchant to boot. It's obviously working for him and some of his mates, and will continue to do so while he gets his five minutes of fame.

Feb 6, 2013 at 2:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterHAS

Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) just tweeted this,

Do you want to come on live TV and advance your bizarre agenda? Or promote your ailing business reply using #liveonFX

Prof Lewandowsky, did you get that?

Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveA

The constellation of "LOG12" and "Lewpaper" wrap up the topic nicely.

For those unfamiliar with the local (Western Australian) vernacular; "log" is used to describe a very large turd.

It's not possible to have a rational argument with the likes of Dr Lew because they (ab)use words; assigning their own meanings. In a fluid manner.

Dr Lew's arguments are far removed from logic and rationality. His "conspiracy nutter" strawmen "argument" is transparent ... but he seems determined to ram it home as if there were no alternative! His argument falls in a heap because conspiracies do exist; though not necessarily those imagined.

Does Dr Lew deny the existence of conspiracies? Such would deny the ability of people to conspire. Those not open to the idea that there may be certain conspiracies must lack cognitive abilities relating to human character; perhaps evident in the form of extreme gullibility.

By his behaviour (paranoia), Dr Lew demonstrates that he recognizes the ability of people to conspire. Reconciling his own conspiracy theories while criticising the formulations by others requires justifications for his own theories; which is an easy task because the biggest fool is the self. So the Big Oil and Big Tobacco conspiracy theories aren't conspiracies; but in the mind of Dr Lew, real things.

Dr Lew's intellectual laziness has been displayed prolifically. He heavily uses argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam to evade actually thinking about the real subject and to obscure the subject. The arrogance and the forcefulness of his technique may be the result of his fear of cognition; of perchance recognizing that he's been wrong.

From this little rant, it should be evident that just about anybody can compose psychobabble on par with Dr Lew's. I have no degree in Psychology. Why would would any sane person suffer years of narcissist psychopaths at University to gain such "qualifications"?

Feb 6, 2013 at 3:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterBernd Felsche

Did anyone ask for this? Lewandowsky did this to himself. He should roll up the lewpapaer on a log and ...

Feb 6, 2013 at 4:43 AM | Registered Commentershub

Full disclosure: I am a graduate of the University of Western Australia.

Something in which I have little, if any residual pride.

Feb 6, 2013 at 4:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterBernd Felsche

Feb 5, 2013 at 9:22 PM | geoffchambers

Hey! I‘ve just discovered that I’ve been found guilty of Nefarious Intent, alongside Steve McIntyre, Joanne Nova, and Anthony Watts - and in a peer-reviewed paper! I’m fairly glowing with pride!

Oh, there's just no justice in this world.

Not only have I been blogging longer than you have, but I gave Lewandowsky "title" mention in three posts and name mention in two others.

But I didn't even register on his radar. Sniffle. Sniffle.

Feb 6, 2013 at 7:56 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Sniffle. Sniffle.

Pull yourself together Hilary.

Some of us that commented on the unquestioning (atm. sceptical) sites like The Conversation (and even got snipped by the great man himself) were excluded by the very experimental design.

At least you were in the race.

Feb 6, 2013 at 8:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterHAS

Don’t feel bad about it . You’ll just have to be ruder next time.
Seriously, I think the only reason I registered on his radar was that I started a comment thread at Skeptical Science itself. Once their regulars joined in, they couldn’t easily stop it, and some informed comment from people with knowledge of survey techniques (Tom Fuller and A Scott, I believe) took the discussion out of the normal sceptic/warmist arena into an area which was much more threatening to Lew.
Who’s Brandon Schollenberger? It’s getting impossible to recall everyone involved.
When I said “no-one is reading the paper except...” I was as usual spoiling my argument by exaggeration. My point is the same as yours. It doesn’t matter that the paper is nonsense, as long as it gets into the peer-reviewed corpus and can be cited ad infinitum. Then the day that Andrew Montford is called before an expert tribunal to determine what went wrong with science for half a century, the lawyer for the climate establishment will say “But these bloggers are all conspiracy nutters” and cite LOG12 as proof. That’s why I think His Grace was mistaken in introducing this thread with a dismissive yawn.

Feb 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

As someone has pointed out over at WUWT, he published this in a pay-to-publish journal.

Feb 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

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>