Friday
Mar212014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Lew roll
Mar 21, 2014 Climate: Sceptics You turn your back for a few hours and all hell breaks loose!
I return to my desk to find that Desmog blog has published the University of Western Australia's correspondence relating to the Lew Paper - in other words all the complaints by sceptics. I'm hearing on the grapevine that some of them are missing however.
Meanwhile Lew himself has written about the takedown of the paper here, and there is a long video here if you have a strong stomach.
Meanwhile, Retraction Watch's coverage of the affair can be seen here.
Reader Comments (71)
Foxgoose, Barry Woods and Geoff Chambers - be prepared for a Lew paper in the Conversation early next week (the Conversation academics don't work on weekends). So get in early before the resident shouters fire up. Apart from all the issues you have raised about about these two abysmal papers, re-inforce Marriot's blog comments while he was "researching" for Recursive Fury.
He is an occasional commenter at the Conversation and may or may not be inclined to respond.
GrantB
Thanks for the tip. Lewandowsky's talk at the Bristol Festival of Ideas in June will be an excellent opportunity for members of the audience to put the question.
There's also Nuccitelli's article at
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction
where Barry Woods Lucy Liljegren and Richard Tol have been active commenters. The headline accuses contrarians of bullying the journal into withdrawing the article, but for evidence links to deSmogBlog, where Redfearn gives as sole evidence the use by McIntyre and me in our complaints of the word “defamatory”. Neither of us threatened legal action. I've reported Nuccitelli for defamation in the invisible “report this comment” box but can't comment myself since I'm banned there.
Hey 1ew, [snip] I know you're reading this, and I'll sue you if you quote this comment in another of your [snip] papers without calling me Sir
Geoff - how long do you think this comment will survive?
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/33414874
Barry Woods: Re your comment at the G.
I went over and read it just now. The thing is, I'm an your side and support a ton of what you stand for and the balls you have for doing it - not least, standing up and being counted. (Here it comes....) But, when you take the trouble to write these comments could you please take the time to re-read and self-edit. It was a long comment and, without caps, quotes or apostrophes was difficult to follow. Also, I think there may have been a word missing here and there.
That said, you got to the point of the comment and laid it out. Thanks.
Harry Passfield.
Don't be hard on Barry. He's probably the most hardworking sceptic sleuth/blogger there is. According to Ben Pile he taps his comments on his phone while taking his daughters to ballet class. Only we oldies have the leisure to dot our 'i's and polish our colons.
In my “Apocalypse Close” epic I had Barry as a Jamaican working for Captain Delingpole of MI5. That explain why he sometime leave off the end of word.
'polishing our colons'. OK, back on topic; Lewandowsky can't tell shit from Shinola.
============
Kim beat me to it! Guffaw, guffaw. But you're right, Geoff. writing comments on a tablet is a real pain in the ... colon. My Nexus 7 will insist on changing spelling of some words and has never managed 'fracking'. So I do as much as poss from my PC. As for Barry, he has my 100% support - let's face it, anyone who writes comments on Frontiers (that was an awful thread for the abuse he got) deserves it.
BTW: One of the comments over there suggested that sceptics (he used the 'D' word) were really sadists. It reminded me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist: The masochist says to the sadist, 'Beat me, beat me!' and the sadist says, 'Ermmm....No...'
+1000 for Barry Woods. Thanks mate for your hard work.
Geoff, I've watched Lew's video again and I'm not satisfied with the quality of your transcription - so I've tried to improve on it:-
Bish, could you get rid of that damned poem I infested the comment line with - I was a bit p*ssed. Sorry mate.
[Done. BH]
I don't have a single comment on Frontiers, STW, Conversation or whatever weed-ridden venue that keeps springing up. Too sensitive to censorship. I don't [know] how Barry, and Geoff, and the others do it.
Those like Caroline K who may wish to join the happy throng at the Moon Hoax talk at the Bristol Festival of Ideas, or meet in the pub afterwards, on 18th June, feel free to register interest and seek logistic and Q&A coordination in Bristol pub meet or Lew seat.
All Lew Papers get flushed down the Toilet after they have been briefly perused.
Reminds me of Lewis Carroll ...
Fury said to
a mouse ...
http://bootless.net/mouse.html
Mar 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM | Foxgoose
--------------
AWESOME !!
Yes Foxgoose, scarily good.
For those who have been banned from the Guardian but still wish to expiate their sins by continuing to post there, this is how you do it.
Get a temporary email account and use it for the registration process. There are a whole bunch of these but do a search on ten minute mail or guerrilla mail.
Its classic stuff really, the Guardian adopts a registration policy that is calculated to promote astroturfing, and then the astroturfers themselves shriek 'astroturf' and 'fossil fuel shill' at everyone who disagrees with them.
Personally, deeply though I repent of my past sins, I cannot judge myself so harshly as to feel that they require expiation by having to post on the Guardian's environment pages. Surely I cannot have been that irredeemably wicked? Maybe in a past life?
Also, probably the best thing that can happen to the Guardian is for its environment pages to become a complete echo chamber in which lunatics yell at each other. I do sometimes feel that reading the comments may lessen my time in purgatory, but when I do it, it gives rather the feeling that one is not so much in purgatory but in the depths of the inferno itself.
michel, I'm guessing that at some stage you have not complied 100% with recycling directives? Hence your remorse. Quite right, too. Burn in Hell, sinner!
I am late to this chapter of the comic saga involving Lewandosky, 'Spectacle' Treehut Science mob and other affiliated climate doomsday cultists, but i thoroughly enjoyed reading the comments. Kudos to all fellow skeptics who worked hard at this, with special mention going to my brilliant comrade, geoffchambers.
Don't forget my glorious contribution to the downfall of the Commander-in-Chief of Climate Doomsday Science Psychological Operations Squad. I have numbers to prove it:
My modelling suggests that Lew may have blinked 42 x 60 / 1.3 = 1938 times during his latest sermon. Tourette's might be his only redeeming quality.
"But this obvious conclusion that those believing in global warming are very subjective and change their interpretation to fit their beliefs in sharp contrast to skeptics who tended to base their views only on the data and not what they were told the data showed, was not only omitted from the paper, but instead it was replaced with a conclusion very strongly suggesting the opposite.
As such not only does this paper show that members of the public who believe in global warming change their perception of the global temperature graph to fit what they believe it shows, but it is also strong evidence that at least some academics are so strongly influenced by their beliefs regarding global warming that (to put the best possible interpretation on their actions) they are “blinded” to obvious conclusion that do not fit their world-view."
http://skience.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/lewandowsky/