Friday
Dec112015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Lewandowsky concoction
;)
The Social Psychology of Morality, a forthcoming book from the Psychology Press, has a chapter on the interaction between "high moral purpose" and scientific integrity, and takes a brief look at the work of Stephan Lewandowsky, including this summary of the great man's work:
Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers.
Reader Comments (80)
golf charlie at 3.05am
Your claim, said in jest, I believe to be false. Many of the followers genuinely believe that they are on the side of science. But their reference point is on their collective beliefs not on the real world. Much of the name-calling and the claims of being on the side of science are defense mechanisms against comparing and contrasting their beliefs and opinions with the those who disagree. An example is John Cook's online course "Skepticism v Denial", probably designed by his mate Stephan Lewandowsky. In the promotional video the reference point is all from the believers standpoint. There is no reference to a dictionary for the definition of "sceptic" (and they get a tad stroppy when the divergence is pointed out); nor is there any drawing upon what others, outside of climate believers, have to say on scientific scepticism; nor any discussion of how climatology qualifies to be a science at all and even if it does how it fits in the range of sciences, from the pure sciences to the fringe empirically-based sciences such as cognitive psychology. The best quote is from Climate Scientist Prof Andy Pitman at 2:15.
He then goes onto cite Naomi Oreskes. It is promoted as scientific opinion, but is outside of his field unless one assumes that knowledge and belief in climatology gives you insights into everything.
Lewandowsky states this false reference point at 6:10
It is basically saying there are a priori truths. No admission of the distinctions of positive v normative; trivial v non-trivial; relevant evidence v hearsay; high quality evidence v loose generalisations.
a liA pyrite.
=======
@Barry Woods : The WUWT page begins "There is a new book about to be published titled: The Social Psychology of Morality, which is to be published by the Psychology Press. I and several other skeptic bloggers have been given an advance look."
The post ends : "And of course, thanks to Barry Woods for finding the docx file in the first place."
Pace Alan the Brit.
CO2 has all the deadly properties of tobacco smoke, whether at first hand, second hand, third hand etc. 97% of medical studies say so.
Kevin Marshall, thank you for the further elaboration! (with caveat)
For some strange reason, I am reminded of the Nazi trials (filmed for the benefit of a wider audience) of those involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler, with a briefcase bomb in his bunker.
Those prejudged to be guilty were all dressed in ill fitting clothes, and subjected to orchestrated humiliation, for suggesting that Hitlers plans for European/World domination, might not be in the best interest of the German people.
I am sure the presiding Judge was handsomely rewarded at the time, however his contribution to public show trials was curtailed before the end of the war, and a potential career climax at Nuremberg, by allied non-precision bombing.
Moon landings faked? Lewandowski actually thinks that the photo of the U.S.S. Skate surfacing at the North Pole was faked!
The Skate actually surfaced at the North pole on 11th August 1958
I think you'll find Duarte is less of a sceptic than someone who doesn't like his field of study being brought into disrepute.
Clovis, correct, Duarte is not a sceptic. He has made that clear a couple of times at his blog. He's just an honest, unbiased sociologist/psychologist. Such people do exist, but they are rare. Similarly I don't think Lee Jussim is a sceptic - he seems to think that Lewandowsky et al have a 'high moral purpose'. Having high morals is not a characteristic that sceptics associate with Lew.
Aila, no one is disagreeing with you. Lewandowsky is the very best that climate science can offer, and should be recognised as such.
David Blake at 1.57pm
A better example of Lewandowsky's claims is a comment made in a peer reviewed article in 2013 and repeated in the Conversation.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit investigated the source of the claim, contacting the lead author. Of the sample (N=137) McIntyre said he found the following.
This lead Josh to produce a cartoon titled ZERO SUM - LEWANDOWSKY & MANN IN DIDDLY SQUAT POSE INTRODUCE THE NEW STATISTICS CULT
@Clovis @Paul thanks for the clarification ..I remembered seeing JOse Duarte's worjk a lot on WUWT, so I assumed he's a skeptic...but now I see it was only in connection with Lew's errors.
So the point is it is less "hey wow" than before , cos we already know that Duarte faults Lew, rather than it being a new voice.
Stew Green -
I found the Chapter, on Lew Jussim's publications page, and sent it to Anthony, thus he is wrong to say that, about advance copies...
nobody was sent an 'advance' copy.. anyone can download the chapter and it has been on Lee Jussim's webpage for a long time.
Well, it's a theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Prof Lee Jussim is further up the academic foodchain than Jose Duartes..
which in academic worldview makes him harder for Lew dismiss..
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/vita.html
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS:
2010-2013 Chair, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
1998-present Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
2009-2010 Interim Chair, Criminal Justice Program, Rutgers University (9/09-1/10)
2001-2006 Vice Chair for Graduate Studies, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
1993-1998 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
1987-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
FELLOWSHIPS, HONORS, AND AWARDS
2014-15 Consulting Scholar, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
2013-14 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
2013 American Association of Publishers Prose Book Award for Psychology book published in 2012(for Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy)
2013 Elected Fellow, Association for Psychological Science
1999 Elected Fellow, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
1997 Elected Fellow, American Psychological Association
1996 American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology
1996 New Jersey Psychological Association’s Emerging Researcher Award
1996 Elected Fellow, Society for Personality and Social Psychology
1993 Rutgers’ Board of Trustees Fellowship for Scholarly Excellence
1991 Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize for “Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model,” Psychological Review, 1991, 98, 54-73.
1989-90 National Academy of Education Spencer Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellowship
1989 Rutgers University Research Council Summer Fellowship (Declined, 1988)
1988 Society for Experimental Social Psychology Dissertation Award
His publication page is here (includes the chapter we are talking about)
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/papers.html
the minor confusion, is he pdf of the chapter is available, advance of publication of the book, not in advance of anybody being able to see the chapter PDF from Lee's website
Barry Woods, has anyone ever commissioned a study in to why American Psychologists need so many different professional bodies?
Perhaps they just can't stand each other for some reason, and need to create and enforce artificial social barriers, to reduce malicious gossip and childish back stabbing?
I don't doubt that, but March 17th is just about 96 hours before equinox and maybe not that dark. I failed to find a working online calculator that could reliably determine twilight time for the North Pole.
Wert, as a yottie, I am more interested in the rise and fall of the tide, through a hole in the sea ice at high tide, at the North Pole. Did they mark the change in levels on the side of the sub?
If not, with the wonders of modern computer adjusted climate science, I am sure ice experts could work it out to one hundredth of a millimetre, and establish what the barnacles on the side of the hull, ate for afternoon tea.
The description of Lewandowsky as "busted" (also meaning bankrupt) reminds me that his CV while still at Univ. of Western Australia claimed a tab for grants snagged totaling $4.5 million or so at that point.
I wonder what his total take amounts too now? That sort of money with the extensive globe hopping sponsored travel, the annual seminars in the Swiss chateau, etc. could induce a lot of "motivated reasoning">
wert and GC - the comments at the link provided by David Blake are worth reading for additional info on the Skate's polar surfacings.
Re: the polar equinox experience this is worth a look:
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/88604352.html
betapug, make that "very highly motivated reasoning".
One wonders whether Bristol places financial greed, ahead of academic excellence in all their job adverts, as part of their conditions of employment. In which case, neither Bristol nor Lewandowsky can feel aggrieved when it all ends in solicitor's hands.
not banned yet, thank you for that. The link to the Skate surfacing at the North Pole is interesting as it does explain the 1958/9 date confusion that gets so many global warming experts into hot water.
The Skate surfaced near Ice Station A, which may have been the inspiration for title of the book and film Ice Station Zebra, which featured a sub surfacing through the Arctic ice.
@David Blake pointed out that Lew wrote in the Guardian that the popular photos of The Skate surfacing at the North Pole were FAKE cos on that date being close to the equinox the pole was still dark.
Lew : "capture an event that actually occurred in darkness."
He's wrong cos the accounts describe the scene.
He is right in one way that some people (Tim Ball) did mix up March 1959 and August 1958 and use an open water photo probably from August 1958 somewhere.
Furthermore an alarmist provides pictures of March 1959 apparently NOT in darkness
So a 1958 a pole visit in open water, then March 1959 bust thru winter ice ..contemporary Life magazine article appears to say so
"Last summer Nautilus .... first voyage beneath the North Pole. Soon after Skate followed up by surfacing at the pole."
In the captains account :
"In August ..we had repeatedly found open water where we could surface"
Then in March 1959 as they surface he says "the daylight drew closer"
"the periscopes picked out the daylight, we had broken through"
"I was up on the bridge looking around at the Arctic scenery"
"the sun in the sky was low but bright"
Then they talk about how they left the photographer there and redived so he could do photos of the surfacing. They kept doing over a few days.
I note Wikipedia tries to show another plausible explanation that, that previous occasion in August it was 30 nautical miles away from the spot and did not surface fully and that's why the Skate went back in 1959. However in the magazine article the captain does not say that. He does not say 1959 is the very first time they surfaced at the pole. .
Aha!
Damm there is more : The ORIGINAL official source Navsource labelled that "icefree" picture as March 1959 so that is where everyone like Tim Ball, WUWT got their info from.
- After those blog posts came out a warmist got Navsource to change the label to 1958, as he pointed out that the sea can't have been icefree in March.
WUWT dramatically call it revisionism
In a military context, the significance of a summer and winter surfacing would be the ability of a sub to hide beneath the ice, surface sufficiently to establish radio contact, and surface sufficiently to launch a missile, at any time of year.
in terms of gamesmanship in late 50s Cold War posturing, this should be seen in context with the space race. There is no claim that the US got to the North Pole before the Soviets, just that they proved they could do it, and were happy at some point in time, for the Soviets to know they could do it.
Lew "the skeptics are mad conspiracists" guy, in order to prove a skeptics claim wrong, himself uses a wacky false conspiracy theory in the Guardian in a offhand way.
I guess it's a kind of "expediency fallacy" ie It sounds right, quickly shuts down an argument down and proves his opponents wrong ..I guess in the same way 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists shout "ah but concrete doesn't burn". Is Lew allowing theory to trump physical evidence ? Well he's firm belief gives him the excuses not to consider evidence on this matter.
Full Context
#1 Alarmists are always looking for confirmation of warming
#2 In 2000 the NYT ran a story asserting The North Pole has open water for 50 million years.
#3 Experts pointed out that's rubbish cos the Arctic often has huge ice free pockets in Summer. So NYT offered a retraction.
#4 Many skeptics knew the pole was not always ice free cos submarines have been there and taken photos throughout the years.
#5 So when alarmist made claims about the pole becoming icefree, skeptics would shout the subs have already been there.
#6 Wikipedia use a icefree water photo to illustrate the March 1959 surfacing at the Pole, so skeptics would shout "look it's even clear way back in 1958. eg on WUWT in 2009
#7 Yes that was an error to rely on one photo in Wikipedia and not to think it's only ice free in Summer
#8 An alarmist got Navsource to alter the photo description, and it was altered on Wikipedia
#9 So yes you could go back to skeptic sites and say "why are you using a photo from 1958 to illustrate 1959 ?..Gotcha"
#10 That WUWT article really irritated ConspiracyTheoryCentral (SkS)folks and they really wanted to debunk it, they discussed it on their secret forum 2012-03-22.
"Deniers are such lying pieces of shit."They first noticed Watts complaining of revisionism after Navsource changed the photo description.
#11 SkS's forum points to an alarmist debunk of the story, but that debunk of the story. That debunk carries photos of the event
#12 Two years later Lew writes in the Guardian about how relying on images can be deceptive, Like few people who see the Ship of Fools icebound, would realised that it was supposed to get stuck ..sic
In a minor side point he asserts the skeptics are all loonies who are obviously using the wrong photos of the 1959 North Pole surfacing cos it was too dark then to take photo's.
#13 There are proper photos and accounts contradict his assertion like in contemporary books and magazines written by those on the sub... Although that particular photo probably is probably not from that time, but had been originally mis-labelled.
So this totally contradicts the BBC media management technique of "the science is settled so we should suppress the skeptics".
While Professor Jussim and José Duarte are to be congratulated for doing their bit to expose Lewandowsky, it won't cut any ice :-) where it counts. Neither are sceptics, and both admit to being politically motivated. They are protesting against the overwhelming left-wing bias in academic social science, and of course, they have a point. If the story ever gets out of the closed world of the ivory tower, it will be in terms of “conservative professor criticises work of climate activist professor”. What good will that do us?
MCourtney makes the important point above that wrongheadedness only becomes mendacity when you have no excuse not to know better. I think he's wrong in this particular case though. Plenty of people are “honestly” repeating the “conspiracy theory” meme just as they repeat the 97%. You can excuse the ignorant socialist academics at OpenDemocracy. You can't excuse the President of the Royal Society.
@Barry Woods & @Geoff : Yes it is a very strange thing Jose Duarte doesn't identify as a skeptic
..After coming all this way like understanding the tricks like Lew and other warmists pull and about how warmism doesn't call them out.The same for Brandon Shollenberger. It must an American culture thing ..like are they so brainwashed into skeptic means denier (or you can't be a skeptic and caring). More surprising cos they both seems throw around terms like "liar" more easily than UK people would. Having said that one reason is Duarte doesn't like American skeptics throwing the word fraud around. Again it's not a term I throw around, so it seems an American thing.
Duarte seems to allude to this in his essay about Skeptical vs Skeptic which I need to read properly (nor second one) , but he seems to say you can either be a skeptical believer or a skeptic. He seems to equate skeptics with people who are certain global warming is a myth. No to me there are 3 main groups
- Warmists/Believers in catastrophe is coming
- Skeptics who say "I don't predict future climates, but I can spot errors with what warmist assert is true.
- a small group of people who say "for certain CO2 can never harm the climate"
Duarte then goes to assert OK 97% is rubbish, but there is a big consensus 78-84%*. But DEFINITION ?? ..What's your definition ? that's skeptics problem you can go around saying "Ooh Climate change is real there's a consensus" ..that is meaningless cos you haven't define your terms.
* (ayes interesting social scientists are included , restrict it atmos and it's coming down to 6!%)
Skeptics would be in a consensus that we seem to be in a period of warming not cooling, that the greenhouse effect is predictable in a laboratory, that anyways CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warmingand that harmful effects in future are possible, like there could be positive feedbacks"
|
..But in a consensus definition that says "oh my god we are going to fry CO2 at current trends is certainly going to put the temp up to 2-3C by 2100" no then count me out.
It is part of some warmists intimidate and disrupt game that many good people don't feel free to identify as a skeptic ..and help police climate policy properly.
Ahem.
A climate denier is very thin at one end, very thick in the middle, and very thin at the other end.
Ahem.
And in homage to Anne Elk, I have recently read that unlike Pluto, the Brontosaurus is back in vogue with paleontologists. I don't know if Pluto was ever in vogue with paleontologists.