Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Climate talks progress | Main | Is underlying warming only 0.8 degrees per century? »
Saturday
Dec052015

Quote of the day, Lewandowsky edition

[T]he level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.

A psychologist considers the work of Stefan Lewandowsky

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (31)

Lewandowsky's "moon hoax" paper is fraudulent- as is much of Climate "Science".

Dec 5, 2015 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

In the absence of any real science, the work of Lewandowsky, Cook et al, is the best stuff that political climate science activists can buy. No wonder 97% of climate scientists cannot/dare not criticise it. A bit like Mann's Holey Hockey Stick fabrication really.

Getting a psychologist to explain that 2+2=5, and anybody who disagrees is wrong, and should be ashamed, sums up IPCC credibility.

Dec 5, 2015 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I watched Alan Johnson wheel out the 97% statistic on This Week to explain why he believed in CAGW. Piers Corbyn tried his best to explain that the figure was bogus but it demonstrates the power of repetitious propaganda - and the unimportance of the truth behind the manufactured headline.

Dec 5, 2015 at 2:24 PM | Registered Commenterwoodentop

bold misrepresentations
? - eh?

A Royal Society poster boy involved in fibbing dressed up as science.

They knew this when they imported him and it is obviously the primary reason for his granting of a sinecure at Brissle - an irritant and obfuscator to nettle the critics.

He's succeeding - but at what cost ? The tactic is transparent and the damage to the RS / Bristol U and the reputation of the scientific establishment is non trivial - indicating that they have no regard for honesty and integrity. Just pitiful - and a form of self harm.

Dec 5, 2015 at 2:36 PM | Registered Commentertomo

9 out of 7 Computer Adjusted Climate Scientists prefer Lewandowsky homogenised statistics. You are guaranteed to get the politically correct result, no matter what garbage you throw in.

Dec 5, 2015 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

ou don't need a psychologist to deduce that Lewandowsky is a clever dissembler.

Dec 5, 2015 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterNCC 1701E

The gorgeous thing about Lewandowsky – and by connection all those who quote him – is that he is too stupid to understand what he has done.

He thinks he is going to go down in history, but doesn't understand what for.

All those text books you read where they quote the 'idiot' in science; the one who everyone laughs at through all eternity, well Lew doesn't realise (yet) that he's it!

And the best bit is that he, and all his friends, are flooding the internet with un-eraseable records of his stupidity.

Dec 5, 2015 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Brings a tear to the eye no?

Dec 5, 2015 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterDBD

woodentop
Alan Johnson at least made it clear that he had expected the question to come up and had tried to inform himself. He admitted, quite correctly, that he didn't know much about the subject and felt obliged to go along with the views of 97% of scientists, for which who can blame him?
And Piers could argue as long as he likes — it is not a subject that lends itself to a quick and easy debunk, especially when the lies and obfuscation have been carried out by experts for whom truth is a movable feast and the end is everything.

Dec 5, 2015 at 5:29 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike - QED.

Dec 5, 2015 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

There is only one word to sum this up


FRAUD!!

Dec 5, 2015 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Homewood

I no longer worry much about Prof. Lewandowsky. I'm fairly certain he's on his way to learning karma's a bitch. It may take awhile, but his crusade will end up as successful as all of those which tried to "protect" the Holy Land.

Dec 5, 2015 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

Don't like the results, eh?

Dec 5, 2015 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAila

The woes of psychology do far deeper. They recently gave us the false memory (of parental abuse) scandal, the Munchausen by proxy scandal and the false devil-worship hysteria of the 80's.

Psychiatrists used to be little better. Frontal lobotomies and eugenics are biggies but it was once a consensus that cauliflower ears were a sign of insanity: A conclusion reached by noting that insane asylums had a preponderance of them. One ear seemed to be worse than the other and the fools thought this was a right-brain/left-brain thing rather than the fact that most warders were right-handed.

Dec 5, 2015 at 11:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results.

As I found, Lewandowsky et al. did not state how many supported the Moon Hoax conspiracy (10/1145) or the small proportion of sceptics in the survey (10-15%) who were the object of the study. Then there was a bias in the questions made worse by the elimination of the results of a question that proved contrary results . In addition there was a failure to eliminate two clearly scam returns that materially affected the results. Scam results occurred from having an uncontrolled internet survey on a very partisan issue.

Dec 6, 2015 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

That's one brave psychologist.
Now what about a thousand others?
He seems too nice to go up against Lewandowsky on his own.

Dec 6, 2015 at 4:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterangech

"Don't like the results, eh?" --Aila

There are none.

Dec 6, 2015 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

James G
Of course cauliflower ears are a sign of insanity.
They're the physical proof that you have spent half your life either in a boxing ring or a rugby scrum. Case proved.

Dec 6, 2015 at 9:55 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

cauliflowers IN your ears, dont they do that at vegan parties??

Dec 6, 2015 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCO2

JamesG's comment about cauliflower ears in asylums can be generalized. The data can reveal simpler and better supported hypotheses. Lewandowsky et. al had two main hypotheses and two surveys with similar questionnaires.
The hypotheses about climate sceptics were that they were anti-science due to (a) they trended to believe in conspiracy theories,(suffered from conspiracist ideation) and (b) suffered from free-market ideation. Both of these are taken by these left-wing psychologists as a strong indication they could not think straight.
In a post Conspiracist Ideation Falsified? I concluded from that the data showed

Strong opinions with regard to conspiracy theories, whether for or against, suggest strong support for strongly-supported scientific hypotheses, and strong, but divided, opinions on climate science.

In other words, climate science is not viewed as established science but as a matter of belief. Not surprising when you keep on hearing the phrase with relation to non-trivial climate-related statements that "scientists believe...", instead of a phrase "scientists have firmly established...".

As far as free-market ideation goes, the two surveys give a stark contrast. The opinion of the American public is concentrated in the centre when it comes to belief in climate science and free-market belief. Skews in both towards climate science and green-statist views could be explained by question bias. But the Moon Hoax survey, conducted on climate alarmist blogs, have the vast majority both with strong support for climate science and green-statist views. If anything, opinion was more left wing than pro-climate science. Lewandowsky's questionnaire data provides us with an important issue for public policy. Is the promotion of climate science out of a genuine concern to save the world from catastrophic global warming, or a means to implement an extreme-left agenda by self-anointed experts by-passing liberal democratic processes? If it was the former then I suggest there would be much greater emphasis in the Paris talks on the marginal contribution that policy could make; on having proper auditing of the INDCs; on learning from policy fiascoes; and on promotion of rigorous management of policy to achieve the most effective benefit-cost outcomes.

Dec 6, 2015 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

When mentioning Stephan Lewandowsky, we should do him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly. To do so, just remember it's an anagram of "What Lysenko Spawned."

Dec 6, 2015 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

jorgekafkazar

and the Cabot Institute gives us "Titanic Stub Toe" - I live in hope - I really do....

Dec 6, 2015 at 9:59 PM | Registered Commentertomo

When mentioning Lewandowsky, climate scientists can't stop laughing, as they think of their bank accounts.

Dec 6, 2015 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

<I> [T]he level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.</I>

With a single magisterial paragraph, his Jessim fellow has doomed a generation of book reviewers to unemployment .

It lucidly describes the entire genre of self-published books by amateur climate cranks .

That it works pretty well on Mann and Oreskes is just icing on the literary cake.

Dec 7, 2015 at 2:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

With a single magisterial paragraph, his Jessim fellow has doomed a generation of book reviewers to unemployment .

It lucidly describes the entire genre of self-published books by amateur climate cranks ..

That it works pretty well on Mann and Oreskes is just icing on the literary cake.

Dec 7, 2015 at 2:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell


Russell, Russell, you know better than that.

The professional, peer reviewed climate cranks like Lewandowsky, Mann, and Oreskes don't need to worry about book reviewers: They can just make their book part of the course material for crank classes they teach to adoring undergraduates.

Dec 7, 2015 at 3:15 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

NIPCC has indisputably established the vanity press as an invention central to the history of climate denial .

Dec 7, 2015 at 5:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

“Climate denial”? Who is denying climate?

Dec 7, 2015 at 9:12 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I absolutely love Lewandowsky.

For those of us opposing climate alarmism, he's the gift that keeps on giving - just the perfect example of biased, politicised environmental activism dressed up as actual science. Everyone you ever meet who doubts the scientific consensus could be wrong, should be immediately pointed in his direction.

The Quilette article has prompted me to write a quick blog post here:
https://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/howling-at-the-moon/

Dec 7, 2015 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Abbott

"You don't need a psychologist to deduce that Lewandowsky is a clever dissembler."

Clever?

Please note that the"brave" psychologist" being lauded here makes no mention of all the post analysis carried out by skeptical minds that clearly showed Lewandowski's results were more than flawed.

Dec 7, 2015 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman

It's all very well laughing at Lew and Cook, but almost every lay account of climate scepticism in the media will contain the words “97%” or “conspiracy theorist”. That's all they need to win their game, and so far, they've won.

I've lost count of how many times I've countered this stuff, not here where we're all chums, but where someone might take notice. A surprising number of outlets have let me get away with calling them liars, but it has absolutely no effect. I make the point to e.g. Chris Mooney or some journalist at Scientific American that they're quoting and promoting absurd mendacious pseudo-science. In a normal world a journalist would at least do a quick check to see if this apparently obsessive Lew stalker didn't have a point. If they do they never let on.

The longer we go on congratulating ourselves that we know the truth, and we only have to wait for the rest of the world to catch on, the more we're going to look like a peculiar cult ourselves.

Congratulations to Kevin Marshall by the way, who is one of the quite small number who have made a serious effort to take these frauds apart.

Dec 7, 2015 at 8:58 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

How ironic that COP21 doesn't believe the 97% meme.

"There is a broad consensus among professionals: 90% consider that the rise in global temperatures is an alarming, proven fact, while 82% agree that global warming is strongly linked to human activity."

http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/getting-rid-of-received-ideas/

Dec 9, 2015 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike S

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>