Click images for more details
The definitive history of Climategate.
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Did you see what he did there? Conspiracy theorists don't believe in MMGW and so all sceptics must be conspiracy theorists and thereby classified as mentally ill.
Question: which one of the 3 statements below best describes your viewpoint? -
1) The moon landing was faked2) 9/11 was set up by the US government*3) The Grauniad isn't really a serious newspaper
For me it's 3) no question
* though the unprecedented(!) and spontaneous collapse of Building 7 and reports of finding one of the terrorists passports at the scene deserve some scepticism
FarleyRIt was brave of you to mention your scepticism about 9/11 at the end there. I’m old enough to remember the first Kennedy assassination. Serious questions about the crime and the investigation were aired at great length in serious newspapers. The horror of 9/11 prevented this from happening. The principle was established that some subjects were just too serious to be subjected to investigative journalism. That is the real link between 9/11 and global warming, not the trivial and predictable fact that people who are sceptical about one thing are more likely to be sceptical of another.
Nearly wet myself laughing when I found out the names if the 8 blogs surveyed were
They are ALL warmist/consensus blogs.....
Teaser. One of them was Tamino ;-) ;-)
So the exact opposite, 'conclusion' should be drawn
Poor old Adam Corner and the Guardian, they should really check his sources better.
BarryAny clue where the blogs used in the surveying is listed?
The moon landings could not have been faked because then they couldnt have discovered the Decepticon spaceship you dummies!
The Landowsky article is so bad one doesn’t know where to begin. He says this:
Researchers in history and sociology frequently cite the “manufacture of doubt" by vested interests and political groups ....Oreskes and Conway documented that a small number of organizations and individuals have been instrumental in those contrarian activities ..
Another variable that has been associated with the rejection of science is conspiratorial thinking, or conspiracist ideation, defined here as the attempt to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations
ShubThe on-line questionaire was posted between August and October 2010 on 8 blogs. I’ll try and follow up Barry’s research by searching likely candidates between those dates.
Of the 1377 responses to the Lewandowsky survey, (all from blogs with what the article calls a “pro-science science stance” [sic]) 71 were eliminated as coming from a duplicated IP number, and 161 responses “were eliminated because the respondent's age was implausible (< 10 or > 95) or values for the consensus items were outside the 0-100 range, or because responses were incomplete”. So 17% of respondents were manifestly p*ssing about. What proportion of the rest were doing the same, but entered a believable age (eg 10 or 95)? What proportion of the sample were “skeptics”? I can see no raw numbers in the paper at all. Does anyone know where the supplementary information can be had, or how to tease out some basic information from the tediously predictable (and predictably opaque to non-specialists) statistics? It would bes so easy for a small proportion of the Tamino (eg) faithful to filll in spoof answers. No conspiracy needed.This article is so offensive, it really should be demolished.
I asked the lead author.
another blog was John Cook's Skeptical Science. !!!!
You know the one that calls sceptics deniers and cranks!
Another one was.
Wait for it.
the hockey stick wielding super hero,defending Mann to the last.
All the blogs actually surveyed would described by most sceptics as 'alarmist' or hard core consensus.
ALL of the blogs... not a single blog 'surveyed' was a sceptical blog
another was Deltoid !!!
Lmfao. I hope the cornered guy from the Graun comes to visit and discovers the 'mentally ill' pulling him and his idiot article to pieces.
The lead author of the paper has had regular guest author articles at one on the 8 warmist/consensus blogs surveyed!!!
The Lewandowsky survey was put up at Tamino’s here:http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/#commentsHere are a few of the comments:
-I got as far as question 2. and decided not to continue.-You missed the long series of questions about various conspiracy theories. Those were fun!The survey leads leads to an ad. Not even any info on my IQ. But I know that I did really well.I guess they’re trying to use those survey questions to identify the nuts haha…Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids? Also, here are two words that, when put together, ought to make anyone critical of this research: “online” and “survey”.
The survey leads leads to an ad. Not even any info on my IQ. But I know that I did really well.
I guess they’re trying to use those survey questions to identify the nuts haha…
Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids? Also, here are two words that, when put together, ought to make anyone critical of this research: “online” and “survey”.
Paul Matthews listed all the blogs used in Lewandowsky’s survey in a comment at http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/29/australian-psychologists-claim-climate-science-skeptics-are-the-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorists/
I can’t find the link at Skeptical Science. Comments were minimal and uninteresting at most sites, except at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/29/survey-on-attitudes-towards-cl/From which I extract the following:
It has the usual failing of such questionnaires, but stands a fair chance of demonstrating whether or not the instinctive classification of deniers is valid. The main weakness is not the design, however, it’s the administration. This online survey format is very insecure. I could easily script a bot to take it a hundred times or more with responses designed to skew the results. I agree with Tony; at first, I thought the survey was bogus. Of course, I haven’t seen the thinking behind the survey so I cannot comment with much authority, but some of the questioned seem rather ill-posed. And why no 5-point Likert scale? The whole online survey format is also methodologically suspect.I would have thought that inviting Deltoid readers to participate in a questionnaire of this sort is likely to produce statistically skewed results since it likely to encounter a preponderance of respondents who are “pro-science” rather than “skeptical of science”.The survey is a tedious and transparent piece of agit-prop, designed, no doubt, at a UWA struggle meeting.I think the “conspiracy theory” section is too heavy-handed to be useful. There’s no chance that people won’t figure out what the survey is looking for here, and everyone knows that “conspiracy theory!!” is pejorative. So I suspect that a lot of people who actually do think that climate scientists are rigging the data will hide their beliefs, even in an anonymous survey, because they’re worried that they’re going to be painted as conspiracy theorists. Maybe with good reason, maybe not.
I would have thought that inviting Deltoid readers to participate in a questionnaire of this sort is likely to produce statistically skewed results since it likely to encounter a preponderance of respondents who are “pro-science” rather than “skeptical of science”.
The survey is a tedious and transparent piece of agit-prop, designed, no doubt, at a UWA struggle meeting.
I think the “conspiracy theory” section is too heavy-handed to be useful. There’s no chance that people won’t figure out what the survey is looking for here, and everyone knows that “conspiracy theory!!” is pejorative. So I suspect that a lot of people who actually do think that climate scientists are rigging the data will hide their beliefs, even in an anonymous survey, because they’re worried that they’re going to be painted as conspiracy theorists. Maybe with good reason, maybe not.
still looking for Skeptical Science link and this one.
though SkS one will be more interesting as Lewandowsky writes thereand has co-authered a book debunking deniers !!
can anyone go hunting?http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Funny isn't it they're all ready to lap up Oreskes' fabrications about the Marshall Institute, and the conspiracy theorists would be on the skeptical side?
It's like with "denial", the alarmists deny history but the first thing they do is label "denier" everybody else.
ps sorry Geoff...I see you've already made the same point!
I’ve been trawling through John Cook’s private emails trying to find the invitation to take part in the Lewandowsky survey at Skeptical Science and I came upon this::
2010-11-25First up, I met with Steve Lewandowsky and some other cognitive scientists who are interested in the phenomenon of science blogging and how it's being used to educate and communicate science. In particular, they wanted to test the impact of blog comments on how people processed information. Did a blog post with all negative comments have a different impact on how people retain information compared to a blog post with all positive comments? So we sat down and designed an experiment to run on SkS to see if this has a discernible effect on blogs. Later I asked Steve, isn't there a risk that there is no effect and it will all be a big waste of time? He said this was the risk every time you planned an experiment. So will be interesting to see how this pans out.
omnologos: Don't apologise. I frequently make the same point over and over and over again...
It seems Skeptical Science did’t take part in the survey, because 2 June 2011 (6 months after the fieldwork) John Cook says:
What's interesting is Steve Lewandowsky has done some research showing there is a high correlation between conspiracy theorists and climate deniers. This is a theme that could be explored further.
thanks for bringing up that research by Eckar (coauthored by Steve Lewandowsky who I'm doing the current SkS science blog experiment with).
...Or even more interesting (although I might struggle to get ethics approval), let loose our denier bot on warmist blogs, let it respond to the science based arguments with denial and see what happens. I must be hanging around Steve Lewandowsky too much, he loves poking ants nests with a stick because that idea is very appealing to me.And I know what you're thinking - I won't let loose a denier bot on the SkS comment threads without warning you all first :-)
The article is now repeated at Talking Climate (there are some good comments from Ben PIle, Paul Matthews (v critical) and Alex Cull (mine took a bit of twitter prompting to pass moderation)
my lateset comment (pending mod) I think indicates that the readership of te blogs surveyed likely includes a very low number of sceptics. (as the survey was only ~1000 readers of 8 blogs, how did that break down referring urls, anyway - not very useful research)
Talking Climate Comment (currently pending):
When the Guardian article was written, was the author aware of which blogs had been surveyed (listed in the 1st comment) it has been suggested these have a very low % sceptical readership. (despite claims to a diverse readership) one blog was mentioned above, as having a number of negative article about Monkcton.. it is quite clear to any reader by those that are commenting, that the sceptical readership place of this blog (as the others) is minimal, using one monckton article as an example, from the month before the survey. ie the readership appear to be very much on the ‘strong consensus’ anti-sceptic’ side.a real who’s who (amongst very many more) Gavin Schmitt (Real Climate),Raymond T. Pierrehumbert (Real Climate)John Cook (Skeptical Sci)Prof Scot Mandia, Mandia blog)Ray Ladbury,Tim Lambert (Deltoid),William Connolley, (Realclimate, Stoat, wiki),Josh Halpern (Rabbet Run blog)A Corner (COIN, PIRC)James Annan,Tenney Naumer,Michael Tobis,Dana Nuccitelli (Skeptical Sci),Anna Hayes (harrased A Watts), http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/ I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Monckton (Ben can testify to that ! ) but I merely think this shows that the readership of that blog, is very much a strong consensus one. (ie also includes the owners of three other blogs in the survey) I’d never even heard of this blog!
I think Corner's found a role model in Lewandowsky - pioneer of the "lunatic fringe activist masquerading as a publicly funded serious academic" genre.
For the record - I just posted this on Corner's site, which is "in moderation" at present:-
Visiting Barry Wood's links to the Climate Activist blogs Lewandowsky amusingly describes as "pro-science" (no bias there of course!) provides some interesting results.
It turns out that Lewandowsky himself is a regular contributor to some of these blogs - and a bit of a hero to their proprietors and contributors.
Here is one of his his articles in the rabidly activist Desmog Blog:-
Here he is getting a plug from his buddies at Tim Lambert's even more hysterical Deltoid blog:-
.... and best of all here is Desmog Blog hyping the "Debunking Handbook" co-authored by Lewandowsky and John Cook - ex-cartoonist proprietor of the (extremely unsceptical) Skeptical Science Blog:-
So when Adam says -
"Stephen Lewandowsky and his colleagues at the University of Western Australia posted a link to an online questionnaire on 8 climate-related blogs with a diverse readership, in order to capture people’s views about economics, science and conspiracy theories."
... the truth is -
"Stephan had a word with his collaborators & fan club at the climate activist blogs where he hangs out and authors - to see if they would agree with him that people who don't share their their mutual activist obsession are a bit weird".
I think it's what our US cousins would call - a bit of a circle jerk.
Science it definitely isn't.
I also put this on Twitter - as a reminder of Corner's rather tenuous relationship with truth in his public statements:-
Dot Earth's comments are showing quite clearly how rampant conspiracy theorism is now among anti-frackers (a group usually coinciding with CAGWers and anti-GMO's)
Adam Corner’s recent Guardian article on Lewandowsky’s research is now up athttp://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/with some perceptive comments - all from BH regulars. The tone and intellectual level is rather different from that of comments to the same article at the Guardian. Funny, that. It’s amusing to see the government sponsored talkingclimate turned into a branch of Bishop Hill.
Just posted on Corner's blog:-
It seems more and more that a familiar picture is emerging, of university academics who use their publicly funded roles to conduct apparently impartial scientific “research” on various aspects of the climate debate — while concealing parallel roles as political activists on one side of the argument.
On that subject, I appreciate that Adam Corner has been very fair and open in allowing so many critical comments here and I think it would be very useful for him to make a clear statement on an aspect of his personal position which has caused a lot of concern.
At the Policy Exchange “Communicating Climate Change on the Right” Symposium on May 1st this year, Adam addressed a group including senior parliamentarians and the chairman of an HOC committee, prefacing his statement with the words “I am a researcher not a campaigner”.
Many of us on this side of the argument are quite aware of Adam’s activities as a participant in climate activist street demonstrations, a one time Green Party prospective parliamentary candidate and a director and adviser of several climate campaigning groups including COIN and PIRC.
On the face of it, Adam would appear to have told a direct untruth and misrepresented himself to an important group of decision makers and I think, if we are to continue constructive dialogue here between the opposing sides of the climate debate, he should explain his position.Your comment is awaiting moderation.
FoxgooseI see talkingclimate let your “circlejerk” comment through, but the one above is in moderation.
On the face of it, Adam would appear to have told a direct untruth and misrepresented himself to an important group of decision makers and I think, if we are to continue constructive dialogue here between the opposing sides of the climate debate, he should explain his position.
I hereby confirm Adam's beliefs by stating that Damascene turnarounds by psychology students are very, very, VERY suspicious and most likely a front for future "gotcha!" papers demonstrating what a bunch of idiots the skeptics are.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.