Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – show your climate survey invitation RSVP’s

Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky

UPDATE: After a cursory look at the percentages in the response to the Lewandowsky survey from the blogs he listed as participating, it seems the outcome doesn’t fit the title. See below.

====================================

From the “free the metadata” department, we have this gem. Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia’s Cognitive Science Department devised some sort of survey where he supposedly contacted skeptical climate blogs to ask we post a link to gather opinions for his survey. He says he contacted five and they all declined. Only one problem with that; none of the mainstream skeptical blogs appear to have any knowledge of being contacted. That includes WUWT and Climate Audit, among others.

I keep all my email, and I see no such contact or invitation. I’ve searched WUWT and found nothing in comments from him inviting to participate either. To be thorough, I also searched for any communications from his co-authors Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac. I’ve found no invitation of any kind, but I did find that a commenter in the USA, PaulW left a note about it on WUWT here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/new-wuwt-sstenso-page-now-online/#comment-469869 But, he’s not affiliated with UWA or the authors, and it was purely a comment of curiosity. One of our moderators, D.B. Stealey took the survey (now deleted) after seeing the comment, and noted “Interesting questions.” but he didn’t note any invitation to post it on WUWT, nor did I.

Similar lack of confirmed invitations are being reported in other skeptical blogs, and the list is growing. But, for some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky  refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted.

Jo Nova and Lucia Liljegren are asking some very pointed questions. Given the sheer lunacy on display in the paper…

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

…I think Jo Nova nailed it with this line:

It’s as if Stephan did not want to know what real skeptics think?

Lucia asked Lewandowsky in a direct email about it and got this response:

Sorry, no, they likely replied to my requests under the presumption of privacy and I am therefore not releasing their names.

The blogs that did post the link (thereby publically identifying themselves, unlike those who declined) are:

%http://www.skepticalscience.com
%http://tamino.wordpress.com
%http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
%http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
%http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
%http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
%http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
%http://hot-topic.co.nz/

“…they likely replied” That seems to me to be pretty weak data for a scientist. Either they replied requesting confidentiality or they didn’t, there’s no “likely” about it when gathering hard data.

Time to fess up, perfessor. Show the list and proof of contact and confirmation that they declined the invitation. You have my full and complete permission to release my name. Other skeptical bloggers have also granted permission on Lucia’s website, so there’s no reason to hold back now.

In comments at Lucia’s, Steve McIntyre notes:

The University of Western Australia has fairly standard academic misconduct policies.
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au…..guidelines
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au…..rch-policy

If Lewandowky’s claim about 5 skeptic blogs was fabricated, it appears to me that it would be misconduct under university policies. The person responsible for investigating complaints appears to be the Pro VIce Chancellor (Research) ,Robyn Owens, dvcr@uwa.edu.au.

She is in a position to get an answer, given Lewandowsky’s refusal to disclose the information.

In other news, the Lewandowsky survey data was put online at Bishop Hill. See it here.

Make of that data what you wish, but it seems to me that if you only ask questions of one side, as shown is the blog list above, you’ll get one-sided answers. That’s hardly science.

UPDATE: After looking at the survey data provided on the Bishop Hill blog here, it is beginning to look like the answers were skewed by participants at those blogs for what they think he wanted to hear, rather than a true sample.

For example: If you look at column R in the Excel spreadsheet, labeled CYMoon, which according to the paper in question:

Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). : An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.

It says:

CYMoon   The Apollo moon landings never happened and were
staged in a Hollywood studio.  .742

That is the result of this question structure:

Unless otherwise noted, all items used a 4-point scale ranging from \Strongly Disagree’ (1) to \Strongly Agree” (4). Table section headings correspond to latent variable names in
Figure 2.

OK do a simple scan of the 1’s and 2’s  in column R, which correspond to ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’ and you get them as the majority, with a smattering of 3’s and 4’s. So I decided to use Excel’s function for counting occurances. =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”1″, and =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”2″  =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”3″  =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”4″

The (corrected, I had the 1 and 4 counts backwards originally, thanks Lucia) distribution of responses to the Moon Landing question are:

1067 Strongly Disagree
68 Disagree
4 Agree
6 Strongly agree

Total responses are 1145 (Rows R2 to R1146, top row R1 is title, so subtract 1 from 1146).  Therefore 1067+68 = 1135  1135/1145 = 0.9912

Only 0.9% of respondents actually believe that the moon landings “never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio”. So what does that say about the title of the paper:

NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax

I see a retraction for this paper in the very near future.

186 thoughts on “Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – show your climate survey invitation RSVP’s

  1. I’m having a look at the paper in question and I’m just shaking my head. This is utterly ridiculous on one hand, but also utterly outrageous on the other. He’s really putting people, who’re looney enough to ignore hard scientific facts & data (i.e. moon landing deniers) into the same box with people who point out the hard scientific facts & data and issues with what we’re being told are scientific facts (AGW/climate change “deniers”.)

    If anything, this paper will prove my position (again): psychology is not a science.

  2. I would believe that someone like this would see a small steel pineapple on the street, pick it up, and say to themselves; I wonder happens when I pull this pin?

  3. That he thought he could get away with publishing such a blatantly biased, partisan and unscientific paper and that Psychological Science see fit to publish it makes me want to leave academia and never return once I complete my PhD.

  4. The son of a friend went to a respectably UK university for interview for acceptance to start a course. He was told his grades were not good enough for the chosen course but recommended he chose psychology because it was impossible to fail the psychology course.
    So much for psychology.

  5. This guy needs treatment on the couch himself I think … and UWA needs to take action. I spent a year there once, shame on them. Their standards have crashed.

  6. I agree to a point with Edohiguma. I believe the *methodology* used in psychology right now (that is, the same methodology used in the physical sciences) is inappropriate, given that it’s a social science, and there are unobservable phenomena to take into account, such as free will and subjective valuations – just as in economics, my area of study. Studying a social science using the physical science method, imo, you get things like keynesian economics or pseudopsychology.

  7. My goodness! A “scientist” starting with a result he wants to prove and then fudging up the data? What a concept! I think this is SOP in the sciences these days.

  8. I am utterly amazed that propaganda masquerading as science such as this got through the peer review process and was published. From hypothesis, through methods, analysis and conclusions, the paper is riddled with errors and should have been rejected by the editorial team without bothering reviewers.
    I do think it is unfair to tar the whole of psychology because papers such as this. There are many areas of psychology where the science is as rigorous as any of the better conducted physical sciences.

  9. The thing that keeps baffling me is the paper is titled, “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” despite the fact only *ten* people said they believed the moon landing was faked. And of those ten people, most were “believers.”

    How do you smear skeptics like that based on less than 1% of your data?

  10. It IS possible to examine human behavior in a properly scientific way, but academic psychologists never do it. They always begin with false theories that ignore natural tendencies, and they always reverse leading and lagging variables.

    Exactly like climate “scientists”.

  11. While the MSM are happy to publish stories about the results of this paper, you can rest assured that when it is proven to be a heap of rubish, they will suddenly go awol.

  12. Jo Nova and I have been corresponding about Lewdandorky.
    I have organised a meeting with my university’s Interdisciplinary Ethics team to discuss this paper.

  13. Would it be a surprise that a climate zealot lied to advance his cause? True scientists offer real data. I’ve noticed that a lot of the warmers spins anecdotes and lies in lieu of real data. Why is that?

    Sure people question the moon landing. But the response to those questions is real data. Even Mythbusters conducted experiments to refute the skeptics. They didn’t just offer anecdotes and lies.

    Speaking of which I wonder if Mythbusters could do a whole season digging into the CAGW claims.

  14. I remember seeing something about skeptics by a social scientist/psychologist(?) (this blog?). Can’t remember if I commented or just thought that psychoanalysis of “deniers” was just another attack on the non-believers by those of the true faith. I’m not sure what is gained by trying to understand the non-believers other than propaganda.

  15. Dr. Lewandowsky’s paper is based on a false premise.

    More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009).

    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

    Here are the questions Doran & Zimmerman asked:

    Doran & Zimmerman, 2009
    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
    mean global temperatures?

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    “Significant contributing factor” is not the same as “largely due to” or “having catastrophic consequences”.

    Anderegg et al did not ask any direct questions of any scientists but selected and interpreted the literature according to their own criteria.

    Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010
    We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC
    […]
    Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
    […]
    We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

    It’s not a conspiracy. It’s human nature. Scientists and students who “support the tenets of ACC” are more likely to be interested in (or even evangelical about) ACC; they are more likely to become “self-identified climate scientists;” they are more likely to publish papers and “scientific assessment reports” about climate science and sign “multisignatory statements about ACC.” And that’s before an ocean of grant funding is thrown into the equation.

    These “supporters’ ” beliefs are then bolstered when they read “research” from “social scientists” that assert that “90% of climate scientists agree” with them -a positive feedback mechanism of confirmation bias.

    Let’s face it. Without the global warming issue “climate science” would not receive the massive funding that it does; would not be get the media attention that it does; and would probably not even exist as a subject outside of meteorology with its own purpose built institutions and departments.

    And without “global warming” nobody would even have heard of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, outside of his sad little pseudo-scientific clique.

  16. Tallbloke, do tell!

    It will be interesting to discover how they justify this travesty, which would attract a resounding ‘F’ in any decent course on survey design.

  17. Who reviewed this paper? The methodology is painfully embarrassing
    Note the other paper in his list of publications,

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (in press). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LewandowskyEcker.IP2012.PSPI.pdf

    The following principle is described in this paper which he should have had in mind when doing his biased survey,

    “Making things worse: Backfire effects
    From a societal view, misinformation is particularly damaging if it concerns complex real-world issues such as climate change,”

  18. Skeptical Science and Tamino. Ha! He didn’t in fact contact any sketics. Suggestion ANthony. If anyone can find a copy of his survey, we should put links to it on all the skeptical sites and invite people to answer it. We could then compare results :-)

  19. that scienceblogs – now owned by National Geographic – participated is, of course, not surprising. perhaps lewandowsky et al got the idea from scienceblogs’ denialism expert, Mark Hoofnagle!

    May 2009: scienceblogs/denialism: Mark Hoofnagle: Denying AIDS – A book by Seth Kalichman
    Seth Kalichman is a better man than I. Kalichman is a clinical psychologist, editor of the journal Aids and Behavior and director of the Southeast HIV/AIDS Research and Evaluation (SHARE) product…
    He also has inspired me to conduct a kind of experiment. Simply put, denialism is an outgrowth of a certain personality type that is dysfunctional. These people with suspicious/paranoid beliefs, a tendency towards conspiracism, and lack of critical reasoning skills are all over the country and all over the world. They interpret events in a predictable manner. I ask the readers to consider world events from this perspective. Let’s see if, in the face of a crisis or other major event, we can predict what those with this conspiratorial mindset will come up with as an explanation. I’m curious to see if we can come up with their unique conspiracy theories before they do. Maybe the next time we see something big break in the news if we can successfully conduct this experiment here at denialism blog…

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/26/denying-aids-a-book-by-seth/

    Wikipedia: Mark Hoofnagle
    Mark Hoofnagle is an American medical doctor, physiologist and blogger. He was one of the originators of the concept of “denialism”, especially in relation to global warming. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge. Hoofnagle runs the website denialism.com as well as the denialism blog at ScienceBlogs…
    Hoofnagle has a M.D. and Ph.D. in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. Hoofnagle received the Ph.D. before entering medical school…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hoofnagle

  20. @ Anarchist Hate Machine

    Please tell me in what University the Psychology Department uses the techniques of the physical sciences. Inquiring minds want to know.
    I have yet to learn of one that does not continue the practices critiqued by Richard Feynman in his “Voodoo Sciences” lecture.
    Certainly Lewandowsky’s paper would have been no less scientific if he were to smear himself with chicken blood and incant to Papa Legba.

  21. “Could this paper be a candidate for the Ignobel Prize?”

    Not likely. Ignobel Prizes are awarded to actual defendable research, even (especially?) if off-beat.

  22. Lewandowsky, although originally from the USA, is ours now, our very own, world class CAGW, Don Quixote style Deniar hunting loon who we are most happy to share for everyone’s amusement. I think he out Gleick’s Gleick and makes Mann , McKibben and Hansen seem like three very wise men. We have a couple of other world class camp followers to fill out the local posse too, by the name of Manne and Hamilton who Jo Nova has been having some sport with recently, keeping her in good spirits and fine touch.

    I strongly urge you all to read the paper in question, it is some of the finest science comedy writing going, makes Mann and the Team look like the amateurs they are. If they gave out Nobel Prizes for such stuff, an absolute sure thing.

  23. PS Timothy Leary was a psychologist too just to make it absolutely clear which cloud I think the Lewandowsky cuckoo hails from.

  24. The delicious irony is that qualifications for climate research:

    No objectivity
    No reproducibility
    Bogus data / statistics
    Ad hominen attacks

    are disqualifications for real science.

  25. Anthony, there was recently another survey (longer, and with a 1-5 scale) put out by Lewandowsky’s research assistant, Charles Hanich, on June 4, 2012. It seems that the link for this survey was only posted on two blogs: Watching the Deniers and Skeptical Science. Charles Hanich was also responsible for creating Lewandowsky’s 2010 survey, as mentioned in the comments here.

    Unfortunately, the link to the June 2012 survey is also unavailable. However, a skeptic called the “Manic Bean Counter” captured all the survey questions and dissected them on his/her blog, here. The following is Manic Bean Counter’s breakdown of the types of questions asked in the survey:

    1. Climate Change – 5 questions
    2. Genetically Modified Foods – 5 questions
    3. Vaccines – Benefits and harms – 5 questions
    4. Position of the Conservative / Liberal perspective (US definitions) – 7 questions
    5. Select neutral (check of the software, or check for spam?) – 1 questions
    6. Free market system v social justice / environment / sustainability – 5 questions
    7. Conspiracy theories (political) – 6 questions
    8. Conspiracy theories (scientific) – 6 questions
    9. Personal Spirituality & Religion – 8 questions
    10. Evolution – views upon – 7 questions
    11. Corporations – 13 questions
    12. Personal emotional outlook – 6 questions

  26. Ah, even the journal title “Psychological Science” is laughable. I would note that it is not uncommon for “academic” journals to be started for more or less pecuniary if not actually nefarious purposes by editors who are essentially running a scam. The articles aren’t peer reviewed, there is generally a fee to be published, and such. “Psychologiocal Science’ may be one of these or not, but even if it is legitimate, it is still laughable. And a note to his department: psychology and cognitive science are not the same thing.

  27. “Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J.

    Is that the same Cook as the one behind SkS?

  28. I got my PhD at an Australian University about 25 years ago. Since then the standard of both schools and university Education has become abysmal due to minority political corretcness (everybody passes etc). You can see this now through many of the very poorly educated scientists occupying positions in Australian Universities (ie GERGIS paper), Tim Flannery, etc…

  29. This has now become standard modus operandi among these scammers. Hide the data, hide the ‘participants’ hide, hide, hide.

  30. @ Leo Morgan

    Umm… every single one?
    They use the same scientific method. Unless I’m mistaken and the psychology course I recently took at the University of Texas is a one-off. Are most universities teaching students to use mostly a-priori deduction in psychology now?
    I’m not going to debate this view with you or anyone on this thread. This is a personal opinion that relying on empirical evidence in the social sciences is a mistake due to the unobservable nature of free will. The same view Ludwig von Mises shares about economics, I personally believe extends to psychology as well. I could be wrong.

  31. On the Bishop Hill blog, “P Jones” posted “Oh bugger. Why does everything have to be in Excel ?”

    Hilarious.

    Does one have to “live” AGW skepticism on the internet to understand it properly? Could it be a climate n00b came down in the last shower and really believed “Open Mind” and “SkS” were actually skeptic’s websites?

  32. “NASA faked the moon landing — Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
    An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”

    What a load of horse[snip]. Here are my few points.

    The Moon landing was real.

    The climate is real.

    Science is real.

    Climate change is real.

    Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

    The world has been warming since end of LIA.

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Runaway Global Warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.

  33. JoNova point out:

    Faked the Moon landing? Not only do skeptics agree that the moon landing was real, two skeptics actually went to the moon and took photos (that’ll be Harrison Schmidt and Buzz Aldrin).

    It says it all really. And they call us the deniers.

  34. Tamino linked to it? He’s no fool, if it were completely off base I don’t think he would.

    Let’s see what he says. Googling for |Lewandowsky site:tamino.wordpress.com| yields 8 hits, |Lewandowsky survey site:tamino.wordpress.com| yields 0 as does |”Cognitive Science Department” site:tamino.wordpress.com|.

    Most of the 8 included a reference to http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/how-low-can-you-go/ which starts with Stephan Lewandowsky has posted a rather scathing critique of the paper by McLean, de Freitas, and Carter, a summary of the comment which decapitates it, and now McLean has replied.

    No sign of the survey.

    Other links included http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/ , a dig at WUWT which includes:

    Stephan Lewandowsky | December 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

    Tamino, great post, any chance of linking to the R code as well? (The graphs look R-ish to me).

    and http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/much-ado-about-something/ which also has a comment that starts with:

    Stephan Lewandowsky | November 21, 2010 at 2:35 am |

    Good post with good comments, as usual. The issue of the proper interpretation of p values is in equal parts (a) long-standing, (b) amusing, and (c) intricate. …

    My guess is that the metadata doesn’t support his claims.

    I won’t have time to explore the other blogs.

  35. I’m just beginning to get my head around the enormity of this man’s stupidity.

    Visitors to climate blogs voluntarily completed an online questionnaire between August and October 2010 (N = 1377). Links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science stance but with a diverse audience); a further 5 “skeptic” (or “skeptic”-leaning) blogs were approached but none posted the link.

    He does not say what method he used to select his list of blogs, nor does he actually list the blogs in his paper. He only produces that after he is challenged later. Number one on the list is SkepticalScience.com.

    In the first paragraph of their homepage SkepticalScience.com makes it very clear where they’re coming from.

    Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com

    So by “pro-science science stance” Dr. Lewandowsky means strongly opinionated and critical of CAGW skeptics. And “a diverse audience” in Dr. Lewandowsky’s universe means any audience who share this same “pro-science science stance”.

    Let’s abstract this:

    1. There is an issue with two camps “Pro” and “Anti”.
    2. In order to gauge the opinion of the Antis you post a survey on some Pro blogs.
    3. The Pro readership of the blogs gleefully respond to the “Let’s make the Antis look stooooped” survey.
    4. You assume the answers to be honest and that you can identify Antis by their answers in the survey, enabling you to make absurd, unfounded claims on the pattern “90% of Antis also believe X”.

    All this from a man who claims to be an expert on mental processes. This is on a par with Gleick’s “I know its true because I received it anonymously in the post”.

    Oh, and as an Anti (or CAGW skeptic), I confess, I am starting to entertain the possibility of some sort of conspiracy, particularly when I see garbage such as this getting past peer review.

  36. Looks like another Michael Bellesiles (Arming America) case–except Lewandowsky hasn’t got a Pulitzer (yet).

  37. I also accept that:
    Lady Diana died in a car crash.
    HIV is real.
    Smoking causes lung cancer.
    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Runaway Global Warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.

  38. If Lewandowsky was paying attention he will note the many comments and tributes to Neil Armstrong on WUWT recently. This does not appear to be a rejection of the Moon landing because it was precisely the Moon landing and his REAL foot print which has given him world renown.

    I’m getting real mad now.

  39. “FMNotEnvQual I support the free market system but not at the expense of the environmental quality (R) (omitted)”

    I couldn’t stomach ready the paper so I don’t know why this was “omitted”. Anyone know the answer?

  40. “…if you only ask questions of one side, as shown is the blog list above, you’ll get one-sided answers. That’s hardly science.”

    Not science as we know it, but it’s science as practised by AGW believers. This proves once again the ethical, intellectual and scientific bankruptcy of the AGW movement.

  41. Looks like out of 1164 respondents, 10 of them claimed to think the moon landing was fake (gave it either a 3 or 4 on the conspiracy 1-4 scale). Of these, 5 appear to be climate believers (respondents 48, 140, 301, and 627) and 5 appear to be climate deniers (134, 861, 870, 890 and 964). Obviously the vast majority of respondents were believers, so a larger percentage of claimed deniers disbelieve the moon landing giving it a “correlation” of a sort. But with such a tiny sample, how can you possibly justify THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE outside of an obvious desire to denigrate and insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you?!

    Furthermore, I facetiously ask the question, is it possible that anyone spoofed answers on this survey? Well, “probably not very many” the doctor would answer, but even 1 person did intentionally skew their answers, how does that affect the weighting in a sample of 10?

    Look at respondent 134. He said 0 out of 100 climate scientists agree that CO2 causes warming. Seriously?

    Look at respondent 861. He was the only person out of 1164 that answered every single question with a 4 or a 1, and ALWAYS in the “dumbest” direction right up until the conspiracy theory questions changed over to “does HIV cause AIDS?” Oops, he was in the habit of giving 4’s by then so he accidentally gave that one a 4 also, meaning he agreed that HIV does cause AIDS. Oh crap! Fixed it by the time he got to smoking/cancer and gave that a 1.

    Look at respondent 890. 861 just went back and did the same but fixed their HIV/AIDS mistake.

    I would say (obviously unscientifically) that at least 3 of the 5 deniers who claimed to disbelieve in the moon landing are spoofs. You can’t prove it, but that’s why you can’t make scientific claims based on samples this small!

    I’m also curious why there’s such a high concentration of “deniers” right at the top of the data set. 16 in a row and after that it’s about 1 in 20 or so. Without any explanation, one might start to speculate that when the survey was winding down they might have said “oh crap, we’ve only got a sample of like 60 or so deniers here. What are we going to do about it?”

    They should be ashamed.

  42. Anthony:

    It is standard practice in climastrology ‘research’ to use the outputs of computer models (based on the modelers understandings) in preference to empirical data.

    Therefore, it seems eminently reasonable when to doing ‘research’ about climastrology to use the outputs of computer models (based on the modelers understandings) in preference to empirical data.

    Hence, it seems likely that the author of the paper generated a computer program (based on his understandings) which was run to reveal the results that would have been obtained if the the views of climate realists had been determined. And the paper reports those results.
    WUWT?

    Richard

    PS Although this comment is ‘tongue in cheek’ it is based on fact; e.g.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

  43. This ‘research’ is part of a pattern to paint AGW sceptics as not merely wrong but mad or bad , its an attempt to dehumanize them and so make it less likely people will believe them and as means to justify their silencing in the name of ‘the cause ‘
    There playing very dirty becasue all things are justified for a ‘greater good ‘ , remember this guys are out to save the planet and in their minds you can’t get a greater good than that .

  44. David L says:
    September 1, 2012 at 4:06 am
    “Would it be a surprise that a climate zealot lied to advance his cause? True scientists offer real data. I’ve noticed that a lot of the warmers spins anecdotes and lies in lieu of real data. Why is that?”

    True. And also agree on the terminology, I think the distinction zealot/heretic is the best one which properly describes the current climate discussion.
    See also Steven’s post and the Guardian:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/religion-and-heresy/

    “He says he contacted five and they all declined. ”
    Typical zealot procedure of trying to bypass or ignore the heretics. To maintain what they call “the science” (what we call lisenkoism), is science they try to find heretics who fit their world-view and then combat those. It is the strawman tactic again.

    Trying to put heretics in boat with creationists and the kind is to try to discredit their ideas through ad-hominem attacks. Pretty low for an academic argument, but not really surprising.
    Brandon Shollenberger says:
    September 1, 2012 at 3:29 am
    The thing that keeps baffling me is the paper is titled, “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” despite the fact only *ten* people said they believed the moon landing was faked. And of those ten people, most were “believers.”
    How do you smear skeptics like that based on less than 1% of your data?

    David clearly highlighted above that his paper starts from a false premise:
    David Ross says:
    September 1, 2012 at 4:33 am
    “Dr. Lewandowsky’s paper is based on a false premise.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/paging-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-show-your-invitation-list/#comment-1069154

    I totally agree with the above and with:
    “And without “global warming” nobody would even have heard of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, outside of his sad little pseudo-scientific clique.”

    It is sad for the low-level of integrity we see in this climate/psychology paper and shows again the zealots careful not to engage the heretics in honest discussion, but to continue a smear and hate tirades.
    If his claim to have contacted skeptics is proven a lie I expect to see clear consequences from the university. The whole work would be then a fabrication. Let s see how their standard academic misconduct policies are applied in practice.

  45. Another ‘intellectual’ proving that you don’t have to be intelligent to be classed as an intellectual.

  46. Sooooo according to Lewandowsky , these guys think the moon landing was faked .
    [img]http://oi52.tinypic.com/35c4ojm.jpg[/img]

    There , there , Mr Lewandowsky , just keep on taking Your medication

  47. Ric Werme says:
    September 1, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Let’s see what he says. Googling for |Lewandowsky site:tamino.wordpress.com| yields 8 hits, |Lewandowsky survey site:tamino.wordpress.com| yields 0 as does |-Y‘Cognitive Science Department‘ site:tamino.wordpress.com|.

    Oops – not only does it appear Tamino linked to it without attribution, JoAnne Nova has links to all the blog posts at her page, http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/ I thought the links were just to the home pages of the blogs.

    The Tamino link is http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/

  48. You can fill out surveys at that site using anonymous proxies like “hide my ass”. Suppose 1% of survey respondents did so. That’s ~1000/100= 10 respondents. Given the rather small number of people who claimed to believe the moon landing was fake, this is easily enough to overwhelm Lewandowski’s statistics in a way that entirely vitiates his major findings.

    Great caution is required when interpreting online surveys. If you want the survey to be scientific, you need to take pains to verify the systems is at least slightly difficult to game. Kwiksurveys is not difficult to game. A commenter at Deltoid mentioned this at the time the survey was posted– and he was right. You would think that if Lewandowsky hoped to turn the results of his survey into a scientific survey he might ask that commenter why he thought it was easy to game and learn what steps he might take to create a more secure survey.

    It seems he didn’t do this. Moreover, the peer reviewers must have absolutely no clue what is involved in making an online survey secure from gaming. ‘Cuz… kwiksurvey is not remotely useful for scientific experiments. (Well possibly other than one where we invite bots to bet and the “winner” gets accolades for creating the auto-bot that submits the most answers.)

  49. Science is not a survey, a survey is not science. But where integrity is inversely proportional to topic, as per this wretched episode, we can convert the proportionality to an equation by introducing a constant factor K; to wit, AGW Catastrophism = K / Integrity, that is, K = Integrity / AGW Catastrophism.

    Whatever value one assigns to K, increasing AGW Catastrophism must thereby reduce Integrity. Quite like a Hockey Stick, as one might say.

  50. As a number of comments point out, this is the one of the most ridiculous survey methods I’ve seen. This ranks with Naomi Oreskis’ in incompetence. Given the virulent hate of many CAGW true believers on sites like Tamino’s did this idiot think that he was going to really get answers from there that were truthful? I guess he did because it fulfilled his preconceptions. They should demand his PH.D back for malpractice.

  51. From Dr. Lewandowsky’s bio

    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/SLvita.pdf

    Competitive External Grants and Contracts

    Australian Research Council (Linkage Grant, with Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency). Creating a climate for change:
    From cognition to consensus. (Ben Newell, Brett Hayes, Marilyn Brewer, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andy Pitman, Matthew England, Chris Mitchell), A$216,000 (plus matching contribution from DCCEE), 2012-2014.

    National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. What about me?
    Factors affecting individual adaptive coping capacity across different population groups. (Kerrie Unsworth, Stephan Lewandowsky, David Morrison, Carmen Lawrence, Sally Russell, Kelly Fielding, Chris Clegg), A$330,000, 2011-2013.

  52. It is worse when you look at the data. Of the 1145 responses, only 175 were from skeptics. The paper does not mention this split, despite it being material to the findings.

    On the belief in NASA faking the moon landings, 93% of respondents rejected it entirely – with no significant difference in levels of belief in climate change.
    On the belief in 12 conspiracy theories (excluding the ones on “New World Order” and “Climate Change Conspiracy”, the average score (1 for reject to 4 for complete belief) the average score was 1.55 – with no significant difference in levels of belief in climate change.

    I will post up more detailed results later at http://manicbeancounter.com/

  53. Its becoming very clear that the alarmists of this world can only win arguments by lying and in some cases even stealing and fabrication of their so called evidence.

    Perhaps this will end up as a Gleick moment where he will have to come clean.

  54. Seems once the “consensus” meme enters their brain, their neocortex area is the first casualty! All rational thought ceases and their dinosaur brain takes over! Flight, flee or faint! (or feint in their case!)

  55. If I had the time, I’d devise a survey to post on skeptical leaning blogs that would indeed confirm (with the help of skeptics seeing the gist of the survey) my suspicion that most alarmists also believe:

    1) Most people aren’t smart enough to make decisions.
    2) Decisions should be differed to them, the elite.
    3) That humans are a scourge that’s destroying the planet.
    4) That most humans should be eliminated.
    5) Their fantasy doomsday scenario is fact, such that all observations support it no matter how contradictory they may seem. (i.e.: “… is consistent with …”)
    6) That consensus scientists can’t be wrong.

    I’ll title the paper based on the results: “There’s a lot of people, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming must be Catastrophic”.

  56. My note to UWA’s academic misconduct officer:

    Dear Robyn Owens:

    Professor Lewandowsky’s recently accepted article likening global warming skeptics to moon-landing deniers says that he asked skeptical bloggers to post his climate survey and that five of these skeptics turned him down, but skeptical bloggers have been consulting each other about these claims and it seems that none were actually contacted by Lewandowsky. The most prominent skeptic bloggers all deny that they were contacted by him and a fortiori that they sent him any reply. Neither have any lower profile skeptic bloggers (like myself), reported being contacted.

    It would seem that you have a case of academic misconduct on your hands, with fraudulent survey claims put forward in an attempt to malign political opponents. Truly bad behavior, not just academic fraud, but something approaching slander. I understand that you are in charge of academic misconduct investigations at UWA. Please proceed accordingly.

    Sincerely,

    Alec Rawls
    Palo Alto, California

  57. David L says:
    September 1, 2012 at 4:06 am

    “…Speaking of which I wonder if Mythbusters could do a whole season digging into the CAGW claims.”

    I doubt it. They are in the propaganda camp.

    I used to watch them with great regularity until did a segment with Obama on the Archimedes Solar Ray myth. I haven’t watched them since.

  58. From the abstract:

    Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire
    conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ‘ :80 between
    latent constructs).

    &

    The prominence of conspiracist ideation in science denial is not entirely surprising
    because if an overwhelming scientific consensus cannot be accepted as the result of
    researchers independently converging on the same evidence-based view, then its very
    existence calls for an alternative explanation|a function readily fulfilled by the ideation
    of a complex and secretive conspiracy among researchers (Diethelm & McKee, 2009;
    McKee & Diethelm, 2010).

    Yeah. OR, the convergence of researchers to the same view WRT climate science is a result of their rejection of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics. No complex and secretive conspiracy required. Simple confirmation bias, of the sort demonstrated by the authors in this paper.

    Note to Lewandowsky: I believe that CAGW is a political construct built upon a foundation of good science over-concluded and bad science elevated to unwarranted prominence by scientists who to varying degrees are allowing their personal politics to drive their research and how they interpret its results.

    By the by, I also believe that astronauts landed on the moon, that HIV causes AIDS, and that smoking can be bad for one’s health. And contrary to the intentional slur by association that you perpetrate with your use of the term “denier” to reference skeptics of CAGW , I also believe that the Nazis committed genocide against a substantial proportion of Europe’s Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and other groups deemed “undesirable”.

    I do believe in the Holocaust, and I also believe that the Nazis accomplished their genocide with the help of psychologists like Herr Doktor Robert Ritter, who provided an air of scientific justification to the designation and political marginalization of the “undesirables”. It is so much easier to hate someone, when a psychologist tells you they deserve it. Why, those guys actually believe that NASA faked the moon landing …

    To appease the followers of Godwin, I’ll point out that abuse of the pseudoscience of psychology for political ends was also widespread amongst those promoting slavery in the antebellum US, and was also a factor in the subsequent continuation of racist policies post emancipation. And of course, there is the common communist practice of declaring political dissidents to be mentally ill to discredit their beliefs and render them subject to “psychiatric custody”.

    One wonders though, if belief in the above referenced facts would be interpreted by you as accepting the consensus of historians, or as an example of conspiracy theory ideation. The wonderful political utility of the “science” of psychology being that you could conclude either, depending on present needs.

    Kudos though, on the efficiency of this paper. It is at once an exposition of current propaganda debiasing techniques as well as an example tool for implementing them.

  59. I think you got the 1 and 4 backwards on the Moon question.

    REPLY: OK then assume that’s true, then that negates the premise of the paper, only .9% of the respondents think the moon landing was faked.

    That kinda puts a kibosh on the title: “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” – Anthony

  60. From Jean S.

    “Jean S (Comment #102471)
    September 1st, 2012 at 4:31 am

    The original survey is archived in the WayBack Machine. It appears that Lewandowsky may not have been the one who actually made the actual experiment but his assistant. The page also has an interesting text:

    The Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics Committee, Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number +61 8 6488-3703).

    Since your moderator took the survey I strongly suggest that he write a letter of complaint to the research Ethics committee. He should keep his letter factual and professional.
    he devoted his time which has value and the results and the paper are suspect.

    Anthony, since you expend considerable time making this blog available you too would have standing to write a complaint. I would ask that the researcher be compelled to admit that he did not contact you given that his paper implies that he did contact skeptical blogs and they refused.

  61. michaelspj says:
    September 1, 2012 at 7:36 am (Edit)

    I run World Climate Report and was never contacted.

    ##############
    Please go to Lucia’s and tell her she is compiling a list.

    Anthony you might consider a sticky post for a exhaustive list of those blogs not contacted.
    Then compose a joint letter for all to sign.
    Mail the editor and the ethics folks at his university.

  62. Looking at the Excel spreadsheet, I do get the same numbers in the CYMoon column, i.e. 1067 x “1”, 68 x “2”, 4 x “3” and 6 x “4”. The scaling apparently is like this: “Unless otherwise noted, all items used a 4-point scale ranging from \Strongly Disagree’ (1) to \Strongly Agree” (4). Table section headings correspond to latent variable names in”

    The question was “The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio.”.

    So, 1067 strongly disagreed with this statement, and 6 strongly agreed. This seems to indicate that most people believe that the Apollo moon landing really happened. What am I missing here?

    REPLY: Nothing, my occasional dyslexia got in the way, and the 1 and 4 were reversed. Fixed now – Anthony

  63. Survey research is only as valuable as the quality of its method. The shoddy and incomplete explanation of what what done and where it may be biased in this paper is cause for immediate rejection. The fancy statistics mean nothing.

  64. Well Komrades, Dr Lewandowsky gets a red star for his work showing that belief in a Market based economy is clear evidence of a weak mind and that it leads to antisocial behaviour. These poor souls must be reeducated using the latest psychological techinques as soon as possible to eliminate such flawed thinking in society

  65. Anthony

    How are the questions of Moon landing hoax and Global Warming skepticism even causally related? Nothing in this survey provides even a statistical correlation let alone a conceptual link between the two. All I hear are the grinding of academic axes that academics are not automatically given credence for everything they espouse without solid, testable evidence that backs them up.

    REPLY:
    The answer lives in the mind of Lewandowsky I’m sure. – Anthony

  66. Gary said: Survey research is only as valuable as the quality of its method. The shoddy and incomplete explanation of what what done and where it may be biased in this paper is cause for immediate rejection. The fancy statistics mean nothing. ..””

    This is absolutely correct, anyone that has studied even the most basic of statistics will understand that the selection of the sample is the most critical part of any survey, if a sample is biased then the survey is invalidated. So if no skeptics agreed to do the survey it should have been cancelled. That would have been the scientifically honest thing to do, it is a non-paper.

    What this researcher has done is an insult to statistics in pursuance of what can only be described as a personal attack on genuine skeptical scientists and lay people – there is no room in in any branch of science for people that are prepared to stoop to such desperate tactics. it is work like this that gives statistics a bad name.

  67. Further to my earlier comment and Lucia’s above, I have now posted up some data analysis of the link between rejection of climate science and the belief conspiracy theories. I think there ain’t any link what so ever, but I leave you to form your own conclusions.

  68. Thank you Steven Mosher for your comments. Although you cannot say so, we guess that you find yourself embarrassed and not a little peed off by Lewandowsky’s slipshod work, because it taints the entire pro-warming camp by association.

  69. From the abstract: “This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.”

    Looking at the paper, it indeed seems like the authors subscribe to their own conspiracy theory where climate scientists are the target of a secret plot by powerful individuals and virtually omnipotent organizations. So, what then are the implications for the science done by “climate scientists”? Are they doing real science, or just being amalgamated into a consensus of some sort as a response to a perceived conspiracy?

    Science should always be based on utter honesty. So then, are the authors of this paper willing to doubt their own results? Look at the discussion part of the paper, it is less than impressive. The authors do not really question their own theories and methods, and the three possible flaws they can see in the paper are all summarily dismissed.

    This is not science at its best…

  70. As Ned points out: “10 of them claimed to think the moon landing was fake (gave it either a 3 or 4 on the conspiracy 1-4 scale). Of these, 5 appear to be climate believers (respondents 48, 140, 301, and 627) and 5 appear to be climate deniers (134, 861, 870, 890 and 964). ”

    So the title could just easily be:
    Nasa faked the moon landings and climate change is real worry to me
    An anatomy of gulllibility amongst climate change suckers

  71. A couple notes and observations:

    1. This paper received a grant from the Australian Research Council. While I am not usually an advocate, in this case – due to the apparent extreme failures of this paper – what appear to be outright lies about its creation, it would seem requesting a reply from them might be appropriate here.

    Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council and an Australian Professorial Fellowship to the first author. Address correspondence to the rst author at the School of Psychology, University of Western
    Australia, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au. Personal web page: http://www.cogsciwa.com.

    2. Lewandowsky says data avail on request. Someone should request the complete data, as the paper offers, INCLUDING the sites where sampling occurred.

    Footnote 3
    The survey included several additional items (e.g., querying perceived income
    rank), none of which were relevant to the constructs of interest. The complete data are
    available upon request.

    3. The KwikSurvey site was allegedly hacked and all prior data mysteriously lost in late June this year. The question then becomes what documentation DO the authors have for their claims. Where was the survey posted, and what were the answers.

    4. The survey questions are listed in Table 2. Along with how the questions were rated/scored.

    Why not simply recreate the survey. Use a survey site that allows tracking referring site and IP address. This time insure broad coverage. Replicate the questions exactly along with the scoring. I believe the questions should be randomized in order – ie: not “grouped” as shown in the Table 2. This helps minimized standardized answers for each group. For example the 4 CO2 related questions should be spread thruout the survey – not one after another.

    It appears this recreation would be relatively simple, and the data analysis not terribly difficult once obtained.

    At the end of the day it is absurd that Lewandowsky would even attempt to draw conclusions from such a seriously flawed paper as this. But in reading the Discussion it becomes very clear the whole point was to try to prove biases – “Motivated Rejection of Science” – by skeptics, and how to defeat those alleged biases. Simply ridiculous – and wholly unsupported by this unprofessional and seriously flawed work.

  72. At the risk of being “Mann-handled” over the statement … I would venture to say I believe it is entirely accurate to call this paper fraudulent.

  73. John says:

    Perhaps the Lewandowsky et al paper is an example of “Post Normal” science..

    No.

    “Post-normal science” is not science. The term should not be used at all, as it is deceptive. If it is used, the word “science” needs to be within the (sneer) quotes, to avoid the confusion of people into thinking that it is actually science. “Post Normal” science “Post-normal science”

  74. @ John says: Certainly it is “Post Normal” science. It is “ideological science”, therefore conclusions can be reached which advance the ideology no matter what the actual answers to the survey might show. Lewandowsky, come on here and defend yourself. Wait. Don’t bother, we’ve wasted enough time on you already.

  75. Mike.

    There is no embarassment. I happen to believe in the science. It is consistent with the physics I know. GHGs warm the planet, they dont cool it. I have issues with bad science. I don’t care who does it. This survey is bad science. The challenge we face will not be solved by publishing junk.
    You either stand against all junk or not.

  76. Ric Werme said (September 1, 2012 at 9:23 am)

    “…Oops – not only does it appear Tamino linked to it without attribution, JoAnne Nova has links to all the blog posts at her page, http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/ I thought the links were just to the home pages of the blogs.

    The Tamino link is http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/…”

    The telling part is that even though “Open” Mind linked to the survey, only 55 people commented on the post. The majority of the posts that did comment about the survey questioned it.

    There seems to be one running thread through Tamino’s posts, though: a deep dislike for all things WUWT. Even when the subject was this wonky survey, they managed to find a way to force it over to a discussion of a Steven Goddard post (I guess OT is ok as long as it is against “deniers”).

    So, a quick survey states that 31/55 (56.36%) of the posters had a problem with the survey, while 23/55 (41.81%) had a problem with Steven Goddard/WUWT.

    One person went OT (about either “subject), so I have to include that 1.81% with this “survey”.

    So if Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky (or someone from his staff) had taken time to read the comments from just ONE site that presented the survey (or a link to the survey), they would have come up with two important facts: first, that several readers had serious questions about how the survey was worded; and second, the choice of OpenMind as an outlet for the survey might have been a mistake.

  77. There is no embarassment. I happen to believe in the science. It is consistent with the physics I know. GHGs warm the planet, they dont cool it. I have issues with bad science. I don’t care who does it. This survey is bad science. The challenge we face will not be solved by publishing junk.
    You either stand against all junk or not.

    I agree, with most everything you said. My minor disagreement and main curiosity is (beyond the simple affect of “GHGs warm the planet”) what are the forces that contribute to the earth’s thermostat, if there is one? (I think there is). We’ve been in and out of ice ages and warm periods… It is said (I forget the source so no cite, sorry, that the ocean has a 900 year memory. Was it planetary position, ocean currents, the sun, clouds, cosmic rays, and who knows what else? My guess is a combination of most or all of the above, plus maybe others that we haven’t yet pinned down.

    It’s a complex system, and IMO pinning attribution and focusing so extensively on just one variable has the potential to lead us astray…

  78. Steven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    GHGs warm the planet, they dont cool it.

    How else does heat get radiated to space from the atmosphere to cool the planet?

  79. Terry,

    Logically I don’t think you can rule out “natural variation” or “unforced variation” or “internal forcing” or “long term processes”. Logically, the unknown is always there. It could be gremlins.

    The point is our best understanding, imperfect as it is, says that continued dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere will not be without consequences. Put another way, one cannot say with any certitude that dumping GHGs will have no effect.

    If you lived up stream of me and dumped stuff in the river, I’d be within my rights to inquire about the safety of your actions. If I had some science indicating that it might not be safe, I’d say the burden of proof was more on you than on me. I would not argue that I had an absolute right to force you to stop, but it would seem to me that we should find a way to discuss rights, reponsibilities and standards of proof in an imperfect situation.
    The argument: “nothing bad has happened yet”. The argument “this river was polluted before”
    The argument “prove what I’m doing is dangerous” really dont work here. If you were merely putting stuff in your body or your own property I’d agree. What you do is none of my business.
    But the air doesnt belong to either of us. Which means we have to find a way to discuss it.
    Bad science ruins that discussion.

  80. You really don’t get it do you? These non-productive tax funded wankers have never had to survive in the real world. From school to university to academic ivory towers from which they spew mumbo jumbo wrapped up in long words and nuances for “peer” review by their adoring uncritical acolytes. You really think they give a tuppeny sh1t about science for is it not blindingly clear they don’t understand or care about the first principles of scientific thinking and endeavour? No, for like naughty children these guys are lapping up all this attention as it forms the basis / justification of yet another grant to analyse the sub-species that communicate through WUWT.

  81. Climate science has been getting away with (correction been rewarded with money, prestige and travel and publishing rights through) making stuff up for so long now, it is rather disgusting.

    This is just another example amongst hundreds of others.

    They will not be stopped until there is punishment for just making stuff up. As in the carrot and the stick / reward and punishment, which is clearly one of the biggest motivational factors for humans.

    Lewandowsky must pay the price (so that in the future, there will be mush less making stuff up because the climate scientists know the stick comes out now and not the big golden carrot).

  82. Steven Mosher,

    Whoever said that “dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere will not be without consequences”?

    Everything has consequences. What you always ignore is a cost/benefit analysis. There is no evidence of any GHG-caused problems, so the effects appear to be minor. You cannot point to any global damage or harm from the added CO2, so spending $trillions to mitigate a non-problem is irrational.

  83. Months ago I felt a stench arising from Lewandowsky. He and John Cook of SkeSci have collaborated on the monstrosity hyperlinked above by Butch. This deserves expanding here:

    The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download

    The Handbook explores the surprising fact that debunking myths can sometimes reinforce the myth in peoples’ minds. Communicators need to be aware of the various backfire effects and how to avoid them, such as:

    The Familiarity Backfire Effect…”How does one avoid causing the Familiarity Backfire Effect? Ideally, avoid mentioning the myth altogether while correcting it… ”
    The Overkill Backfire Effect… “occurs because processing many arguments takes more effort than just considering a few… The solution is to keep your content lean, mean and easy to read… Stick to the facts. End on a strong and simple message …such as “97 out of 100 climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warning”…”
    The Worldview Backfire Effect… “occurs with topics that tie in with people’s worldviews and sense of cultural identity… For those who are strongly fixed in their views, being confronted with counter-arguments can cause their views to be strengthened. One cognitive process that contributes to this effect is Confirmation Bias…”

    It also looks at a key element to successful debunking: providing an alternative explanation. The Handbook is designed to be useful to all communicators who have to deal with misinformation (eg – not just climate myths)…

    Professor Lewandowsky … has published [a lot] including numerous papers on how people respond to misinformation.

    Not all psychology is this corrupt. The best psychology contains vital insights, honesty, integrity, and is capable of providing deep healing. Liesandoffkey is an affront to his profession.

    I still feel strongly that the skeptics’ community needs to pull together to debunk Cook’s false science, item by item. I would gladly pass on the climate skeptics’ wiki I started, if someone else is willing to take on its management, for this purpose.

  84. When I first saw an article based on this paper, my immediate thought was Dr Goebbels would be proud. The associations are quite similar to the image of rats being portrayed over a soundtrack about “jews”. The alarmists must be getting very alarmed to trot out such absurd nonsense.

    I tried to chase down details of the “poll”….and surprise, surprise it was almost invisible, but point made, damage done, associations set in concrete.

    So I am very glad that it is being unpicked in the blogosphere. More power to you!

  85. Even this “Only 0.9% of respondents actually believe that the moon landings “never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio””. is a misrepresentation. In this type of survey, it is always important to remember that the survey NEVER discovers what “respondents actually believe”. Never Never Never , really Never. Survey findings can only report what respondents responded. 0.9% is very likely an unaccounted-for ‘spoof’ result — a total of ten respondents fooling around with the survey. [Anyone who participated in University Psychology Department studies during the late 1960’s knows what I am talking about.]

  86. Chris H says:
    September 1, 2012 at 3:28 am

    I am utterly amazed that propaganda masquerading as science such as this got through the peer review process and was published. From hypothesis, through methods, analysis and conclusions, the paper is riddled with errors and should have been rejected by the editorial team without bothering reviewers.
    I do think it is unfair to tar the whole of psychology because papers such as this. There are many areas of psychology where the science is as rigorous as any of the better conducted physical sciences.
    _______________________
    ERRRRrrrrr, given psychology already has a large amount of egg on their face, the fact this paper made it through peer review indicates the “science” is anthing but rigorous.

    MAJOR EGG in FACE:

    Dean may face data fraud charges
    University World News, 03 November 2011

    …Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him.

    Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006 when he worked at the University of Groningen. In 14 out of 21 PhD theses where Stapel was a supervisor, the theses were written using data that was allegedly fabricated by him.

    …..The interim report, delivered on 31 October, said that at least 30 of the 150 papers Stapel had published were based on fictitious data.

    You would think with THAT looming in the background the journals would be a tad bit more careful wouldn’t you.

  87. Lewandowsky had some of the survey topics on his mind when he wrote this: skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-vs-commercials-and-spam.html

    An excerpt: >>>It was peer-reviewed science that developed the anti-retroviral drugs that can now control HIV. It was peer-reviewed science that discovered the physics that got us to the moon, and it was peer-reviewed science that identified the potential threat posed by climate change and that also delivered the knowledge necessary to deal with the problem.<<>>And finally, compare the process of peer review to the people who run websites that sprout nonsense about conspiracy theories ranging from “MI6 killed Princess Diana” to “9/11 was an inside job” and “Climate change is a hoax.” Well, the only hoax is played on those people gullible enough to put any credence in that nonsense.<<<

  88. Mike from Tassie says:
    September 1, 2012 at 5:52 am

    PS Timothy Leary was a psychologist too just to make it absolutely clear which cloud I think the Lewandowsky cuckoo hails from.
    _______________________
    Has he been sampling Leary’s favorite mind altering substance?

  89. Tallbloke, if you read Mosher enough, you’ll understand that he is talking about the GHGs in our atmosphere impeding the outflow of energy from our planet sufficiently to effect a warming influence; so, yes, Mosher is correct, GHGs do not cool the earth.

  90. @Jimmy Haigh says:
    September 1, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Another ‘intellectual’ proving that you don’t have to be intelligent to be classed as an intellectual.
    ————–

    No, another intellectual proving that you need absolutely no integrity to be an intellectual. It’s not intelligence that’s missing here, it’s respect, honesty, humility, and regard for the truth. (Probably also any attempt at self-reflection or self-awareness.)

  91. Jimmy Haigh says: “Another ‘intellectual’ proving that you don’t have to be intelligent to be classed as an intellectual.”

    Someone once said, “An ‘intellectual’ is someone educated beyond his intelligence.” That would seem to apply here.

  92. Hey, Lewandowsky,
    Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan, the first and last astronauts to walk on the moon graduated from my alma mater. And I still believe CO2 is a harmless beneficial plant food necessary not only for plant life but animal life.

  93. Martin Clark says:
    September 1, 2012 at 6:01 am
    “Ugh! One of my countrymen. How embarrassment.”
    Australia’s per capita climate prat emission rate is becoming alarming.

    And that, Martin, is certainly more alarming than good ol’ CO2 plant food, amen.

    Hey, I just read in this thread that Lewandowsky was originally from the US of A, so maybe we’re not entirely to blame for this lettered kook.

  94. Sean Peake says: “Well Komrades…These poor souls must be reeducated using the latest psychological techinques as soon as possible to eliminate such flawed thinking in society.” [/sarc]

    No, tovarich, we now have improved method to handle denier. No rubles for reeducation, no time-wasting trials. Have it video:

    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/01/most-honest-political-ad-of-all-time/

    [in case you’ve forgotten what lurks in the unconscious mind of most AGW fanatics]

    No, Mosher-san, I don’t include you in that category.

  95. Steven Mosher,

    Whoever said that “dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere will not be without consequences”?
    ——————————————–
    Smokey says: @ September 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    Everything has consequences. What you always ignore is a cost/benefit analysis. There is no evidence of any GHG-caused problems, so the effects appear to be minor. You cannot point to any global damage or harm from the added CO2, so spending $trillions to mitigate a non-problem is irrational.
    ——————————————-

    So far the consequences I have seen are all good. Plants were near starvation Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California and now The Earth’s biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause we have pretty much halved the amount of land need to grow a bushel of wheat or corn.

    On top of that even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress states:
    “Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…

    This paper agrees: Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    “Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

    And so does Woods Hole
    Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    “Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

    Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade….

    But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…

    Looking at graphs of temperature show the most likely catastrophe is a slide into a glaciation at this point and not warming. Also warming is a heck of a lot easier to adapt to compared to a glacier over one mile thick sitting on Hansen’s office. I lived near there with one of the glacial dumps (morianes) on the back doorstep and I also lived near the finger lakes. New York state is so full of glacial terrain you trip over it every time you turn around. Just watch out you don’t step on a copperhead, they love it.

    If CO2 can stop glaciation I say lets keep burning coal!

  96. Lewandowsky, a psychologist, is undoubtedly aware of the work in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s of Anthony Pratkanis on “Phantom Alternatives”. Let me summarize (and no doubt, unavoidably distort) the concept:

    Say you are asked to make a choice — but presented only one option. (You may have lemon) You likely will be miffed — and choose nothing at all, rejecting the proffered option.(I won’t take a lemon) However, if you are offered one option and informed that the OTHER, customary, alternative is at present unavailable, (Sorry, but today we are already out of grapefruit) you are more likely to accept the single option offered. (Oh, okay, I guess today I’ll have a lemon.)

    Lewandowsky offers us the choice– accept the consensus on global warming. But, we are ALSO offered the choice of a “skeptical position”. We can have, instead, creationism, moon landing stagecraft, and other moonbattery. Now, since we are offered a clear choice, we neither reject both the “science” and the “conspiracy” but embrace the first and reject the other.

    Pratkanis has offered a number of scholarly articles about how psychology can be used, or abused, to sell science, or psuedo-science. He’s a pretty interesting guy. Lewandowsky is, by comparison, in my opinion, the Michael Mann of psychological research.

  97. ““…they likely replied” That seems to me to be pretty weak data for a scientist. Either they replied requesting confidentiality or they didn’t, there’s no “likely” about it when gathering hard data.

    Time to fess up, perfessor….”

    I think Australian grammar has tricked you (and maybe some of your audience again),Anthony. What he is clearly saying is that they likely replied with a presumption of privacy, whether they asked for it or not. Its just an excuse for not being willing to give up that information by inventing a presumption of confidentiality. Also we spell perfessor as “professor”, here.

    I read the abstract of the paper and agree it is a disgusting attempt to paint AGW realists as insane anti science conspiracy theorists so I am also waiting to see when it will inexplicably disappear from the internet, probably Monday morning.

  98. I note from David Ross’s comment earlier that this survey was done in Aug-Oct 2010. That means it took nearly two years to write , be reviewed and get into the pre publication phase. Given what we know of ” pal review” and how it helps speed up the publication process one has to wonder what took all the time –maybe they had trouble finding some pals for this one.
    I realise that 2 years would not be unusual for a serious scientific paper but this is just based on a simple ( yes,stupid) survey and that is all.

  99. More on legal issues

    One, uwa might have a policy on data retention. In that case, I lost
    The data does not work.

    The ethics in Ozzie universities is authorized by NHMRC.

    So if uwa does nor react appropriately, NHMRC is next step.

    Here is a another gotcha. Ethics guidelines usually refer to avoidance of harm to
    An individual or a community. Does the group of people who subscribe to the
    Belief that the cage claims are overheated constitute a community. There should
    Be a plain language statement about the use of the data.

    Btw, the NHMRC can strip an organization of it ability to conduct research
    Involving human subjects.

    Jim

  100. Guys, it’s about to get worse. He’s coming your way in the Fall.

    AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
    By Stephan Lewandowsky
    Winthrop Professor and Australian Professorial Fellow, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
    Posted on 16 July 2012
    We have proposed several sessions for the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco on 3-7 December 2012: on uncertainty, misinformation and social media. AGU members are invited to submit abstracts for the sessions – the deadline to submit an abstract is August 8.

    Alice

  101. I have a simple analogy of the statistics used in the above report.

    sarc->
    based on a recent survey, more than 95 percent of voters will vote for the republican candidate and no respondents indicated at all would that they would vote for the democrats. Therefore republicans will win the next election hands down, the democrats needn’t bother to turn up to vote.

    Source: 200 people at republican conference. 9 respondents refused to answer how they would vote.

    Breakdown:
    Republican: 191
    Democrat: 0
    Don’t Know: 9

    /sarc

  102. Hey, didn’t the old USSR like to use a psychiatric diagnosis in order to discredit political oponents?

    Or even scientists who wouldn’t conform to the New Soviet thinking in science? Lysenkoism anyone?

  103. @lucy skywalker

    Re your idea Lewandowsky/Cook

    Pls contact me at alder/period/latimer/at/btinternet/period/com

    so we can transfer to a secure service to discuss.

    Thanks.

  104. The results of the survey are simple, most people answered sensibly and ten people were making fun of Lewankowski:
    Q. The surveys produced by Lewankowsky were written by retarded aliens controlling his mind?
    True or false.

  105. Hello Anthony!

    A suggestion:
    Send emails to 100 Critical Global warming blogs.

    Question:
    Do you believe that the moon landing was faked?

    Prognosis:
    100 people will say that the moon landing was not faked. (Surprise!)

    Give the paper to the Institute, send it to the press and the university.
    Together with all the information on blogs and sources.

    Then the professor must respond. Where does his data come from?

    Prognosis:
    Unfortunately, his data was lost.

    In the future, this professor will be the laughing stock of his University.

    Stephan

  106. A few months ago I tried to get some information about grants processes from the Australian Department of Climate Change. Evasion was expected and obtained. I am considering if I will apply for a grant so that i can at least see the requirements and hurdles that such authors face. Does anyone know how many highly qualified scientists are employed by the said department to consider, approve or fail applications for funds? We are not talking small sums here.
    In the meantime, I just chuckle at the amateurism of a non-achiever having the silliness to challenge the achievements of many of the so-called sceptics that I know have contributed mightily to science and national economies.

  107. Mosher seems to be the one avoiding facts by simply stating that “dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere will not be without consequences”, implying constantly over many threads in many blogs that such consequences are bad.

    Let him show what are the bad consequences that have happened to this world in the last 150 years when there ha been a steady increase in CO2 levels and there has been around a 0.8 degree C rise in temperature based on current data.

    There have been no such consequences. So his entire premise is based on beliefs and not science or facts. So in fact he is the one currently seeming to be practising post normal science.

  108. Mr Watts.
    Why should I show you my data…you’ll just try and find something wrong with it!
    Stephan.

  109. Here is a serious question for the people posting to WUWT (Anthony, perhaps a separate thread if this one goes stale? Maybe even a poll?)

    1. How many skeptics have been BLOCKED from each of the sites Lewankowsky used to survey “Deniers”?

    2. How many skeptics have had their comments ‘dissappeared’ and therefore no longer even bother looking at those sites.

    3. How many (like me) refuse to visit those sites on general principles so the site numbers and ranking torpedos and therefore they will not show up when a subject is searched?

    The sites are:
    %http://www.skepticalscience.com
    %http://tamino.wordpress.com
    %http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
    %http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
    %http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
    %http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
    %http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
    %http://hot-topic.co.nz/

    Heck the skeptics blogs might want to approach Dr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Pratkanis and offer ourselves up as guinea pigs so he can do a counter presentation at AGU Fall Meeting sessions on Social Media, Misinformation and Uncertainty for the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco on 3-7 December 2012.

    It is a bit of a short notice but doable.

    Anthony R. Pratkanis is Professor of Psychology at the University of California in Santa Cruz, California.[1] Pratkanis is an expert on economic fraud crimes, terrorist and dictator propaganda, marketing and consumer behavior, and subliminal persuasion.

  110. I agree with Lucy Skywalker
    Climate skeptics need something, a reference, to pull apart their non-science garbage line by line, item by item.

  111. tallbloke says:
    September 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    teven Mosher says:
    September 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    GHGs warm the planet, they dont cool it
    ———————————————————————————————————–.
    How else does heat get radiated to space from the atmosphere to cool the planet?
    ==================================================================
    Curious question indeed.

    A radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from conducted energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system.

    I am simply observing energy content of any system as a function of time, i.e. how long that delivered energy stays within a defined area. In regard to our planet the defined area is broadly the land surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere. How long the solar insolation, entering or leaving a defined area, stays before exiting determines T. and or heat content. This leads to a law. “At its most basic only two things can effect the heat content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system.”

    When I heard of AGW theory I was rather surprised to learn that the only molecules (GHGs) which allow energy to escape into space, (cooling) somehow net heat the system above non radiationg (at common T) atmospheric gases.

    Supposedly a non GHG atmosphere, mostly transparent to incoming insolation, allows the bulk of the insolation to reach the surface, where it the radiates back to space, again for the most part, bypassing the non GHG molecules. Of course this ignores conduction, convection and evaporation. In such a world the non GHG molecules would warm by collision, or conduction from the surface, which would then conduct to more non GHG above them, which would allow the surface atmospheric molecules to then receive more energy from the surface, etc, until convection, further conduction etc basically caused an expanding thermal dynamic equilibrium with a gravity induced lapse rate.

    Now, as I understand it, if we add a so named GHG molecule to such an atmosphere, according to climate scientist, it will redirect some of that surface LWIR energy back to the surface, thereby increasing the residence time and heat content of the atmosphere, as solar insolation continues unabated and the system will gain heat while energy escaping is delayed. My point is very simple. Assuming (for now) the climate scientist are correct That single GHG molecule is also receiving conducted energy from the surface, which now has the opportunity to accelerate the loss to space of said conducted energy, which formerly, in the non-ghg molecule, could not radiate to space, thereby GHG molecules accelerate the loss of conducted energy, and delay the loss of LWIR radiated energy

    I leave it to physics to determine what percentage of the energy in the atmosphere from the surface is conducted and how much is radiated, and to determine how often newly excited surface molecules , both atmosphere and ground, lose their energy via radiation, or via conduction. But the fact remains, a radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from conducted energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system.

  112. Daniel H says:
    September 1, 2012 at 6:03 am
    Anthony, there was recently another survey (longer, and with a 1-5 scale) put out by Lewandowsky’s research assistant, Charles Hanich, on June 4, 2012. It seems that the link for this survey was only posted on two blogs: Watching the Deniers and Skeptical Science.

    Thanks Daniel. If speaking of conspiracy theories it is interesting to see where the climate-zealots see conspiracies.
    Fascinating to see their lack of interest for climate science as such and their fixation, even obsession on question like Christopher Monckton and birth certificates?
    The question of birth certificates is not trivial to them, it seems to be crucial to understanding the climate change??!
    Illustrative is the conversation between catweazle666 and WtD linked here:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/question-for-readers-how-would-you-counter-the-denial-movement/

    I was stunned to realise that WtD blog owner has not even heard of Younger Dryas, Bond events, but he is having a blog on climate and has the insolence to call the skeptic community “deniers”.
    The comments are there for all to see (for how long?).

    Also what was already mentioned in postings above, it is interesting, even a bit scary to see the hate with which WUWT community is seen in many of the zealots blogs communities. Pure hate.

    It is such flawed papers as Lewandowsky’s which encourage such attitude and tries to give arguments to the haters. This is one more reason to have it put where it belongs – in the shame corner of pseudo-science.
    I was wrong, it is not even Lysenkoism what Lewandowsky does, it is one level lower, more in line with the psychologists of the former communist countries.

  113. I think that Lewandowsky should take guidance on the scientific method from Lisa Simpson. Her projects are often sensible and well-conducted.

    Lisa Simpson is 8 years old.

  114. Lars P,

    The hatred comes from providing a venue where both sides of the debate can express their views. The alarmist crowd is losing control of the narrative, and it drives them crazy.

  115. When an opponent is proclaimed to be silent and unable to defend themselves, in court or in official or academic capacity, and that silence is due to nefarious reasons such as someone accused by the Inquisition having already had their tongue cut out, or perhaps just falsely saying that a letter was sent and they didn’t reply, can this behaviour be described as Lewandowskyist?

  116. From the UWA CODE OF CONDUCT,

    2.1 Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. Data management should comply with relevant privacy protocols, such as the Australian Standard on personal privacy protection.

    2.2 Data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference. For data that is published this may be for as long as interest and discussion persists following publication. It is recommended that the minimum period for retention is at least five years from the date of publication but for specific types of research, such as clinical research, 15 years may be more appropriate.

    2.3 Wherever possible, original data must be retained in the school or research centre in which they were generated. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data. When the data are obtained from limited access databases, or via a contractual arrangement, the location of the original data must be identified, or key information regarding the database from which it was collected, and this must be retained by the researcher or research centre. In all cases, prior to the publication of research findings a Location of Data Form must be completed.
    Location of data form [RTF, 18.9 KB]
    Updated 30 Oct 2009

    2.4 Data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers. Where confidentiality provisions apply (for example, where the researchers or the University have given undertakings to third parties, such as the subjects of the research), it is desirable for data to be kept in a way that reference to them by third parties can occur without breaching such confidentiality.

  117. ““…they likely replied” That seems to me to be pretty weak data for a scientist. Either they replied requesting confidentiality or they didn’t, there’s no “likely” about it when gathering hard data.”

    I think you did not understand what was being said here. The word “likely” was about the unspoken assumption of privacy.

    I can tell you that if I replied “no” (or even “yes”) to an email request and my name was later published on a list of people who were asked a question in a private email, I’d be peeved.

    I think you basically don’t understand what was done (and not done) and why, and you feel left and important and this is why you are making a big deal out of this.

  118. Anarchist hate machine makes a good point a the top of this thread about the dangers of psychology aping the physical sciences. The social sciences suffer from an inferiority complex (to use a totally untestable and therefore unscientific term) with respect to the hard sciences, so they churn out articles like this, with no hard facts and just enough statistical jargon to keep the public from looking too closely.

    Imagine IF Lewandowsky’s sampling method had been valid (which it’s not) IF his questionnaire had been correctly formulated (which it’s not) IF it had been administered correctly (which it wasn’t) with checks againt bias (which aren’t there) and IF he’d got the results he was hoping for (which he didn’t) – what then? All he’d have proved (which he hasn’t) is that people who are sceptical of one thing are likely to be sceptical of another, and that their opinions on one subject are likely to influence their opinions on another. To which one can only say: So what?

  119. Chad Jessup says:
    September 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    Tallbloke, if you read Mosher enough, you’ll understand that he is talking about the GHGs in our atmosphere impeding the outflow of energy from our planet sufficiently to effect a warming influence; so, yes, Mosher is correct, GHGs do not cool the earth.>>>

    Other than conflating statistical apples with oranges where’s the empirical proof for the atmospheric effects of greenhouse gasses? Not simple laboratory experiments regarding the radiative properties of CO2 in an enclosure, which could also indicate CO2 to be an extremely efficient conductor of heat [up to TOA?]

  120. Anthony – I generally agree with you about this survey, but I’m a little puzzled by your concern with the small number of people agreeing with “moon landing was faked.” The 0.742 is a regression weight, and many of the others are larger, so it’s not clear to me that “moon landing was faked” played any great role – except in the title. I might be wrong, but at the moment I’m unsure.

  121. Geoff Sherrington says:
    September 2, 2012 at 4:13 am

    A few months ago I tried to get some information about grants processes from the Australian Department of Climate Change. Evasion was expected and obtained. I am considering if I will apply for a grant so that i can at least see the requirements and hurdles that such authors face. Does anyone know how many highly qualified scientists are employed by the said department to consider, approve or fail applications for funds? We are not talking small sums here.
    In the meantime, I just chuckle at the amateurism of a non-achiever having the silliness to challenge the achievements of many of the so-called sceptics that I know have contributed mightily to science and national economies.
    ——————————————————————–
    Geoff, this was an Australian Research Council grant, and I can tell you a bit about that.

    There is a pretty nightmarish application process (you can look at the application forms on the ARC website). The applications are then sent to the members of expert panels in each subject area. It is difficult to find panel members, because the pools of experts who are not themselves applying for grants can be very small, especially in highly specialised areas and the hard sciences. Also, I can’t remember whether they get paid or not, but if so it would be a pittance compared to the time it takes to read and understand large numbers of lengthy and complex applications.

    After that, the panels meet and discuss the applications. I have sat in on some of those meetings, but only in the hard sciences, which was not where applications like Lewandowsky’s would have gone. What struck me was that in these meetings, of a panel of half a dozen or so, quite often at least half of them chose not to comment on individual applications, because they were outside their area of expertise, although within the broad discipline. So, quite often, 2 or 3 members would make the decision.

    It’s a pretty inexact process, but not (in the hard sciences anyway) because of any deliberate bias that I detected. However, with the small ponds involved in many areas, inevitably a lot of panel members know, or know of, applicants. Also, there are guidelines for the panels imposed by the ARC. There was a period where climate change was identified a a research priority a few years ago, and of course this meant the ‘bad’ aspects of the impending catastrophe.

    Hope this helps.

  122. Fake but accurate raises its ugly head once again. Did this guy study under Briffa and Mann? He sure seems to have their techniques down pat.

  123. David L says:
    September 1, 2012 at 4:06 am
    Would it be a surprise that a climate zealot lied to advance his cause? True scientists offer real data. I’ve noticed that a lot of the warmers spins anecdotes and lies in lieu of real data. Why is that?

    Sure people question the moon landing. But the response to those questions is real data. Even Mythbusters conducted experiments to refute the skeptics. They didn’t just offer anecdotes and lies.

    Speaking of which I wonder if Mythbusters could do a whole season digging into the CAGW claims.

    Not likely for two reasons.

    1. Nothing to blow up. If you can’t make it go “Boom!” with a little C4, the boys don’t find it that compelling. Seriously, I can’t think of anything they could whip up in the shop that would directly address any of the tenents of CAGW insofar as they may be susceptible to physical proof.

    2. They have a policy against addressing anything that’s highly polarized. That’s why you’ve never seen them address any of the 911 nutter claims about thermite-laced structural members, despite MB’s long history of playing with thermite.

  124. From the article:

    Similar lack of confirmed invitations are being reported in other skeptical blogs, and the list is growing. But, for some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted.

    I challenge Lewandowsky to prove he hasn’t been lying outright about contacting skeptical sites.

  125. “How do you smear skeptics like that based on less than 1% of your data?”

    That’s how Mann and Briffa created their respective hockey sticks…

  126. RKS, sorry about my “half baked” comment at Bishop HIll. Here’s a question for you. Given a clear calm night, when a patch of clouds floats by (say 20k feet), does it slow the temperature drop? If yes, and I think that can be easily answered yes, then what if a cloud of enhanced CO2 floated by at 20k feet. Would it not have the same effect?

  127. Anthony,

    The data for the moon landings link to rejection of climate science is even worse.
    The sceptics are in a small minority – 125 or 175 out of 1145 responses depending on the definition. Of 6 responses in CYMoon with “4”, 4 are from those who “accept the science” and the 2 from those who “reject the science” are from respondents who ticked the same for every conspiracy theory.

    I have done a detailed analysis at

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/01/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-3-data-analysis-of-the-conspiracy-theory-element/

  128. @geoffchambers says:
    September 2, 2012 at 8:49 am
    “[…]
    Imagine IF Lewandowsky’s sampling method had been valid (which it’s not) IF his questionnaire had been correctly formulated (which it’s not) IF it had been administered correctly (which it wasn’t) with checks againt bias (which aren’t there) and IF he’d got the results he was hoping for (which he didn’t) – what then? All he’d have proved (which he hasn’t) is that people who are sceptical of one thing are likely to be sceptical of another, and that their opinions on one subject are likely to influence their opinions on another. To which one can only say: So what?”

    Dang! I thought you were headed for a climate model analogy with all those IFs. You coulda, ya know, IF you only had of… ;o)

    (Nice comment. I’d LIKE it, but I won’t do Facebook until they prove man landed on the moon… double winky.)

    P.S. Any typos this week will be blamed on excellent rum.

  129. Fixing the paper’s title:
    NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is real: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science for profit, policy, and politics by AGWers.

  130. To publish a paper full of egregious mistakes, misrepresentations and statistical error is stupid. But to attack in the process a group of people who make a daily habit of analyzing and dissecting inadequate research demonstrates a truly transcendent degree of stupidity.

    at paper a group of people renowned for pulling apart sh, but he publihed a paper of that kind criticising a group of people who have turned


  131. Greg Laden says:
    September 2, 2012 at 8:02 am

    “…you feel left and important…”

    Anyone care to explain Greg Laden’s incoherent comments above? I doubt that he will since it seems to be a drive-by kind of sneer, not an attempt at rational discussion. Typographical struggles aside, he wants to say no big deal. Does he have an actual argument or only blather?

    btw, would it be this (link below) Greg Laden who commented above? Interesting for what the Tallbloke episode suggests about Laden’s (lack of) scruples, accuracy, and rigor…. I wouldn’t waste clicks looking at Laden’s own blog since he has proved his lack of elementary fairness and decency in the past.

    Greg Laden discussed at Tallbloke

  132. “Total responses are 1145 (Rows R2 to R1146, top row R1 is title, so subtract 1 from 1146). Therefore 1067+68 = 1135 1135/1145 = 0.9912
    Only 0.9% of respondents actually believe that the moon landings “never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio”. So what does that say about the title of the paper:
    NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax

    I see a retraction for this paper in the very near future.”
    ————————————————–

    It’s worse than we thought, “out of the sample of 10 that believe the moon landings were faked, a majority (60%) accept the consensus position on climate science.”

    Source: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/

  133. Geoff Chambers from Bishop Hill seems to have achieved a considerable success at Skeptical Science blog in persuading SkS author & moderator Tom Curtis to demand a withdrawal and rewrite of Lewandowsky’s paper.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html

    Quote:-
    Given the low number of “skeptical” respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.

    Coming from Skeptical Science that’s a significant step in the direction of scientific integrity and should be applauded.

  134. When you have to add the word “science” to your discipline’s name you know its too far out to be obvious. I hated it when they took the beautiful term Geology and changed it to Earth Sciences. It is a diminutive of Geology. Cognitive Science – give us a break. It is the looseness of these terms that leaves lots of room for very lightweight thought.

  135. I gather than no one here is familiar with Psychological Science. In fact, it’s the flagship publication of the Association for Psychological Science, which is perhaps the premier association of experimental psychologists in the world. I’m amazed that drivel like this got accepted by that journal; hopefully, there’ll be some embarrassment in that neck of the woods. I don’t like this kind of paper-and-pencil research anyway, but this may even be at the bottom of that barrel.

    I’d say that Lewandowsky is another fine candidate for the Climate Prat award!

  136. I originally searched for Lewandowsky and had had no returns. In a comment above, I gave permission for Lewandowsky to identify me if they had sent me an email that I hadn’t located.

    In Lewandowsky’s post today, he reported that the inquiry was not sent out by him personally but by his research assistant. I searched again this time under the term “uwa.edu.au” and located an email from Charles Hanich on Sep 6, 2010 asking that the survey be posted by Climate Audit and a second request two weeks later.

    Like many people, I get lots of emails. I didnt know Hanich and I didn’t pay any attention to the request at the time. I didnt reply.

    Lewandowsky stated that the blogs in question “likely replied to my requests under the presumption of privacy and I am therefore not releasing their names.” Given that I made no reply, I don’t understand why their original inquiry would raise confidentiality issues.

    The study itself looks pretty goofy and to be compromised by fake (Gleickian) answers from readers of Tamino, Deltoid etc , but that is another story.

    • Regarding Steve McIntyre’s note at 2:14PM.

      I understand his problem, I get hundreds of emails a day. Sometimes I miss important emails in the deluge.

      So far, on my home computer (where I do most WUWT work) I have not been able to find any evidence that WUWT received an invitation from uwa.edu.au” or Charles Hanich about that time. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any, as it is also possible it ended up in the spam filter and was deleted.

      I’ll search my office computer today and get a second look, to see if perhaps it resides there.

      Lewandowsky should know that if you really want to reach people in the day and age, don’t assume email is reliable. Back in the DARPA days, before SPAM accounted for a significant portion of internet traffic, it was reliable, now today, for anything truly important I follow up with a phone call and repeated emails until I get a response.

      Lewandosky’s assistant apparently made an assumption.

      That doesn’t negate the fact that the rest of the paper is biased and worthless though. Clearly Lewandowsky didn’t care. If I did a sampling like that, I’d be excoriated. But anything goes in climate science when it supports the meme.

  137. Anthony Watts says:
    September 4, 2012 at 6:27 am
    ========
    “But the plans were on display…”
    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a flashlight.”
    “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'”
    – Douglas Adams

  138. Anthony says: “…if you only ask questions of one side, as shown is the blog list above, you’ll get one-sided answers…”

    Did you really write that, Anthony? If the study was truly one-sided there would be no skeptics amongst the respondents to analyse. Furthermore, the study does not talk about the proportion who are skeptical (which may well have been small); it looks at the patterns of beliefs of skeptics and non-skeptics to determine differences between them. In so doing it found that climate skeptics proved to be more prone to being conspiracy theorists. This may not be that surprising; but neither is it one-sided. It is just pattern recognition – the null hypothesis (that there would be no difference between skeptical and non-skeptical respondents) was disproved.

    BTW, I agree with you that it is odd that you cannot determine who the 5 skeptical blogs were/are. I believe we all deserve to know. Therefore, although I do not approve of your publication of the email address of pro-vice chancellor at UWA, I would like to know who they were. However, not knowing does not invalidate the findings of the research.

  139. Jimbo @ September 1, 2012 at 6:50 am

    ” Not only do skeptics agree that the moon landing was real, two skeptics actually went to the moon and took photos (that’ll be Harrison Schmidt and Buzz Aldrin).”

    Sorry but Aldrin is not a skeptic. He believes in the “god” conjecture, for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence. Belief in anything without evidence in support of that belief is unskeptical.

Comments are closed.