The Daily Lew – Issue 2

More noise in Stephan Lewandowsky’s LewWorld. This time, Steve McIntyre finds a statement by Lewandowsky that effectively hoists him by his own petard. Apparently, data integrity only applied to others, not the inhabitants of LewWorld.

Steve writes:

Lewandowsky has stated that an online survey by an opponent was “useless” “without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data” and that their study “should not have been published without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data—I doubt that they could”. Words that apply even more forcibly to his own study. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

On Sep 27, 2010, about a month after the Lewandowsky survey was posted at several anti-skeptic blogs, John Cook posted the following at the private SkS forum entitled “Excerpt from Steve [Lewandowsky]‘s email”. At the time, Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray had just carried out an online survey. Lewandowsky complained that there was “no way to check or verify the integrity of the data” and therefore the data was probably “useless”. Lewandowsky said that the study should not have been published “without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data”:

It is a real eye opener. I suggest taking it all in at Climate Audit.

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

In other news…Warwick Hughes has this to say:

Errors in IPCC climate science » Blog Archive » Professor Stephan Lewandowsky believes satellite temperature data “…yield precisely the same result…” as “surface-based thermometers”.

In May 2010 Professor Lewandowsky stated on the Australian ABC online The Drum – “The further fact that the satellite data yield precisely the same result without any surface-based thermometers is of no relevance to climate “sceptics.
Just checkout the very real trend differences between satellites and surface that I found in April 2012. “You know how the warmists parrot on that “satellites agree with surface temperatures” – not any more – they should check the data.

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

Simon at Austalian Climate Madness writes:

Lucia on Lewandowsky’s questions for the blogs

I particularly like this bit in Lucia’s post in response to Lewandowsky’s third question:

3. Where do we go from here?

We read the contents of the invitations, note the dates and request copies of the other invitations and compare them. This will provide data to determine whether the method of inviting people was designed to introduce bias.

Precisely what the FOI will show. The University have advised that a decision will be made on 18 October 2012.

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

And Jeff takes Lewandowsky to task over a citation

The Lewandowsky Incident

Posted by Jeff Condon on September 11, 2012

I have avoided critique of Lewandowsky’s paper because I am still awaiting a reply from Lewandowsky on my demand for removal of a false citation. He has agreed in part that the citation was inaccurate but due to some minor sophistry in his reply there is delay in finalizing the issue.

It seems that his attention is now focused on the basic errors in his methodology, which apparently could have been picked up by anyone with even the most rudimentary skills in the field. Odd that in this case his the lack of addressing of the basic sampling problems of an on-line study, singularly biases the study toward a more positive conclusion that skeptics are conspiracy nutters … right?

It has gotten so bad that he has taken to snipping Steve McIntyre’s very reasonable questions at the Lewandowsky “science” blog.

Who would have guessed.

I have been at this for 4 years now and I think we have the cycle down. Why don’t the extremists ever learn how to handle questions?

About these ads

32 thoughts on “The Daily Lew – Issue 2

  1. It doesn’t make any difference however many holes are punched in this survey. The msm had their story for a day or two and are not going to admit now that it,and they, were wrong. There will be no wider coverage that might put the warmists in a bad light.

  2. Well. I agree 100%. Lew is right.And Mickey Mouse Mann’s hockey stick looks good.And 1 tree ring can tell hundreds of years worth of weather.And the poly bears are drowning.And Pengies are moving north.And drinking Coke(TM) with the poly bears.Whoops.It appears I am only 50% right,as my cat disagrees with me(she loves pengies).Ummmmmm….do I need data with this? Or a peer review? And right now on Lac Ste.Anne in western Alberta,it is a balmy +5C,with 10 knot winds.Now I call that global warming.Drats.Now only 25% right,as one of my other cats thinks poly bears are the leading cause of tooth decay by drinking pop.Can my other one(yeah,I have 4),Gunner,get a grant for a study on how pop causes the Arctic to warm when poly bears drink it and release all that CO2?

    Sorry mods…silly day

  3. Ha Ha Ha!
    Lewandowsky challenging the integrity of Hans von Storch’s data is right up there with Micheal Mann challenging Steve McIntyres’s math.

  4. The survey that claimed 97% of scientists believe in AGW was also deeply flawed but the warmists still quote it as gospel to this day. Put propaganda in print and it becomes immortal to those who put their own politics above the truth.

  5. Actually, it does matter how many holes are punched in it.

    People still cite the idiotic “97% of climate scientists” survey as if it were a legitimate scientific research study. Why? Because its methodology wasn’t exposed and criticized forcefully enough as being blatantly biased, and its authors weren’t publicly shamed for their disingenous work.

    By the time this Lewandowsky paper is laid to rest, nobody should dare cite his work because of the professional embarrassment it would cause them.

  6. “Why don’t the extremists ever learn how to handle questions?”

    Because it’s an extremely difficult problem to answer questions when you have to keep the story straight. It’s a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive. A warmist must always maintain that the world is warming dangerously due to fossil fuel use and that anyone skeptical of that “fact” is either paid off by big oil or an idiot. A warmist can never admit that the “fact” is actually a supposition that depends upon only considering a subset of the available data to appear valid. A warmist must seldom admit a skeptic is right about anything. A warmist must never discredit “The Team” or the hockey stick. A warmist must attempt to project [accuse] his own biased methodologies onto skeptics whenever possible. A warmist must always refer to CO2 as a pollutant. A warmist must always connect anything bad that happens to increasing CO2 and fossil fuels. A warmist must maintain that anything that happens is “consistent with” climate models. A warmist must never admit to his/her own biases. Etc. Etc.

    With all these rules how could they not get tripped up by questions?

  7. “A revolution is only illegal when it is discussed in the third person. Our revolution is legal… THEIRS is not” (paraphrased from Benjamin Franklin)

  8. Russ, who is going to expose and criticize the authors of this survey other than the blogs? The purpose of the survey is to discredit the blogs, so any criticism in the blogs will be suspect at best and deemed part of a conspiracy theory at worst. What “respected” media is going to criticize the survey when they are all committed to promoting climate change and this survey fits the narrative?

  9. Tried going to Jo Nova and got this:

    “This Account Has Been Suspended”

    Probably nothing, but it sure does make me nervous when things like that happens…

  10. He is merely following standard climate science practice , demand others do what you don’t and attack them as being wrong for doing what you do yourself .

  11. Louis says:
    September 12, 2012 at 11:36 am
    The survey that claimed 97% of scientists believe in AGW was also deeply flawed but the warmists still quote it as gospel to this day. Put propaganda in print and it becomes immortal to those who put their own politics above the truth.
    =====================================================================
    How dare you!
    97% of those that already agree with DO agree with them.
    8-)

  12. TYPO!
    “97% of those that already agree with” ….
    Should be:
    “97% of those that already agree with them” …..

  13. “her principle components with the cherries on sagged southwards”

    Tallbloke, you owe me one computer screen!!!

  14. Yo Bloke, you’re right, but “the media’s” credibility is burning all over the world (on LOTS of topics) and the remotely savy have cottoned on to what a crock the Warming scam was. They’re losing and getting more desperate. Keep hammering on ‘em because we gotta kill this scam fully.

  15. He’s kidding, right? To think that a Professor with the School of Psychology is going to sit there and argue statistics, with CA in our corner?

    And about that survey that claimed 97% of scientists believe in AGW – what’s amazing is that after all this time, with all this evidence, they (the 97%) still haven’t been able to convince those “rogue” climate scientists (that leftover 3%) that there is a problem.

    Now THAT’S a survey I’d like to see re-done…

  16. There has been much discussion that the phrase “New World Order” could differentiate between “normal” people and “conspiracy believers”… Oh please, for heaven’s sake folks, get a grip. Did it occur to people that they are simply UN aficionados? .. or devotees of the UN flavor of bureaucratese?

    http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/statements/carnegiecouncil101207.shtml

    Reflecting on what may be the reason that prevents us from establishing a new world order – whether political or economic in nature — I believe it is because people in today’s world—in the world of ICTs, of information communication technologies, of interdependence of globalization — are frightened when they hear the word “order.” They may be tired at attempts to impose an order. I believe people would like to have something else: normal transparent relations amongst themselves in a world that is very interdependent and made transparent by the ICTs. In today’s world you can communicate with every person you would like to; you just need an email address and a computer. Nobody can prevent you from doing that. No order can prevent that.

    Search Here…

    http://search.un.org/search?q=%22New+World+Order%22&btnG=Search+UN+Website&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&Submit=Go&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=un_org

    It is a phrase much favored in their documents. I took the test here, at WUWT, and was most startled when I saw the phrase as I have read many UN documents where the phrase occurred. I do not believe in anything but “like minded people”. (Even if conspiracies are truly a lot of fun!

    I made a similar post at Climate Audit.

    Enjoy!

  17. Has anyone ever met a real live person who believes the moon landing was faked?

    If Lew’s paper has any significance there must be milliions of them because there are millions of skeptics. What is wrong with the editors of the journal who accepted this paper? Have they no common sense at all? Or don’t they care that Lew’s conclusions have to be bat shhit crazy.

  18. Q: if you believe sincerely in ”GLOBAL warming”; why are you ALL calling it ”Climate Change?!?!?!
    1]The moon is constantly spinning around the earth – the climate never stopped changing for one day in 4billion years – some places for better / other for worse.

    2] the universe is NOT spinning around the earth – there is NO GLOBAL warming. Confusing regular climatic changes and localized warmings / coolings as GLOBAL = mother of all CON

    3] Warmist believe 90% in global warming, in 100years, b] ”Skeptics” believe 101% in the phony GLOBAL warming… can I join the circus?

Comments are closed.