The Daily Lew – Issue 6 – drill baby, drill.

LewWorld has increased its spin and is now “drilling into noise“. The resulting increased spin and precession looks to be creating dangerous wobble on LewWorld. Meanwhile while Lew is drilling for noise, McIntyre has tried to get the same results as Lewandowsky’s paper by taking Lewandowsky’s noisy data and applying the same techniques listed in the paper. Replication doesn’t appear possible. It looks like the paper is a dry hole even though it is gushing superheated air. Meanwhile, Lewandowsky’s coauthor, John Cook, has been host to his own oily conspiracy fanboy club. If you have not read it yest, be sure to read: ‘…we need a conspiracy to save humanity’, because it seems to be a true window into the soul of “Skeptical Science” denizens.  Also of interest, Tom Fuller analyses Lewandowsky’s medicalization of skeptics.

A. Scott takes a look at some of the drilling logic being applied by Lewandowsky in this essay below. Finally, at the end, I have a short poll about Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky.

I have 10 fingers and toes, therefore I faked the (Moon) Landing hoax

Motivated Rejection of the Lew…by A.Scott

There’s a new story up – “drilling into noise” – by the lead author, Stephen Lewandowsky, of the recent paper NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.”

For the first time, in a now total 9 blog posts on this paper, this most recent story is more talk, less condescension and derision towards those who would dare challenge his work. Well OK, mostly, sorta less. It is a long story, with lots of fancy terms, initials, equations and descriptions.

In it he reminds us lowly unwashed masses that we are knowledge-less simpletons – merely “toying” with his data. That we couldn’t possibly understand all the important stuff real scientists like him know. Or maybe he didn’t say it exactly that way, but it’s just how it came across.  

He takes the long way around to re-tell us why skeptics are somehow conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing, and (science), is fake, or something like that. I guess the parentheses mean because the answers to some of the other questions about science were true, that we can perform a latent variable analysis, and prove we actually DO believe in that fake old moon landing even though we said we didn’t. Or maybe not.

That’s this cool new idea he shares – we can’t just look at the simple answers to the questions – like whether we believe the moon landing was fake, nah, those 10 people don’t know nothing – they’re just noise. Nothing to see here – no one behind this curtain – now move along …

No – we must look to the answers of the other questions, to determine if we believe the moon landing was fake and thus are nasty old science rejecters. And motivated ones at that. Or something like that.

Of course he cannot go into the details in a place such as his own blog, but never fear he assures us, they mixed up some particularly resilient associations between latent constructs, and hypothesized that pesky measurement error right outta your clothes. I might have mixed that up a little though – its tough for us mere mortals to follow all that complicated sciencey stuff you know. I think I feel a definite conspiracy ideation coming on after that. Better take an aspirin.

I may be a bumpkin, but I think I can help simplify his story.

I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 20, or sometimes a few more, without much trouble.

I don’t need to even take my shoes off to count the total number of folks who agree the NASA Apollo Moon Landing was fake – and filmed in Hollywood … Beverley Hills that’s is …

Just 6 poor saps said they “Strongly Agree” the moon landing was a hoax. And 4 more said they “Agree.” A whopping 10 science rejecters right there I tell you. Of course some of them might be fake. We might only need one hand to count them.

I have a fancy technique too. Well, more of a rule really … my rule is if you can counts it on fingers and toes – its probably correct – they usually don’t lie.

I rarely need pivot tables, linear regression, informed judgment, uninformed judgment, deep statistical competence or incompetence, SEM, latent constructs, latent variables, latent prints, clean socks, pretty rocks, or any other special highfaluting whizbang stuff to count numbers that fit on my fingers and toes.

I submit a new theory too, that if a number fits on your fingers and toes, it ain’t that darn unhelpful noise he’s sqwaukin’ about – unless of course you’re snappin’ your fingers ’cause you just figured out the answer. That could be noise – at least if you’re good at snappin’ your fingers.

I can also tell you if you have a number that fits on the old “digit-all” calculator (its a joke son, get it – digits) and someone tries to claim it has some latent construct or any such thing if you compare it to to a room FULL of hands and feet, there just might be something in common between that fella and what ‘ol Bessie’s out in the pasture making right about now. He just might be one of them types, if they can’t dazzle you with their brilliance, they start trying to baffle you with their … err, well … Bessie byproduct.

I guess the moral of the story is you can always trust your fingers and toes.

Any time you can use those good old fingers and toes to solve a tough question you usually don’t need nothing fancier – and you can pretty much trust the answer. Even if you’re a scientist. Well, unless you’re a rocket scientist and you might send your pal Zeke the chimpanzee to Pluto instead of Mars. Then you should probably break out the slide rule.

Or at least take off your shoes to double check your work.

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

[added] also worth reading is Willaim Brigss essay: NASA Faked Moon Landing—Academic Psychologists Swoon, Tie It To Climate Change

One day a terrific psychological study is going to be written on the madness and mass lunacy which arose after climate change swam into the public’s ken. I don’t mean the actions and thoughts of the man-in-the-street, which were and are no different in this area than they were and are in any political matterhe . No: the real curiosity is what happened to academia, inside departments which haven’t anything to do with climatology.

Given the bizarre work of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, his hilarious protestations over the questions raised about his data gathering methods and his methodology, plus his “muted for prime time” hatred that you can read between the lines (as well as what we see on his mouthpiece wesbite, Skeptical Science, I decided it was time to ask this question:

Has Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky usurped Dr. Michael Mann as the most irrationally emotive spokesman for climate alarmism?

About these ads

107 thoughts on “The Daily Lew – Issue 6 – drill baby, drill.

  1. I voted yes. Just compare their commenting style on their blogs. Mann can pose as clear, cold and precise when he has to. Lew doesn’t have that ability. He always seems about to explode. His censoring of comments is maniacal in its ideological fastidiousness. Lew is not really a scientist. He’s a propaganda artist.

  2. Hard question. Mann has been in the lead for so long… Lewandowsky is coming up strong but it would be unfair to Dr. Mann to say he’s got him beat just yet.

  3. Lewandowsky has a long road to walk if he ever wants to be considered in the same league as the persecuted-for-his-faith climate activist Michael Mann.

  4. Mann still wins hands down. All Lew published was one junk science paper that immediately was shredded to tatters.

    In six months, Lew will fade into obscurity, while Mann’s junk science will continue to misinform people in droves.

  5. To be fair to Mann, he may have personality quirks that have flipped him over the edge – but he did start out by getting a proper qualification in a real science.

    Lewandowsky shows no sign that he has any inkling of what is meant by scientific method.

    He seems to have got where he is with a mixture of opportunism, sleight -of-hand, bluster and malevolence.

    He seems to be borderline innumerate and be completely incapable of discussing differing opinions – other than by censorship and aggression.

    He is possibly the most unpleasant character the climate debate has yet thrown up – and I find it extraordinary that he has infiltrated himself into an educational establishment.

    I think he wins hands sown.

  6. It is really hard not to use extraordinarily unflattering terms to describe what I think of Dr. Lew. I have been fascinated by science since I was in high school (which was a very long time ago). While I did not go on to post grad doctoral work in science I did study geology in university and pride myself in being reasonably science-literate. It is therefore supremely insulting for this fellow to smear all people who hold reasonably-held questions about so-called “settled science”. It is also almost beyond comprehension that any real scientist would come to the defence of Lew, or that his university has not already suspended him for cause. It is likely going to take a decade or more to put science back into science as I fear the damage being created by climate scientists is already spilling over to the whole field of science. Who can trust an activist scientist these days?

  7. Nice, clear question and choice of answers. If it were Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky doing the poll it might have taken the form:

    Has Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky usurped Dr. Michael Mann as the most irrationally emotive spokesman for climate alarmism?
    1) YesNoMaybeEquallyIrrationalandemotive
    2) EquallyIrrationalandemotiveYesNoMaybe
    3) EquallyIrrationalandYesNoMaybeemotive

    Simple when you know how to tie things in.

  8. I voted for Mann not being replaced by Lewandowsky. Mann is not stupid, but knows he has done crap work and is trying to re-write history to salvage his spotty career. Lewandowsky, on the other hand, doesn’t have a clue the extent of his ignorance. I doubt if Mann would bother to talk to someone as dumb as Lewie.

  9. Jim Hansen and Tim Flannery will be most put out not to have made the poll, and Julia Gillard has done more than any politician to bankrupt a nation in the cause of climate alarmism. So many to choose from, and so little editorial space to fill…..

  10. This is all sooooooooooo embarrassing for the climate “science” community. In the aggregate they seem to be beating out the Education Departments for the lowest SAT/GRE test scores and the least competence.

    Whatever happens in the next decade — whether Goldman Sachs and the politicians succeed in implementing a carbon tax “commission” on top of everything else — the blot on the climate “science” escutcheon will endure for at least a generation, beyond.

    Iowahawk is one of my favorities and this essay on the clowns in the “science” is one of my favoriites of one of my favorites:

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/the-miming-is-settled-it-is-time-to-take-forceful-antics-against-climate-change.html

    …Lady in Red

    PS: By any measure, Judith Curry is a star. Same time, she’s practically her own galaxy standing around alongside this crowd of losers and their “soft science” pals.

  11. I would have preferred to see more options such as:
    -Neither is significantly irrational and emotive
    -In this regard a third climate alarmism spokesperson trumps both of them (e.g. Al Gore)

    I voted that Mann still rules this category as I don’t believe Lewandowsky carries significant weight as a climate alarmism spokesman but is more of a sideshow freak. Mann is by far the more (and probably most) damaging to the hard science as well as being highly emotional and irrational.

  12. What no conspiracy questions, i.e. “Lewandowsky is a mindless robot, designed and controlled by Mann, Hansen and Gleick.”?

  13. I think the idea of quantization applies, meaning that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. The quantum in this case is the “crank.” The free dictionary says this is an informal term to describe a grouchy person of eccentric character, “especially one who is unduly zealous.”

    As they are both cranks, I had to go with equally irrational and emotive.

  14. I’ve just performed an SEM latent variable analysis on the results of Anthony’s poll so far, using an advanced technique so obscure and powerful that none of you people of lesser intellect could get anywhere near understanding it.

    I cannot get into the details here, but basically SEM permits computation of the error-free associations between constructs, such as one’s attitudes towards Mann and one’s Lewandowsky ideation. It is because measurement error has been reduced or eliminated, that correlations between constructs are higher in magnitude than might be suggested by the pairwise correlations between items.

    It clearly shows there is a latent signal that most here believe Professor Lewandowsky to be an intellectual giant and a prince among men.
    QED

  15. “As they round the post….it is Doctor Loo closing from the outside lane to a photo finish with Mickey Mann….but there’s another stretch to run….the Muller, Suzuki and Schneider dark horses are still in the pack”….

    too close to call…gotta go with the “equally irrational and emotive”….

  16. I just plugged my tinfoil hat in and tried to tune into the Orbital Mind Control Laser Array, so I could be told which way to vote, it blew the switches and now all the lights in my street have gone out

  17. I voted for both the same cranks….but I think the poll needs a couple of more choices.
    [snip -over the top ~moderator]

  18. I voted for Mann. He has real staying power. After all, Congress debunked his “Hockey Stick” back in 2006, yet he still is hanging on to it.

    Six years! Lewandowski may be stranger, but he’ll never last. Here today, gone tomorrow.

    Mann’s like a mule, while Lew’s like a swarm of midges just before a frost.

  19.  From reading the recent stream of   Lewandowsky’s posts at his website, I am reminded of the opening stanza of   William Butler Yeats’ (1865-1939) poem ‘THE SECOND COMING':

      ” Turning and turning in the widening gyre
        The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
        Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
        Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
        The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
        The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
        The best lack all conviction, while the worst
        Are full of passionate intensity.”

    Lewandowsky’s center is CAGW propaganda.  Its inherent irrationality can only end in its own chaos and collapse; the rational meanwhile continue their normal achievements in gaining objective knowledge of reality.

    John

  20. I almost feel like asking everyone to stop critiquing Australian research in this area out of mercy, recently we’ve had Gergis and Lewandowsky and of course Cook’s SkS site that has been Orwell’s Minitrue for a few years now. Australian “this is commonly referred to as research” is so hopeless It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

  21. I voted “No” because even the warmists think Lew is a joke (except for the truly brainwashed). The guy is a silly diversion. Mann will always be a joke to the skeptics but the warmists still fawn over his every utterance. I sure do wish he’d man up and take Steyn to court.

  22. Nice, clear question and choice of answers. If it were Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky doing the poll it might have taken the form:

    Has Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky usurped Dr. Michael Mann as the most irrationally emotive spokesman for climate alarmism?
    1) YesNoMaybeEquallyIrrationalandemotive
    2) EquallyIrrationalandemotiveYesNoMaybe
    3) EquallyIrrationalandYesNoMaybeemotive

    Simple when you know how to tie things in.
    ================

    then he would have applied his scientificy, super sophisticated mathematical formulae that would tell him the ‘real’ answers regardless of what the actual answers were.

  23. Check your wallet. Mann has all ten fingers in there. Lew has only nicked a twenty to go to the movies to watch “Capricorn One” with his buddies. Of course with the ethanol mandate the popcorn is too expensive so he’ll need more to finish his “research.”

  24. Both are irrational and emotive. The problem here is measure the degree of emotional irrationality. Unfortunately both of these esteemed Climate Scientists peg my measuring equipment. In fact, when conducting my tests, my irrational meter pegged on Certifiable Fruit Loop, then then failed. So the real question is… What comes after that? Perhaps we need to designate a new category. Perhaps Climate Alarmist Thumb Sucker?

  25. A. Scott:

    You say

    I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 20, or sometimes a few more, without much trouble.

    Well, I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 524,288 and double that if I ignore zero. But I doubt Lew has the mathematical ability and understanding for him to work out how I do it.

    Richard

  26. Maybe we are too hard on Lewandosky, after all at least he is consistent with climatology as it has been practised. First start with a preconceived ideology. Check. Second ignore/manufacture data to suit. Check.By the standards of the team the good Dr is a fine upstanding saviour of the planet.Do I need sarc? A tax on do-gooders would solve much of the noise from these self-styled saviours. Dogooder being any, who want to use other peoples money to solve social problems only they see, and a tax of 150% of their gross would encourage sanity or at least silence.

  27. No, this pipsqueak won’t take the place of Mann. He’s given the warmists their headline, it doesn’t matter now if he slips back into (well-deserved) obscurity.

    Can’t help feeling Hansen ought to be in the mix somewhere, too, though, if only for going off and getting himself ostentatiously arrested for “The Cause”. A bit more style, if no more substance.

  28. Ian says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:16 am

    How about some kind of Ig Nobel prize for climate scientists?

    Already in the works. Pointman (Pointman’s) has an annual Climate Prat Award contest going. The problem is, the field is too rich.

  29. It might be a more interesting poll to compare which climate scientists self identified skeptics believe are ‘closest to the truth’.

    I.E. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Issac Held, James Hansen(NASA) or Michael Mann. They all have Phd’s in the relevant field. Lindzen,Held and Hansen are members in good standing of the National Acedemies of Science in the relavent geophysics section.

  30. I say people will revisit and stack the result but since I have no evidence to support this claim my opinion amounts to c0n5p1r1cy theory DOH!

  31. I voted for both (#3).
    Reason: both are being equally defended by the alarmists (See, e.g., DeSmogBlog)…
    because they CANNOT admit error. Ever. (Mann, Lew, Gleick many other cases).
    They rather defend the most blatant fraud and incompetence. Amazing.

    — Bad News

  32. Excellent post!

    My recommended poll: “Who (Lew the sciencey psychologist or Mann the statistical wizard) will be the first to shave his beard in an attempt to extricate himself from mess that is AGW?”

  33. Attempting to plumb the depths to precisely gauge the irrationality of the truly irrational is, in a word, irrational. That way, madness lies. All relevant parameters (and they are legion) involve reciprocal coefficients of root minus one of FA.

  34. “Has Lewendowsky usurped Mann …. ?”
    Well I agree that Mann isn’t the benchmark. Anyone who has spent time at sKs could point to several “emotively irrational” candidates far more worthy of challenge than poor old Mike. I, along with many others, spent time at the infamous site trying to put forward a reasonably argued case only to be abused, snipped, deleted and eventually banned. What a mob of tossers. It comes as no surprise that Lewendowsky has close ties to Cook.

  35. I voted no. It’ll take Lewandowsky a long time to equal the reach Dr. Mann has: Ties to Jim Hansen, a college speaking tour, a book – complete with good reviews on Amazon :-) – and remarkable consistency despite the several groups that debunked the hockey stick. Mann remains the climate scientist the other pretenders look to for guidance.

    Dr. (is he a Dr.?) Lew has a long way to equal Al “Flat Earth” Gore too.

    BTW, http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ isn’t responding to my browser. No need to offer help. Even better, I can’t access http://www.skepticalscience.com/Shaping-Tomorrows-World-After-One-Month.html

  36. richardscourtney says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Well, I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 524,288 and double that if I ignore zero. But I doubt Lew has the mathematical ability and understanding for him to work out how I do it.

    Care to try that one again? My fingers and toes count up to 1048575, starting at zero. Well, they would if I didn’t need to hold my toes in position with my fingers.

  37. Brian S says: September 17, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Hey, nice catch!

    But… The essay by A. Scott is brilliant and funny.

  38. john robertson says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:33 am

    “Maybe we are too hard on Lewandosky”

    Anyone who deletes blog comments simply because he doesn’t like what they say deserves (almost) all he gets. Clewless Lew has opened a can of worms, when he thought he’d be getting approbation for his “TAKE THAT deniers!” paper. The pats on the back are all from Bessie.

  39. Hey he’s an academic at UWA, I';d be asking them about the Michael Mann question just because of the court cases, good old Micky Manne managed to get a couple on the go so why not Lew boy for UWA?

  40. Ric Werme:

    At September 17, 2012 at 9:25 am I wrote

    Well, I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 524,288 and double that if I ignore zero.

    At September 17, 2012 at 10:37 am you have replied saying

    Care to try that one again? My fingers and toes count up to 1048575, starting at zero. Well, they would if I didn’t need to hold my toes in position with my fingers.

    I stand corrected. Of course you are right. Thankyou.

    But I have not counted anything to over a million.

    Richard

  41. I can only count to 530432 but that’s only with my fingers and thumbs as my feet smell, I include zero though. Alot of zeros.

  42. It’s ironic that both Steve McIntyre and Steve Lewandowsky are graduates of the same university, (Univ. of Toronto) albeit from different departments and 16 years apart.

  43. Bottom of the barrel, slime under a rock, critter waste products, helminths (parasitic worms), ectoparasites (parasitic bugs), climate economic disruptive anti-scientists, whatever…

    Don’t treat them with any respect. They have proven our lack of need or desire to show them any respect. Locking them in the town stocks side by side for a few years might be good medicine for their egos.

    It does look like a good time for farsighted entrepeneurs. Gather and cross reference notes now and be ready to publish modern textbooks to replace the horrible science shams forced on today’s students.

    Each one of these ego-moronics opens a whole realm of pseudo-science that will offer case studies and examples for years to come.

  44. NASA obviously did not fake the original moon landing(s) between 1969-72. However, it is absolutely incredible it was never able to replicate the feat since then. Therefore there must have been numerous secret landings on the moon during the last forty years, done in deep government sanctioned conspiracy. Their recurrent denial of the fact can’t be anything, but a pathetic HOAX.

    There. You have your outstanding conspiracy theory, to be distributed freely under the Artistic License.

    /sarc

  45. “First, our “brand” is defined by:

    Quality. Our posts are either written by academic domain experts or have survived academic scrutiny. All our posts are reviewed by our editorial board before publication.
    Civility. We do not censor opinions, but we insist on strict civility in the comments.”

    Lewy on SkepticalScience re his site. I guess the above explains why my post asking why he didn’t speak to the skeptical Nasa astronauts about the moon landing, to ask them whether they though they were faked, was deleted. It seemed to me an obvious question with regard to what his “survey” concluded.

    I truly think the man is sick. Have I medicalised Climate Jihadism?

  46. “harrywr2 says:

    September 17, 2012 at 9:53 am

    It might be a more interesting poll to compare which climate scientists self identified skeptics believe are ‘closest to the truth’.

    I.E. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Issac Held, James Hansen(NASA) or Michael Mann. They all have Phd’s in the relevant field. Lindzen,Held and Hansen are members in good standing of the National Acedemies of Science in the relavent geophysics section.

    Why have a poll to which the answer would be zero,and waste bandwidth?
    And you forgot to add Kenjii to the NAS (now that would be a 100% answer)
    Or did you forget the /sarc tag and I missed it?

  47. The prof is trying to pretend psychology is a science, the sad deluded fool. But then, trying to play with the big boys was bound to end in tears! He has dug himself a hole and sems to busy dragging his buddies down into it. I wonder who is going to bail out first to save their careers and\or reputation?

  48. I don’t know about these climate scientists but I have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs.
    No wonder climate science is in a pickle, they can’t add up.

  49. “Strict civility”??? The man is truly delusional.

    Lewandowsky’s stream of evasive, invective-laden sarcastic posts give new meaning to the word “civility” — he has not conception of what decent people consider to be civility. Stephan Lewandowsky is among the most un-civil people I have seen in any walk of life. He is not fit to discuss “civility”…. His paper smearing all “skeptics” is deeply uncivil and malicious.

  50. Mann has to be still the main amn, its still the case that he lectures the ‘followers’ and sets the agenda , Lewandowsky is just s lesser shadow under his great darkness.

  51. This has probably been seen already, having been written by Lewandowsky in 2010:

    “….peer reviewed science is not indiscriminate: not all opinions are equal and one cannot choose what to believe on the basis of whim or ideology. What counts are evidence, logic, and competence.

    “Peer reviewed science is egalitarian but not indiscriminate.

    “Science carries with it responsibilities such as accountability and subsequent scrutiny—peer review is a spam filter, which works well but not perfectly. The true value of a peer reviewed article lies in whether or not it survives scrutiny upon publication.

    “If it does not, then peer reviewed science is self-correcting and eventually cleanses the occasional junk that penetrated the spam filter.”

    “……. in science, a decision against publication is (almost) always quality control and (almost) never censorship.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39148.html

    Psychologist psychoanalyse thyself. Upon self-examination a narcissist would be unable to realise it:

    “Narcissistic injury (or wound) is any threat (real or imagined) to the narcissist’s grandiose and fantastic self-perception (False Self) as perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and entitled to special treatment and recognition, regardless of his actual accomplishments (or lack thereof).

    “The narcissist perceives every disagreement – let alone criticism – as nothing short of a threat. He reacts defensively. He becomes indignant, aggressive and cold. He detaches emotionally for fear of yet another (narcissistic) injury. He devalues the person who made the disparaging remark.

    “By holding the critic in contempt, by diminishing the stature of the discordant conversant – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. This is a defence mechanism known as cognitive dissonance.”

    “The cerebral narcissist is as competitive and intolerant of criticism or disagreement as his somatic counterpart. The subjugation and subordination of others demand the establishment of his undisputed intellectual superiority or professional authority. ”

    http://samvak.tripod.com/faq73.html

  52. Lewandowsky was one of the academics who sent a letter to Notre Dame University asking for a Monckton lecture to be cancelled last year.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9756509/academics-want-climate-sceptics-lecture-cancelled/

    He is mentioned near the end of the article as follows:
    “Another signatory, Australian Professorial Fellow at UWA’s School of Psychology, Stephan Lewandowsky, said he strongly endorsed Lord Monckton’s right to free speech “for example in a pub or on a soapbox or in a circus arena”.

  53. Timbo says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Ian says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:16 am

    How about some kind of Ig Nobel prize for climate scientists?

    Already in the works. Pointman (Pointman’s) has an annual Climate Prat Award contest going. The problem is, the field is too rich.
    ——————-
    yes, There should be always a best, second , third, fourth prize, you cannot give all the honour to only one….

  54. OYG!

    Did you guys happen to notice the graph that this d1p$#!^ uses in his “drilling myself a deeper hole” BS? It is that “skeptics believe in this cherry picking” picture created by Cook.

    So, we call him out for using fake data he got by “surveying” warmists posing as skeptics, and he supports his actions by referring to a fake graph purporting to show “how skeptics think” that was ginned up in the imagination of a warmist!

    Hey, Lew[snip]! None of your “cognitive research” says squat about what skeptics think. All of your “data” is really just what you warmists wish us to think. And that says a lot. About you, not us.

  55. [humor piece - inflammatory - mods go ahead and snip if you don't like it]

    Who’s got game, fight fans. Let’s go ringside

    Announcer: Good evening fight fans. Tonight’s fight promises to be a good one, with the defending champion of the World Paleo and Heavyweight divisions, taking on a new up and comer from down under.

    In the sun corner, Champion Dr. Michel Mann from Penn State University and the U of Virginia! He’s a REAL climate scientist, who’s been embarrassed by ClimateGate, beat back FOI lawsuits, slammed the deniers in an inflammatory book that’s getting 5 star reviews, censors his detractors on the one true REAL CLIMATE BLOG, been made a fellow of the organization that made Peter Gleick it’s ethics committee chairman, conspired with John Cook to cook the reviews at Amazon, enhanced Penn State University’s otherwise stellar reputation AND best of all, made a hockey stick and hid the decline, giving Al Gore tingles up his leg.

    [YAY -crowd cheers]

    Now, our challenger, In the moon corner, we have Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky from the University of West Anglia, who just recently wrote a great little smear piece that’s rising up the charts with a bullet. It’s not even been published yet, but the web attention it’s drawing is pretty hot. He too is working with John Cook to censor the opponents and control the terms of debate and he does have a Ph.D, in, er psychology. Let’s put your hands together Chicago!

    [moo- Aussie cows are going wild!]

    Now here is your fight play-by-play from Chick Beigenet and color commentator Whitey Storm. Take it away Chick.
    Thank you, Don, now let’s get ready to rummmmmmble!
    [ding]
    And there’s the bell for the first round, the fighters have come to center ring and touched gloves, and the ref signals fight. You know Whitey I don’t know if this kid has what it takes to take on a seasoned pro like Mann… Omigod! Mann’s first punch has connected, Lewandowsky is down! This is going to be the shortest fight in history, with Lewandowsky going down at the 3 second mark of the first round. Whitey? Right you are Chick, the Lew-minator, a nickname I had picked out for him before the fight, has folded up like a cheap tent. Turns out he’s a flash-in-the-pan poser who’ll never rise to the level of the great Michael Mann. I guess we should have known this, because he’s only a social scientist. Back to you Chick.
    Thank you, Whitely, well that’s it for fight night, we now return you to your regularly scheduled pogroms.

  56. There’s a guy called Barry Woods commenting over there, very reasonable, very solid.(And the only dissenting voice permitted.)
    He is very patiently pointing out to them that they seem to be accusing skeptics of faults which they have in fact synthesised themselves…in this instance a graph which allegedly shows how skeptics perceive global warming…(it goes up in steps and the only place I’ve ever seen anything like it is in Lew World.)
    Anyhow when he pointed out that the Warming Trend seems to have stalled for the past eleven years and that many authoritative sources confirmed this; Lew did that classic Warmist trick of moving the goalposts – and declared, ‘the atmosphere may not be heating up but Ocean Temperatures are!’
    As I have said many times before, arguing with a Warmist is like nailing jelly to a wall.

  57. Bad News Quillan says:
    September 17, 2012 at 10:12 am

    I voted for both (#3).
    Reason: both are being equally defended by the alarmists (See, e.g., DeSmogBlog)…
    because they CANNOT admit error. Ever. (Mann, Lew, Gleick many other cases).
    They rather defend the most blatant fraud and incompetence. Amazing.

    This is the classic response of the Narcissistic Personality. A lot of them get to high places for that very reason…their admirers collude with the astonishing self belief and anyone who spots them generally gives up in disgust and exhaustion.

    Funny, several psychologists I’ve met seem very reluctant to discuss Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or even admit it exists. But once you’ve fallen foul of one they become easy to spot. And it is easy to bring them out of the woodwork….just tell them there is a possibility they might be wrong about something. The “normal” response is to reflect when challenged, not attack.

  58. Chris B said on September 17, 2012 at 10:29 am:

    The TEAM are all reptiles from another planet.
    /sarc

    So Mann really does want To Serve Man?

  59. Care to try that one again? My fingers and toes count up to 1048575, starting at zero. Well, they would if I didn’t need to hold my toes in position with my fingers.

    Well, I can get past 8 million ;-)

  60. There is also some SkS clown on STW who asserts that the scurrilous title of Lewandowsky et al (2012) is just fine because it’s meant to be “humor” and of course libelous inaccuracy for the sake of humor is a notable feature of scientific papers.

    So let’s think of some some “humor” for titles to new climate psychology papers Lew & co. might try next:

    “The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling! An Examination of a new ‘Theory of Mind’ for Climate Histrionics”

    “How Many Times Did the Mann Cry ‘Wolf’ — Analysis of Alarmism Fatigue and Green Depravity”

    “Climate Alarmists are Psycho-Hysterics: A Humorous Look at Climate Change Hysteria”

    I’m sure there are better examples which might actually be humorous, but it’s a start….

  61. Not I … several … appears its the newest spin, since all the I’m too smart for you sciencey stuff by Lewandowsky wasn’t haveing the desired effect.

    Thus the impetus for my ‘Fingers and Toes’ story.

    It might be fake, but its still accurate.

    Just kidding son, its a joke, its all just a funny joke.

  62. Wes Spiers says:
    September 17, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    “It’s ironic that both Steve McIntyre and Steve Lewandowsky are graduates of the same university, (Univ. of Toronto) albeit from different departments and 16 years apart.”

    Worlds apart surely? I suggest a generic name for his sort – lewcocyte, a cell of the warmist immune system involved in defending the “body alarmist” against both criticism and inconvenient facts. Lewcocytes attach themselves to critical but otherwise innocuous blog comments and destroy them within seconds.

  63. Meh, Lewandowsky is a lightweight, posed against a middleweight.

    He is one of those people who regard psychology as a tool for achieving whatever socio/political ends that they deem desirable – and there are lots of them about – but fortunately he is not very bright, and arrogant with it.

    Mann is a lot smarter and actually produced some good work at times.

    Lewandowsky’s forthcoming paper “When did climate change deniers stop beating their wives” is awaited with much interest.

  64. I believe that in July 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon and Michael Collins remained in Lunar Orbit. These three men were my childhood heroes, along with the Russian Cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space.

    I believe that smoking causes cancer. That knowledge doesn’t prevent me from smoking, even though I know it should. I believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.

    I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, although I admit I don’t know enough about it to know why I believe that. Nor do I know enough about the assassination of Martin Luther King to really form an opinion.

    I believe the Illuminati are a fictional construct and there is no New World Order, although I also believe that people in power would like more power, and some will do practically anything to get it.

    I believe that the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 was a cock-up of the grandest scale on the part of the US Navy. In particular I do not believe any government would purposely permit their people and particularly their materiel to be wasted in this way.

    I believe that Area 51 is a US Air Force base. I don’t believe there are any aliens there, either living or dead (although I did thoroughly enjoy the recent Pegg/Frost film, Paul).

    I believe that the attacks of September 11th 2001 were the work of Muslim terrorists.

    I don’t know enough about SARS to form an opinion.

    I don’t believe a Flying Saucer crashed at Roswell in 1947.

    I believe Princess Diana’s death was a tragic accident, caused by pursuit by Papparazzi and her driver being under the influence of alcohol.

    I don’t know anything about the Oklahoma City bombings and I’m not sufficiently interested to want to find out.

    I believe Coca Cola is quite tasty, although I prefer lemonade. I hadn’t heard until recently that Coca Cola might have done some clever marketing related to changing the formula. If they did, then fair play to them.

    I don’t know enough about CFCs to be certain one way or the other about whether they have a serious impact on the Ozone Layer. I have come across some bits and pieces in the past about CFCs and patents, and the timing of the discovery of the Ozone Layer, but I’ve not done enough research subsequently to form a definite opinion. I’m content that not using CFCs is, on balance, a good thing.

    I believe that protection of the environment trumps financial concerns. The caveat is that I feel the Precautionary Principle as commonly stated goes too far and is harmful both to the economy and to the environment.

    I believe that global average temperatures have increased during the past century. I believe that human activities have contributed to that increase. 97% of carefully selected Climate Scientists also believe this. I don’t believe that this is catastrophic, and I don’t believe it will become a catastrophe. I think that overall, warmer is better. I also believe that the climate has always changed.

    I believe that Stephan Lewandowsky is a sincere CAGW activist, who believes that a gerrymandered survey aimed to paint anyone who doubts the CAGW thesis as a swivel-eyed loon will help his cause. I also believe his paper will be retracted.

  65. On JJ,s comment on the chart, the really sad part is that Lewendowsky cherry picks 1973 (Ice age scare low temp.) as the starting point for his (correct) slope in order to show how skeptics cherry pick starting points.

  66. Only Mann and Lewandowsky to choose from in this poll seems a bit limited. What about James “Coal trains of Death” Hansen, Al “No Ice in the Arctic by 2013″ Gore, Scott “Rapid Response” Mandia, John “The Editor” Cook, David “We Have Joined God” Suzuki, Tim “Sydney’s Dams could be dry in two years” Flannery or a host of others.

    Here is a link to quotes from some of the world’s biggest environmental drama queens.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

  67. On Sept. 14 on his blog (STW run by SkS) Lewandowsky stated that an ‘extended’ supplemental information was being prepared. He also referred to “typesetting” for the article which was not yet complete. One wonders about the process with the journal leading to the additional info being provided — did the journal editor(s) request or require it? Has the article’s publication in fact been delayed (since it does not appear as of the Sept. issue) or is it on the original schedule? Evidently the normal peer review of the journal did not require the added SI, else it would have been ready when the article was announced to various journalists as “in press”…. can anyone get info from the journal about the process of extended “peer review” (e.g. Climate Audit) which led to the SI “being extended” now at such a late moment? They may pretend it is all normal science, but how many times has the journal Psychological Science recognized any such concerns after an article was already “in press”? Why is it so difficult for Prof. Lewandowsky and their co-authors to honesty acknowledge that the article was not ready for prime time? He also mentions that he is unwilling to release other info that is subject to an FOI request, so presumably he does not want to “pre-empt” (his term) the FOI process in case he can get away with not releasing more? [cross posted this with CA]

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=256&&n=164

    [emphasis added below]

    64. Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012
    Questions continue to be raised for further information relating to this paper. My response is threefold:
    1. I see little merit in treading over ground that is already clearly stated in the paper (e.g., the elimination of duplicate IP numbers).
    2. Several questions concern material that is presently subject to an FOI request. I will let that process run to completion rather than pre-empt it.
    3. The supplementary online material for the article is being extended to contain additional information (e.g., the outlier analysis from the preceding post). The online supplement will be released when the typesetting of the article is complete.

    Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.

  68. I’ve seen some really clever turd-polishing in my day, and some, er, well rather sloppy stuff (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, HARRY_READ_ME.txt etc.)……

    But this little hissy-fit has been reclassified as the Loondoubtsky latent construct.

  69. Lewey is a wannabe Mannie but won’t get any kudos until he gets his unique research results prominently displayed within AR5.

  70. Mann and his hockey stick did real actual damage to society and her treasure.

    Lewandowsky has merely bruised ego and caused many to chafe at his blatant unscientific characterization of skeptics. It is the peer reviewers who should have their feet held to the fire. Altogether, the impact on the public and policy will be zero. A slight rise in disdain for the whole climate debate… perhaps. GK

  71. “Well, I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 524,288 and double that if I ignore zero. But I doubt Lew has the mathematical ability and understanding for him to work out how I do it.

    Richard”

    Well, with 20 bits, a 2s complement representation gives integers from -524,288 to +524,287 including zero. Sign/magnitude would be +/- 524,287 with 2 zeros. Or, positive integers only 0-1,048,575. (Recently came up at work with representing angles +/-180 or 0-360).

  72. Ummm …. the comparison in the poll question is not about who has had the longest career, or who has had the most impact on opinion, or who has gotten their work into IPCC propaganda, or any other measure of climate alarmist status ….

    The question simply compares their degree of being “Irrationally emotive.”

    In this I think Lew wins. But by the time skeptics get done with him it’ll be all over for him. He’ll be back to being irrelevant.

    Irrelevantly emotive.

  73. Against the silly specious view that Lew’s title is merely meant to be ‘humor’ — that title is severely misleading and disingenuous, not at all like the other light hearted examples of humor-in-science-titles offered on STW by Doug Bostrom. In reality, it is incredible how far Bostrom et al can bend and warp themselves to try to rationalize Lew. I won’t try to comment there due to the highly offensive blog mod operations, so I hope it is ok to discuss issues here as relevant.

    See if this one (below) survives STW@SkS mod editing…. normally there is plenty to disagree with Tom Curtis about, but on the objectionable nature of Lewandowsky’s title TC is right on target:

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=134&&n=166

    82. Tom Curtis at 08:56 AM on 18 September, 2012

    “…It is very difficult to believe that the title is anything other than a deliberate attempt to be offensive so as to draw attention to a paper of poor quality, but which is thought to be useful for “messaging” in the climate wars. Steve McIntyre has incorrectly attempted to infer a moral condemnation of Lewandowsky from certain of my comments (now corrected). Let me leave no-one in any doubt. In choosing the title of his paper, Lewandowsky not only acted unscientifically, but immorally as well. It was a despicable act.”

  74. Based on total damage, Mann reigns supreme. I think Lew comes in somewhere behind Gleick in terms of damage to the brand name. Both of them behind Gore who has been very publically identified as a liability and dumped by many of the more cunning among the CAGW hoaxters.

  75. What the heck do Lewandowsky’s students think about all this? They must be following the online saga. Apart from anything else, it’s their HECS money helping to fund this guy.

  76. Australian taxpayer: I paid 1.7 million AUD and all I got was this lousy Moon Landing Hoax smear.

    Don’t the accountants of the CO2AGW smear machine demand some efficiency from their smear producers?

  77. Skiphil says:
    September 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    64. Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012
    .
    “…….Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.”

    Isn’t it strange that climate evangelists like Lew have all the time in the world to stray from their nominal job descriptions, when it comes to pushing their activist agenda – but suddenly become desperately busy and short of time, when asked for data or methodology?

  78. david moon:

    Thankyou for your post at September 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm. I enjoyed that.

    I had not recognised my little joke could lead to some others correcting, commenting and adding to it. Others may want to join in, too. This is fun and it could run and run.

    Richard

  79. I just had a look at the Lewandowsky post and had to guffaw at the charlatan graph of how “realists” and “sceptics” look at the data. What a joke.

  80. “… the construct of interest, in this case conspiracist ideation.” That say’s it all for me. He is pursuing his construct of reality and fitting the facts to match. He has no idea of what true scepticism is, and so this statistical experiment is just a sad joke. Sceptics are conspiracists.
    Scepticism is not conspiracy ideation, it is the life blood of science and human intellectual development. And for me the simple fact that there are verified examples of actual high level conspiracies (eg, Iran-Contra affair) means that it is senseless to assume that all such theories are just “ideations” and not possibly valid explantions of real events. I would like the see some sort of weighting based on the rational likelihood the conspiracy actual existed. For me, the faked moon landing has a minuscule (but not absolute zero because I can’t verify first hand) likelihood, however the Roosevelt Pacific War theory has greater likelihood because it is harder to judge through the war time propaganda and some historians seem to think it possible. Why doesn’t the stats use some sort of likelihood for each conspiracy instead of setting it to a hard zero? I think that hard zero says a lot about Lewandowsky’s understanding of what scepticism actual is.

  81. Well that explains it… seems that SkS [trimmed, mod] catcher Doug Bostrom says Lewandowsky’s paper was actually all just a joke that the skeptic’s didn’t get. These guys are so pathetic it’s sad

  82. Foxgoose,

    I’m very positive Lewandowsky doesn’t understand the scientific method—I put this to him politely in a comment a week ago, and added:

    “when you say that certain people or groups “reject science”, what do you imagine that phrase means, given that you’ve yet to learn what science means?”

    My comment didn’t seem to offend anyone. It’s still there. Lewandowsky contacted me about something unrelated that day, and never mentioned it.

  83. The moderators seem happy for me to state that Prof L doesn’t understand the scientific method, but what they very quickly delete (without a trace) is any comment that quotes Prof L’s own conspiracy theorizing from Alene Composta’s blog:

    “That still doesn’t make it easier to receive those hateful utterances in the first place, but at least it gives you some sense of control to shut them down. Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise. All the best, Stephan.”

    The regulars there deserve to know that he wrote this though.

    So I’ll try to tell them.

  84. I can sum up what the paper tells us very simply:

    The very minuscule number of people who think the moon landing was faked are likely to also be skeptical of global warming.

    However, the paper does not tell us anything about the beliefs of global warming skeptics in regard to moon landings.

  85. Brad says:

    I’m very positive Lewandowsky doesn’t understand the scientific method…

    Why would he? He has no occupational need of it.

    Witch doctors, used car salesmen, politicians, cognitive psychologists, palm readers, propaganda ministers, religious acolytes – adherence to the scientific method is more of an impediment than a benefit to professional success in these fields.

  86. richardscourtney says:
    September 17, 2012 at 9:25 am

    A. Scott:

    You say

    I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 20, or sometimes a few more, without much trouble.

    Well, I have 10 fingers and 10 toes. So I can usually count to 524,288 and double that if I ignore zero. But I doubt Lew has the mathematical ability and understanding for him to work out how I do it.

    Richard

    Well, there are only 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

  87. Faux Science Slayer says:
    September 17, 2012 at 8:31 am

    “As they round the post….it is Doctor Loo closing from the outside lane to a photo finish with Mickey Mann….but there’s another stretch to run….the Muller, Suzuki and Schneider dark horses are still in the pack”….

    too close to call…gotta go with the “equally irrational and emotive”….

    Oh, please! Give me the name of the original Spike Jones track! I have been cudgelling my aging memory bank for months trying to recover it.

  88. Old Ranga from Oz says:
    September 18, 2012 at 12:04 am
    “What the heck do Lewandowsky’s students think about all this? They must be following the online saga. Apart from anything else, it’s their HECS money helping to fund this guy.”

    OldRanga I think you point out to a very painful aspect of the situation, even if neglected by most. How can students respect such a teacher who shows obviously lacks of understanding the scientific method and dubious ethics standards?
    How should they accept his appreciation of their work?
    What does UWA give them for a chance to express themselves? What about the debate in the university on other subjects when the professor shows such low standards in his blogs, re-defining what was said, deleting comments that do not pass to his viewpoint?
    From pedagogical point of view it is a catastrophical stand for the UWA.

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6164

  89. JJ—

    I’m not going to go near the question of whether psychology is a science ;-).

    However, I submit that if you don’t know the scientific method, you don’t know what science is; and therefore Lewandowsky is unqualified to accuse anyone of “rejecting science” or to sort blogs into “pro-science” and “anti-science.”

Comments are closed.