McIntyre takes down Lewandowsky’s fabricated statistical claims

Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt

By Steve McIntyre

As CA readers are aware, Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia recently published an article relying on fraudulent responses at stridently anti-skeptic blogs to yield fake results.

In addition, it turns out that Lewandowsky misrepresented explained variances from principal components as explained variances from factor analysis, a very minor peccadillo in comparison. In a recent post, I observed inconsistencies resulting from this misdescription, but was then unable to diagnose precisely what Lewandowsky had done. In today’s post, I’ll establish this point.

Rather than conceding the problems of his reliance on fake/fraudulent data and thanking his critics for enabling him to withdraw the paper, Lewandowsky has instead doubled down by not merely pressing forward with publication of results relying on fake data, but attempting to “manufacture doubt” about the validity of criticisms, including his most recent diatribe – to which I respond today.

In a post several days ago, I temporarily considered other issues in the Lewandowsky article beyond the reliance on fake responses, reporting on my then progress in trying to replicate results – not easy since his article omitted relevant methodological information. Separate from this, Roman Mureika and I (but especially Roman) have made further progress in trying to replicate the SEM steps – more on this later.

I reported a puzzle about explained variance results as reported in Lewandowsky’s article – results that could not be replicated using a standard factor analysis algorithm. Roman Mureika also tried to figure out the discrepancy without success. I pointed out that Lewandowsky’s factor analysis did not seem to have much effect on the downstream results where the real problems lay.

The reason why we were unable to replicate Lewandowsky’s explained variance from factor analysis was that his explained variance results were not from factor analysis, but from the different (though related) technique of principal components, a technique very familiar to CA readers.

The clue to reverse engineering this particular Lewandowsky misrepresentation came from a passim comment in Lewandowsky’s blog in which he stated:

Applied to the five “climate science” items, the first factor had an eigenvalue of 4.3, representing 86% of the variance. The second factor had an eigenvalue of only .30, representing a mere 6% of the variance. Factors are ordered by their eigenvalues, so all further factors represent even less variance.

Eigenvalues are a term that arise from singular value (“eigen”) decomposition SVD. As an experiment, I did a simple SVD of the correlation matrix – the first step in principal components, a technique used in principal components and was immediately able to replicate this and other Lewandowsky results, as detailed below. Lewandowsky’s explained variance did not come from the factors arising from factor analysis, but from the eigenvectors arising from principal components. No wonder that we couldn’t replicate his explained variances.

But instead of conceding these results, Lewandowsky fabricated an issue regarding the number of retained eigenvectors in this analysis, a point that I had not taken issue and which did not affect the criticism, as I’ll detail.

Please read the rest here: Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt

As a side show note, here’s a window into the mind of Professor Lewandowsky:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to McIntyre takes down Lewandowsky’s fabricated statistical claims

  1. omnologos says:

    Too much hair on the head, not enough on the chin. He cannot possibly be a Climate Scientist!!

  2. Francisco says:

    (I am posting this again, as the quote I included disappeared within its brackets)

    The quote below from Lewandowsky can only come from someone who is very consciously pulling the leg of his readers:

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySEM.html

    “Now you know why the title of our paper was “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.” We put the “(climate)” in parentheses before “science” because the association between conspiracist ideation and rejection of science was greater for the other sciences than for climate science.”

    The guy is trolling with abandon. There is no other way to interpret this statement about parenthetical marks that exclude what they supply.

  3. James Padgett says:

    That video is amazing. It is like an Onion skit but the punchline is that he is a real person.

  4. Lady in Red says:

    Ah, nah. *This* is a much more insightful gaze into the mind of Stephan Lewandowsky. The free-floating, pompous pretension is clearly evident here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8&feature=player_embedded

    ….Lady in Red

  5. Sean says:

    I watched the video and the bit on banking, I concluded that I AM a conspiracy theorist. When I looked at Cap and Trade, I see the only folks that win in that game are the traders and the big industrial corporations who get free allowances. They win at the expense of everyone else, even the environment. Who knew?

  6. Bertram Felden says:

    Not about the analysis, which I haven’t read yet, but about the video. Psychiatrist heal thyself is what springs to mind. He seems to be completely deluded. It’s a wonder his minder lets him out in public.

    FWIW, Diana was killed by a drunk driver, Sadam only had a few, possibly useless WMDs, NASA put men on the moon, and not just the once, smoking increases lung cancer risk, all my children are vaccinated, 9/11 was committed by a bunch of religious zealots (look in the mirror prof), I have no opinion on the Kennedy assassination other than it looked a bit amateur, homeopathy is even more wacko than CAGW (which at least is a severe overestimation of humanity’s capability of influencing the climate), and organic food is for hippies. I think I might have missed a few, but I’m sure you get the picture.

    More to the point, however, is the logical fallacy in the assumption that if someone believes a whole bunch of outré theories then nothing that believe can be true. Utter tosh from start to finish.

  7. Lady in Red says:

    I don’t know if poor Dr. Lewandowsky has a wife….? …but, at minimum, he needs a handler, to dress him, style him, help him appear less creepy in public….

    ….and, most definitely, collar and cage him so he doesn’t make too many more of these little YouTube jewels into the secrets of the workings of his mind…

    I hope that someone is making an archive of these gems (however many there are). They will be valuable for understanding the state of climate “science” a generation from now.
    …Lady in Red

  8. Espen says:

    Just when you thought nobody could shoot themselves in the feet like climate scientists do, they get henchmen like that!

  9. Lewandowsky chose the wrong words to use as a headline at his blog. Recall the concluding paragraphs of my 9/11/12 WUWT guest post about the ‘OTHER’ problem with Lewandowsky’s paper ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/the-other-problem-with-the-lewandowsky-paper-and-similar-skeptic-motivation-analysis-core-premise-off-the-rails-about-fossil-fuel-industry-corruption-accusation/):

    ” …. accusation that skeptic scientists are paid to manufacture doubt about man-caused global warming. It certainly appears that what we have instead is around two decades of efforts by enviro-activists to manufacture doubt about the credibility of the skeptics. So, how many more attempts to smear skeptics can be thrown on this pile before the whole thing collapses?”

  10. Fred Allen says:

    If the YouTube link is the face of climate change alarmism, then the skeptics have the argument and public opinion in the bag.

  11. A Lovell says:

    “This guy is a total tool. And actually that is what students in Uni of Western Australia call him – A Tool – he is one of the most disliked “professors” on the campus. And yeah, get a bath and shave you grub.
    ivanv1952 ”

    The above is from the comments on yet another youtube diatribe by Lewandowsky. Telling, if even his students have this opinion.

  12. Mickey Reno says:

    Lewandowsky publishes a POS paper, but then defends his assertions, not by talking about IT, but by talking about an anecdotal instance of one person’s criticism of him in the Aussie media? This guy is, in my Internet Opinion (IO) going nuts, but yet perfectly represents an entire class of academic chicken littles in today’s society.

    Here’s what Edmund Burke wrote in 1790 about “men of letters” in France just as the reign of terror was cranking up. I have added a few comments in square brackets, and added emphasis is mine.:

    a new description of men had grown up, with whom [the monied interest of the non-nobility] soon formed a close and marked union: I mean the political men of letters. Men of letters, fond of distinguishing themselves, are rarely averse to innovation. Since the decline of the life and greatness of Louis the Fourteenth, they were not so much cultivated either by him, or by the Regent, or the successors to the crown; nor were they engaged to the court by favors and emoluments so systematically as during the splendid period of that ostentatious and not impolitic reign. What they lost in the old court protection they endeavored to make up by joining in a sort of incorporation of their own; to which the two academies of France, and afterwards the vast undertaking of the Encyclopedia, carried on by a society of these gentlemen, did not a little contribute.
    The literary cabal had some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. [I draw your attention to the similar goal of today's academics forming up around the idea of destroying "climate deniers"] This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety. They were possessed with a spirit of proselytism in the most fanatical degree, and from thence, by an easy progress, with the spirit of persecution according to their means. What was not to be done towards their great end by any direct or immediate act might be wrought by a longer process through the medium of opinion. To command that opinion, the first step is to establish a dominion over those who direct it. They contrived to possess themselves, with great method and perseverance, of all the avenues to literary fame. Many of them, indeed, stood high in the ranks of literature and science. The world had done them justice, and in favor of general talents forgave the evil tendency of their peculiar principles. This was true liberality; which they returned by endeavoring to confine the reputation of sense, learning, and taste to themselves or their followers. I will venture to say that this narrow, exclusive spirit has not been less prejudicial to literature and to taste than to morals and true philosophy. These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own; and they have learnt to talk against monks with the spirit of a monk. But in some things they are men of the world. The resources of intrigue are called in to supply the defects of argument and wit. To this system of literary monopoly was joined an unremitting industry to blacken and discredit in every way, and by every means, all those who did not hold to their faction. To those who have observed the spirit of their conduct it has long been clear that nothing was wanted but the power of carrying the intolerance of the tongue and of the pen into a persecution which would strike at property, liberty, and life.

  13. Bob Tisdale says:

    “Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.

  14. SunderlandSteve says:

    “Brazen disregard for science” !!! Projection?

  15. jorgekafkazar says:

    Lewandowsky illustrates the principle that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, even with the best statistical techniques and a ton of hand-waving.

  16. RockyRoad says:

    Lewandowsky always dreamed of being a climate scientist like Michael Mann!… He’s dreaming too.

  17. wws says:

    I listened to “evita” again recently (so sue me, I adore Webber) and a little snipped of the lyrics struck me as exactly the kind of thinking that is going through the head of Lewandowsky and his co-conspirators these days.

    sung by Juan Peron:

    “It’s annoying that we have to fight elections for our cause
    The inconvenience of having to get a majority;
    If normal methods of persuasion fail to win us applause
    There are other ways of establishing – Authority.”

  18. Chris Schoneveld says:

    If this guy is not going to be sidelined by the UWA then all his colleagues will be tainted by association. If they don’t take action they will be guilty by association.

  19. Ray Campbell says:

    You, Sir are an absolute wanker with no clue whatsoever. Give up science and consider a career in comedy.

  20. John Whitman says:

    The title of McIntyre’s article is ‘Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt’.

    That title could be adapted by substituting in Naomi Oreskes which would make it useful to describe her anti-skeptic smear job. She feverishly tried to manufacture doubt about skeptics in her fanatical konspiracy (intentionally misspelled to avoid WP filters) theory book ‘The Merchants of Doubt’.

    John

  21. Francisco says:

    The case of Jan Hendrik Schön (a physicist who worked for Bell Labs) comes to mind.

    (from Wikipedia)
    In 2001 he was listed as an author on an average of one newly published research paper every eight days.
    […]
    Professor Lydia Sohn, then of Princeton University, noticed that two [of his] experiments carried out at very different temperatures had identical noise.

    [This led to an investigation]
    […]
    The committee requested copies of the raw data but found that Schön had kept no laboratory notebooks. His raw-data files had been erased from his computer. According to Schön the files were erased because his computer had limited hard drive space. In addition, all of his experimental samples had been discarded, or damaged beyond repair.
    […]
    On September 25, 2002, the committee publicly released its report… They found that whole data sets had been reused in a number of different experiments. They also found that some of his graphs, which purportedly had been plotted from experimental data, had instead been produced using mathematical functions.

  22. In the video listen to his tone when he talks about ‘the Climate Deniers’

    Swap the aussie accent, and replace climate deniers with dissidents and recall a period in the last century which many pschologist would choose to forget.

    I am a member if the public with views and opinions and a life, that does not revolve around climate science, but to actually hear an academic reduce someone to a label of ‘a climate denier’ is actually quite shocking

  23. Mike Lewis says:

    Wow, just wow. I watched and couldn’t convince myself that he was truly being serious. But he was and is – I was shaking my head in disbelief.

  24. Nick in Vancouver says:

    James Padgett – the punchline is that he is a (tenured???) professor. Cripesamighty. If he’s a professor then Western civilisation really is screwed, just not because of AGW.
    Bob Tisdale
    -to “Lewandowsky” a result?
    -to Lew (skew) data so that your prejudices are always confirmed by your results.
    -to perform a “Lewandowsky analyses” – that is to perform a statistical technique that is actually different from the one reported in your method.
    When combined with the universally accepted climate science method of “the Trick” (TM) and the typical techniques of “shrinkage” (TM) – decreasing the sample size to only include data that fit the desired outcome. Any pro-AGW paper is guaranteed peer review, multiple citations, plaudits in the press and instant access to the gravy train.

    Lewandowsky the man who put the “posterior” in posterity. I typed that without moving my eyebrows – it can’t be a conspiracy, it must be true.

  25. Pointman says:

    Poor Lew. It looks like the RCMP are not the only Canadians, who always get their man …

    Pointman

  26. jorgekafkazar says:

    Bertram Felden says: “….homeopathy is even more wacko than CAGW…”

    From a scientific POV, you’re right. From an ethical POV, however, homeopathy at least complies with the principle of primum non nocere, “first, do no harm,” which the CAGW movement does not. [One could fairly argue about the negative effect of delay in seeking conventional treatment by focusing on homeopathy, or other alternative medical practise, but all those arguments have their parallel in CAGW's diversion of $79 billion in resources better spent elsewhere.]

    As an historical side note, from Peter Morrell’s fascinating site on (among many other things) the history of London Homeopathic Hospital during a time of cholera in the mid 19th Century:

    “Thus, while, according to the Registrar-General, the rate of mortality in the allopathic metropolitan hospitals is 7.5 per cent, the deaths in the Homeopathic Hospital, including those from cholera, have not exceeded 4.6 per cent.”

    http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/rlhh.htm

    Taking all the above into consideration, I’d say that qualitatively, CAGW and homeopathy, because of their shared myopic, if not monomaniacal, focus on minuscule trace substances, are equally wacko.

  27. James Sexton says:

    “…..the belief that the free market is the solution to all of societies problems”.

    Yes, well, we now see the problem, don’t we? I’m probably one of the most avowed free market capitalists anyone would ever know, but I don’t believe free markets is the solution to all societal problems. Indeed, there is a universally accepted view that people need some sort of structured governance this is due to an understanding that free markets can not cure all societal problems. Even the most ardent Libertarian in the U.S. allows for the common defense of this country. Are there Australians advocating no government? Who are these imaginary people Lewy is arguing against? This of course says nothing towards his own delusional conspiracy theory.

  28. jorgekafkazar says:

    Or, more correctly above, “wacko,” in quotes, since it’s not my word.

  29. Elizabeth says:

    This guy looks like another failed Canadian or American emigre scientist who was accepted by a Australian University with Lower standards. They abound in Australian Academia

  30. davidmhoffer says:

    So… he pretty much faked the data and then he faked the analysis that he did on the data. The average shyster knows that that the two need to match. So this ain’t no average shyster ;-)

  31. WTF says:

    I…guess…he…figures…he…must…speak…slowly…so…us…dumb…deniers…can…un…der…stand.

    That little rant sounds more like a socialist manifesto rather than a making a case for his position. The look of utter superiority on his face is sickening.

    Also I guess there is a hair club for men in Austrailia also eh!

  32. James Caffey says:

    Barry Woods That’s NOT an Aussie accent. He’s an import from the States or Canada and as much a disaster to Oz as rabbits and cane toads. The video is appalling

  33. Stephanie Clague says:

    “climate deniers” ?

    Who here denies we have a climate? Nobody could possibly deny we have a climate and that the climate warms and cools in cycles and in accordance with the seasons. Lewandowsky then examines just one reader contribution to just one report in the Australian and somehow in his mind equates this one persons single post with ALL sceptics and transposes this one persons purported strategy and intentions onto all sceptics and the supposed leaders of the sceptic movement. This is a ‘scientist’ who is able to take the views of one person and then extrapolates that every sceptic feels the same way. Millions of individuals become one formless shapeless mass in the mind of Lewandowsky, a single hive mind and single set of limited motivations with the prime one being the discrediting of climate scientists. Hey its all I think about every day and because I think it all of you do too, we are the borg hive mind and we will assimilate you(after discrediting you of course) sarc.

    The real question has to be, if this man felt able to divine the standpoint of all sceptics from just one sample then what did he do in his research? I think the man started with a pre set and predetermined set of conclusions and he designed a method of confirming them, he started with the answers and then he worked out the questions. This man is a true believer, to him every unbeliever is not an individual seeking answers for themselves, to him deniers are a faceless mass. He knows in his heart what drives and motivates this mass, he knows all he needs to know, we are selfish self centred right wing free market capitalists bent on the wanton destruction of the planet to feed our insatiable greed. In his mind we sceptics are unbelievers, there is no worse crime in the eyes of a true believer than being an unbeliever, he is going to save humanity and the planet and all that stands in his way are those pesky sceptics, can you imagine the deep rage inside his soul? This chap needs a de programmer qualified in cult victim re education.

  34. manicbeancounter says:

    I think it is only fair to let Lewandowsky speak. Daily Telegraph 28th August he is quoted

    With conspiracy theories, you start out with a theory and stick to it no matter what the evidence. So it is not that surprising that conspiracy theorists would not accept scientific propositions … If the scientific evidence is overwhelming and you don’t like the conclusion, you have to find a way to reject those findings.

    The Debunking Handbook (co-written with John Cook) begins

    It’s self-evident that democratic societies should base their decisions on accurate information. On many issues, however, misinformation can become
    entrenched in parts of the community, particularly when vested interests are involved.
    Reducing the influence of misinformation is a difficult and complex challenge.

  35. Gordon Richmond says:

    He sounds like a Canuck trying to emulate an Aussie accent.

  36. Far to much credence is being given to this man’s opinions and his desire for publicity. McIntyre and others have discredited his pseudoscience for what is it “pseudoscience fiction”. As to the publicity remember it is better to allow the fools and true believers to sink into obscurity then to give them any form or recognition.

  37. David L. Hagen says:

    Obama has already incurred about $5 trillion in debt, or $50,000 additional debt per taxpayer, by spending a spectacular 40% more than revenues. Andwhat did that buy us?

    In his centrally planned “Great Leap Forward” Mao caused about 60 million people to die of starvation or not be born in the consequent Great Famine of 1959-1961.
    The IPCC’s 0.2C/decade models are already running 2 sigma hotter (>95%) of the actual historical satellite temperature evidence for the last 12 or the last 32 years! That earns them a D for Dogmatic, or F for Failure.
    Now Lewandowsky et al. seek centralized UN control with universal taxation to force us incur US$1,900 trillion dollars per degree C to cool the planet.
    Lord Monckton quotes: ‘When the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure.’”
    Prudent stewardship requires pragmatic action based on historic evidence!

    Restore sanity.
    Avoid “mitigation” via “cap and trade” or “carbon tax” at all costs.
    Pursue prudent no regrets “adaptation”, such as cost effective energy efficiency.
    Verify and validate the models with independent robust engineering grade “red team” evaluations.
    Focus on the real rapidly impending crisis of constrained and declining crude oil.
    See Robert Hirsch, on The Impending World Energy Mess and his publications.

  38. kcom1 says:

    I refuse to listen to anyone who uses the term “climate denier,” so as soon as he said those words I clicked off. It’s an absolutely meaningless term and shows the speaker to be uninterested in truth and only interested in propaganda. There is no one on this side of the argument who denies that there is a climate. Period. So he is accusing people of an absurdity. Which shows the lack of seriousness when the real dispute is not even addressed or acknowledged..

    To make it crystal clear, here’s the pertinent analogy (the comparison to which fails):

    Holocaust deniers claim that the Holocaust didn’t exist.
    Climate deniers claim that the climate doesn’t exist.

    Come back when you’re serious, Mr. Lewandowsky.

  39. John Blake says:

    “The law is a ass, a idiot” [Bleak House]. So is Lewandowsky. Aargh!

  40. jorgekafkazar says:

    davidmhoffer says: “So… he pretty much faked the data…”

    Too hyperbolic. More precisely, he sampled a different population than the population of interest, a statistical error so fundamental, I can’t imagine a freshman doing it. His methodology went downhill from there…

  41. Fred says:

    Planet Lew’s orbit continues to rapidly degrade and should crater into its sun any time now.

  42. Peter Miller says:

    Interesting video: the man obviously has a deep disdain for the free market – I guess that is a common trait of academic bureaucrats insulated from the machinations of the real world.

    His stuff on consiparcy theories only reveals that he is fanatical believer in some kind of ‘denialist’ conspiracy theory.

    The most interesting part of the little talk was his eyebrow movements, which I found fascinating, as they were totally unrelated to anything he said.

    Every time Lewandowsky opens his mouth on the subject of his dodgy survey, McIntyre is going to slice and dice him. This is not original advice, but he really should take heed of ‘The Rule of Holes’, or be prepared to face the consequences of his own ineptitude.

  43. Gary says:

    He publishes mainly in JIR, right?
    http://www.jir.com/

  44. Eric says:

    Lew’s accent drifts all over the place. As someone who has daily contact with clients from all over the world, I swear I heard Scottish, Irish, Southern US (Arkansas/Georgia), Canadian, and a very tortured Aussie accent throughout his diatribe…

  45. Caleb says:

    The government of West Autralia really forked over 1.7 million to this guy?

  46. Myron Mesecke says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:37 am
    “Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.

    Another “L” word? We already have Lewinsky.

  47. I haven’t been following this storyline, but am somewhat familiar with factor analysis. Too often in the past, using esoteric multivariate algorithms imbues an experiment with a false image of
    “an exacting science at work,” whereas its reliability is only as good as the data being analyzed, as well as the hypothesis being tested – for example, analyses have to proceed with a hypothesis
    concerning the nature of the factors themselves – are they correlated or not?, which would lead one to either an orthogonal or oblique factor rotation. Also, is the correlation between factors linear? How many factors does one hypothesize? Historically, factor analysis has provided little of value with respect to analysis of correlation matrices of scales based on human responses, for a variety of reasons – human psychological scales , excepting cognitive tests such as IQ scales, are notoriously unreliable, and the technique of using factors to explain human behavior has not
    had noticeable success.
    Lewandowsy, independently of any knowledge he may have of the mechanics of a factor analysis (all he needs is a program to do the calculations ), is clearly not familiar with psychometrics , which is the realm he has jumped into. For what value it might provide, such an analysis depends to a great extent on the sampling technique and especially the nature of the questions posed to the respondents – how the question is asked often has a very large effect on any responses obtained. Apparently he sampled bloggers at a particular website. He did not choose the sample, nor have any way of knowing who was responding, and set up a situation that practically guaranteed fraudulent responses. This simply cannot be considered a representative sample of any group of interest. Nor can any process that allows for voluntary inclusion in the sample – ALL those chosen for the sample must be tested and they must be chosen by the experimenter, not by themselves. A factor analysis is only as good as the data upon which it is based, which in this case is clearly unacceptable.
    Finally, the entire thrust of Lew’s argument is based on the ad hominem fallacy – that one can win a scientific argument by demonstrating that those who oppose are jerks, etc. Science is not politics – one must convince fellow scientists, not the general public, on the basis of evidence.

  48. meltemian says:

    OMG! That’s the fellow I always get trapped by at drinks parties!

  49. Paul Westhaver says:

    Whaoooo Buddy????

    I watched that video of Lewandowsky chattering about some conspiracy theory individual. WOW.

    The conspiracy theory individual was no doubt Peter Gleick himself, who faked being a member of the Heartland Institute or some other like-minded GW wack job in the the nettles of despair.

    Did you see all his mugging and gesticulations, bugging eyes, forced articulations, teeth grimacing?…this guy is loony. I could barely listen to a word he said while looking at his goony expression parade.

    So what about him? Seems to me that Lewandowsky has a problem with the free market.

    Ok. I think that is the point isn’t it? The leftists… the anti-free-market wealth redistribution wack-jobs, to which Lewandowsky is no doubt affiliated, want to exploit fear generated by an exagerated global disaster, to have the UN assert control over global finance via a Carbon trading scheme, thereby transferring wealth from 1st world nations to entities (the UN especially) who have no such wealth. With wealth transfer come power transfer.

    So…what is new…Lewandowsky is a socialist exploiting fake AGW to service his hatred of free market systems.

    Big surprise.

    This is the frigging point!! the abuse of science to service politics. This is what I hate about the whole AGW issue. Bulls-eye!

  50. DaveS says:

    One thing really bugs me about this episode. If he had designed his survey properly, analysed the results using appropriate statistical methods, written them up with a full and unambiguous description of the methods used, in a paper with a grown-up title (that’s a lot of ifs, I realise)… it would still have been a staggering waste of Australian taxpayers’ money. Evidently Australian academia is awash with more money than it knows what to sensibly do with. Not that this is something unique to Oz, far from it.

  51. zefal says:

    I think you found keith olberman’s twin. }}}Shudder{{{

  52. Frederick Michael says:

    Given that the corner reflector they left on the moon is pretty easy to detect with a laser pulse (and no natural object could reflect the pulse back the way a corner reflector does), scientists are pretty uniform in believing we were there.

    Isn’t Lewandowsky obligated to produce ONE global warming skeptic who denies that we actually went to the moon. And I don’t mean just some random name from the phone book; I mean someone who contributes to the debate. He sent his survey to SCIENTISTS, right?

    If he can’t produce even one serious skeptic who doubts we went to the moon, he’s wrong on another level. What the hell was he doing this survey for anyway? The empty set is not a great source of data.

    This wasn’t a scientific study; it was a prank. I wonder how many of his “responses” were really spambot ads for Viagra.

  53. Mark T says:

    Even the most ardent Libertarian in the U.S. allows for the common defense of this country.

    Actually, proper implementation of free market economies, i.e., capitalist economies, requires government for protection of rights, particularly, defense of the nation from foreign interests. It is considered an evil, but a necessary one (particularly since individuals cannot defend themselves against foreign countries).

    Mark

  54. Justthinkin says:

    The guy doesn’t know how to dress,doesn’t know how to balance his specs on his nose,doesn’t know how to speak without sneering and talking out of the side of his mouth,and doesn’t even know to use the sharp side of his razor,and you expect him to save you and the world? Heh.

  55. kirkmyers says:

    This is President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, describing the Lewandowskys of the world. Unlike today’s self-anointed AGW prophesiers, Eisenhnower was quite prophetic:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

  56. Lars P. says:

    kcom1 says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
    I refuse to listen to anyone who uses the term “climate denier,” so as soon as he said those words I clicked off. It’s an absolutely meaningless term and shows the speaker to be uninterested in truth and only interested in propaganda.

    kcom1 I am with you. The term does not make sense, deliberately used. I had to swallow it down to be able to listen to the end. What self serving crap he delivered.
    He is an embarrassment for the UWA, and the academics in general. From what I have seen many of the CAGW-heretics come from engineering and science like physics, geology, chemistry who know and understand the scientific method.
    Many have landed in the heretic camp driven by such nonsense.
    Most climate-zealots like professor Lew seem to have studied arts if any. And he has the impertinence to call us “science-deniers” and conspiracy theorists?
    Speak of projections…. Professor Lew is just now busy to raise a new generation of skeptics, I wonder what is the true proportion of skeptics versus warmista in his own university, judging from the appreciations on his youtube video, that Lady in Red posted above, he is really lew there….
    Now, I wonder, maybe in the end he should stay there where he is with the UWA…

  57. Wow…watch his eyes.
    You only need to watch the first 15 seconds.
    He’s looking into the camera all the time, yet at the precise moment he says ‘the earth is warming’….
    he momentarily breaks eye contact with the camera….OMG….he doesn’t actually believe it himself!
    Beautiful.

  58. Gunga Din says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:37 am
    “Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.
    ========================================================================
    I’m going to the Lew to get some Lew paper because the dog just Lewed on the carpet.

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Lewandowsky misrepresented explained variances from principal components as explained variances from factor analysis”

    PCA is just a special (actually the simplest) case of (the more general) factor analysis.

  60. Gunga Din says:

    Mark T says:
    September 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    “Even the most ardent Libertarian in the U.S. allows for the common defense of this country.”

    Actually, proper implementation of free market economies, i.e., capitalist economies, requires government for protection of rights, particularly, defense of the nation from foreign interests. It is considered an evil, but a necessary one (particularly since individuals cannot defend themselves against foreign countries).
    =======================================================================

    If the birth of the United States was the Constitution then it’s conception was the Declaration of Independence.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    The first Government formed under the rules of The Articles of Confederation was designed to be to weak to usurp those individual rights. But it was also to weak to defend them.
    So they started over with the Constitution as the rules the Government must play by. Now they had a Government strong enough to defend those rights, but it was also strong enough to usurp them. Before the Constitution could be approved, they included The Bill Rights. They didn’t lay out more rules of how the Government would function but rather some of it’s boundaries.
    Michael Mann wants it to be a crime to disagree with him?
    Time to reestablish and reset the boundaries to line up with our original conception.

  61. Lilith says:

    Stephanie Clague says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Exquisitely put.

  62. Jimmy Haigh says:

    The kind of chap one would not want to meet in a dark alley.

  63. Chris B says:

    I can’t get the image out of my head of Reverend Cook, Gleick and Lewandowsky playing the Three Stooges.

  64. Colin Porter says:

    Unfortunately Steve McIntyre’s excellent continued deconstruction of Lewandowsky’s paper is somewhat upstaged by the man himself with his disgraceful admission of his own prejudice towards sceptics. Is it not a prerequisite that a researcher should have a dispassionate neutral position when treating a subject? The man is so arrogant that he does not even recognize his own failings in this respect and is more than happy to broadcast his prejudices and thereby devalue his paper even more.

    There is however one very positive aspect to this man’s paper which will go down as increasing mans body of knowledge. I think we can all agree that we now know something that none of us previously new. We can now all spell the real name “Lewandowsky,” that is every body except spell checker, which continues to treat his name with disdain.

  65. I couldn’t watch the video more than about a second. As Justthinkin says,

    doesn’t know how to dress,doesn’t know how to balance his specs on his nose,doesn’t know how to speak without sneering and talking out of the side of his mouth,and doesn’t even know to use the sharp side of his razor…

    and he launches, effectively, “hi, I’m big me, prof blah from blah. “Most climate deniers seek to avoid scrutiny by side-stepping the peer review process that is fundamental to science…”

    whaaaaaaat?

    Who said, a lie makes its way halfway round the world before truth has even got its pants on? Seems this corporal with mouth hair has got a knack with words to sway the masses – even if not much else.

  66. D Böehm says:

    Lewandowsky may be pompous and arrogant, but I just can’t get past his eyebrows. They have a life of their own. They go up, they go down, then one rises by itself…

    If he ever loses his job there’s probably a gig for him on Saturday Night Live. He could play Professor Lewandowski. ☺

  67. jorgekafkazar says:

    Colin Porter says: “…We can now all spell the real name “Lewandowsky,” that is every body except spell checker, which continues to treat his name with disdain.”

    It’s easy to check. If you can rearrange the letters to spell phantasy slewed wonk, you’ve got it right.

  68. Craig Loehle says:

    “…..the belief that the free market is the solution to all of societies problems”.
    It is disturbing that Lew thinks favoring free markets makes someone a wacko. North Korea has no markets (free or otherwise) and they are doing just so well…(/sarc for those who can’t tell)
    And who makes a video (multiple ones) badly needing a shave and without combing one’s hair?

  69. rogerknights says:

    Peter Miller says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:27 am

    The most interesting part of the little talk was his eyebrow movements, which I found fascinating, as they were totally unrelated to anything he said.

    I saw that general pattern in Nixon in 1968, when I watched him from a dozen feet during a speech in SF. Very disturbing. Mostly because it made me wonder why reporters weren’t pointing this out, and other observers weren’t writing him off as deranged.

  70. rogerknights says:

    PS, On Steve’s site, someone (Mosher?) referred to him as Dr. Loo. That’ll do.

  71. Gunga Din says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    I couldn’t watch the video more than about a second. As Justthinkin says,

    doesn’t know how to dress,doesn’t know how to balance his specs on his nose,doesn’t know how to speak without sneering and talking out of the side of his mouth,and doesn’t even know to use the sharp side of his razor…

    and he launches, effectively, “hi, I’m big me, prof blah from blah. “Most climate deniers seek to avoid scrutiny by side-stepping the peer review process that is fundamental to science…”

    ========================================================================
    Same here. “Side-stepping the peer review process”. Climategate showed the “process” has been corrupted. All I could think of is how many time a reasoned objection has been dismissed because it didn’t come from a “Climate Scientist”…and they get to define what a “Climate Scientist” is. Stack the deck. Cut the cards. Restack the deck.
    PS Is Lewandowsky a “Climate Scientist”?

  72. Owen in Ga says:

    @Gunga Din: Let;s see, he skews data, misrepresents statistics, tries to bypass peer review (science by press release) and sounds like a raving lunatic when let out in public…sounds like he has climate scienceTM written all over him.

  73. TRM says:

    Obvious fishing attempt. I don’t care if someone THINKS the moon landings were faked. I don’t care if they BELIEVE it with all their heart and soul. Can they PROVE it?

    If that same person thinks or believes that CAGW is bad science and can prove it then they are correct on that specific item. The fact that they can’t prove the first has nothing to do with the science or lack therof in the climate debate.

    Trying to put bad statistics out into the climate debate really makes me question Lew’s judgement. I mean he just had to know that it would be gone over with a fine toothed comb. It isn’t like they don’t know about Steve et al and their penchant for stats.

    PS. The hardest part of the moon shots was the first 5 minutes. I’m not trying to minimize the amount of work required to go to the moon and back but you can make adjustments along the way. That first 5 minutes in which 100 tons of rocket fuel was put into low earth orbit was do or die in one and only one try. We know the lift capacity of each of the Saturn V rocket engines, we still have one laying sideways in a museum. If we could do the first 5 minutes I’m pretty sure we did the rest. Unless someone can prove otherwise we made it.

  74. Bob says:

    Bob Tisdale said:

    ““Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.”

    It already is. The term is apparently Loo, and stands for someone who is entranced by the odor of their personal effluent. The physical manifestation of such would be a Lewie.

  75. Just an engineer says:

    Ray Campbell says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:03 am

    You, Sir are an absolute wanker with no clue whatsoever. Give up science and consider a career in comedy.
    ——————————————-
    Destined to failure also.
    Being a joke != Delivering a joke

  76. janama says:

    I was relieved when I noticed he had an American accent – so he’s not one of ours :)

  77. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Lew’s sewer science

    eugene wr gallun

  78. peterg says:

    I do not find it surprising that belief in free markets and climate skepticism are correlated. Both are conservative causes in general, in that those of us who wish all loose ends tied up before changing fundamental beliefs find both causes desirable. That does not mean these causes are any more connected than that though.

    The psychology profession is notorious for being practised by persons with deep psychological problems, and this man falls into that category. Pot Kettle. He appears to be projecting his own paranoia onto those he opposes. He is hardly a climate scientist himself, so his opinion counts no more than any layman’s.

    A real climate scientist convinced of the reality of AGW would welcome skepticism as a golden opportunity to present the arguments and measurements that have moved them to that position. In general they do not, which tends to reinforce the view that they are merely implementing a political agenda or protecting their career.

  79. Louise says:

    “A real climate scientist convinced of the reality of AGW would welcome skepticism as a golden opportunity to present the arguments and measurements that have moved them to that position.”

    They do now (e.g. Dr Richard Betts) and used to still more but, even though it can be a fun game, whack-a-mole gets a bit tedious after a while.

  80. Jeff B. says:

    Increasingly progressives are just making stuff up to get what they want. This is why we can no longer afford to vote Democrat.

  81. Colin Porter says:

    jorgekafkazar says

    “”Colin Porter says: “…We can now all spell the real name “Lewandowsky,” that is every body except spell checker, which continues to treat his name with disdain.”

    It’s easy to check. If you can rearrange the letters to spell phantasy slewed wonk, you’ve got it right.””

    Excellent. I could never have thought of an anagram like that, even though you have used artistic license with your spelling. Perhaps you or others could conjure up more terms of endearment from anagrams of our favourite climate scientists.

  82. Rob MW says:

    OK, I watched the video. The fool is dead set nuts and in desperate need of a spell in the padded little white room.

  83. Chris N. says:

    Tried to get to Jo Nova’s site through Climate Depot. Account Suspended?

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    “his explained variance results were not from factor analysis, but from the different (though related) technique of principal components”

    PCA is a special case of factor analysis (actually the simplest case), so the statement clumsily reveals ignorance that needs to be corrected.

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cautionary note for lay readers:
    A commenter named “James Lane” has made false & misleading statements on the parallel Climate Audit thread.

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sloppy thinking on multivariate methods is hopelessly widespread, including in academia. If results based on multivariate methods are important to me for some purpose, I trust no one and need to run a LOT of CAREFUL diagnostics independently (starting with a basic scatterplot matrix, a step which should never be skipped).

    The following may provide Steve McIntyre opportunity for at least a somewhat graceful exit from deeply incisive (and absolutely correct) comments of “faustusnotes” on the issue of factor matrix rotation:

    http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63347/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_factor_sect002.htm
    =
    “A frequent source of confusion in the field of factor analysis is the term factor. It sometimes refers to a hypothetical, unobservable variable, as in the phrase common factor. In this sense, factor analysis must be distinguished from component analysis since a component is an observable linear combination. Factor is also used in the sense of matrix factor, in that one matrix is a factor of a second matrix if the first matrix multiplied by its transpose equals the second matrix. In this sense, factor analysis refers to all methods of data analysis that use matrix factors, including component analysis and common factor analysis.”
    =

  87. Don says:

    Anagram Genius rearranged “Stephan Lewandowsky” as “wonky deathless pawn”, i..e. a wonky zombie. Score!

  88. TBear says:

    Can you guys in the USA please send a team down here and take this mad man back. Australia is a nice place. We don’t need nutters like this guy. What a whack-job …

  89. David A. Evans says:

    SunderlandSteve says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:42 am

    I hereby give permission to Anthony to give my e-mail to you.

    We are between 6 & 10 miles apart..

    DaveE.

  90. SunderlandSteve says:

    David A. Evans says:
    September 23, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    ????

Comments are closed.