Lewandowsky backs down – removes “denier” citation from paper

Jeff Condon writes at the Air Vent:

Over the past few weeks I have had several communications with Dr. Lewandowsky regarding his wonderful contribution to science very appropriately titled:

MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

“MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE”

Think about that.   Who could reject the truth of “science”?….  It must be one who has such powerful beliefs on something that scientific fact, real proof, even unequivocal evidence has no effect on their opinion.  How much more Orwellian a title could be written?  As we have learned at Climate Audit, from the content of the paper the irony is difficult to overstate.

As you unfortunate victims readers know, I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.   The very title of the Lewandowsky article attacks the open discussion on which science is necessarily based.  A more biased attack on reasoned skepticism is hard to fathom.  

The Air Vent blog isn’t exactly a great life achievement in my point of view but it is one of the far too rare science-first blogs skeptical of <b>catastrophic</b> anthropogenic global warming.  I didn’t imagine that a conservative engineer who started a free blog under a pseudonym complaining about political and monetary pollution of climate science would extend to being banned by climate blogs, being outed by the British press, surprise phone calls on Sunday morning,  hacked email drops, being contacted by the anti-terror squads of the British government and then recently being libeled with accusations of being an anti-science denier and advocate of conspiratorial whatever in the Journal of Psychology..

You have to love liberalism in all of its wonderful forms.  Does anyone wonder now why I published under “Jeff Id” ?

Here is what Lewandowsky wrote under the guise of science:

Thus, AIDS denial has been linked to the belief that the U.S. Government created HIV; the tobacco industry viewed lung cancer research as an \oligopolistic cartel,” and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

The article in the references is the lone Internet link of any kind in the references:http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/global-temperature-records-above-the-law/ (Accessed 6 May 2012).  Certainly the post is argumentative but it is about the collusion by Jones and UEA officials to ignore legal freedom of information requests.   Unlike Lewandowsky, it seems obvious that nobody really knew what data was used in CRU ground temperatures at that time.  Now we know even Phil Jones was a bit confused on the matter. Fortunately, after climategate, Dr. Phil became a lot more open to releasing the data and I believe tAV was the first blog to reproduce his results after code became available.

The accusations by Dr. Lewandowsky were allowed by the editorial review of the Journal of Psychology yet claims that I’m a climate change denier and that I believe temperatures were illegitimately adjusted are clearly false.  I wrote first to Lewandowsky regarding the error and received an automated reply about his travel so I wrote to his coauthor.  After some time, I was told that Lewandowsky didn’t believe he was in error using this rather cute bit of sophistry:

I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your  name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part.

So even after telling him of his error, Lewandowsky is still saying that I have accused someone of illegitimate temperature record adjustment for the explicit purpose of exaggerated warming but apparently I’m not a denier.  I have not made either claim of course, however, on a similar vein there are some UHI based embarrassments by the climate change extremist community that I could happily detail for him.  The funny bit is that Lewandowsky proposed to replace the Condon reference for climate change deniers with a “google search” that would include my blog amongst others:

I therefore suggest that I remove the citation “(e.g., Condon, 2009)” and replace it with “(see supplementary material for sources).” The supplementary material can then contain a set of links to 10 or so sites making claims about illegitimate adjustments, presented in an order based on Google-rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations. (Of course, that’s how I got to your post in the first place, so there is no guarantee that your link might not pop up again; I hope you can accept that because I don’t want to re-introduce human selection.)

Read the entire story here

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

50 Responses to Lewandowsky backs down – removes “denier” citation from paper

  1. Christopher Hanley says:

    Meanwhile the world awaits in breathless anticipation for the resubmission of the sensational Karoly Gergis SH hockey stick paper due “before the end of September”.
    They didn’t say what year though.

  2. Green Sand says:

    Simple – Lewandowsk 2012 removed – end

  3. fhhaynie says:

    He keeps digging his grave deeper and deeper and doesn’t know it. His supporters are advised to distance them selves from him or go down with him.

  4. davidmhoffer says:

    Jeff Condon;
    Lewandowsky proposed to replace the Condon reference for climate change deniers with a “google search”
    Jeff Condon quotes Lewandowsky;
    “hope you can accept that because I don’t want to re-introduce human selection.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh yes Dr Lewandowsky, replacing human selection with google selection is oh so scientific and can’t possibly be prone to bias based on the wording of the google search.

    The former is sarcastic Dr Lewandowsky. And derisive. And scornfull. As you are a psychologist, my expectation is that you know the meaning of these terms. Having read what passes for science in your mind, my expectation is that you have no idea how applicable these terms are, nor why.

  5. Rosco says:

    How do these people get their PhDs in the first place and how do they not have them removed.

    Academia has become a joke over climate “science” – they may as well include qualifications with breakfast cereals. The “greenhouse effect” was never taught in any of the physics I studied at school and Uni but to the shame of all this unproven hypothesis is now taught as FACT.

    Even if you believe in the GHE you must acknowledge it is not proven science by any stretch of the imagination, and yet it is taught to children and young adults as such – these same advocates would, and have, cry foul if something as belief based as the GHE, eg Creationism, were taught as FACT.

  6. cohenite says:

    Thank you Jeff; you’re a champ. Hopefully in the future the claim that Lewandowsky called you a denier can be worn as a badge of honour.

    News from another denier; David Stockwell has done an interesting analysis of BOM’s temperature data adjustment procedure.

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0088v2.pdf

    Stockwell’s paper says this:

    “To demonstrate aliasing on historical data, we selected a surface station whose trend deviates from the continental mean temperature trend, but
    does not show any obvious inhomogeneity. Deniliquin was not chosen to be representative. Many stations will display the average trend. Deniliquin was
    chosen to show the coercion of the trend of any station that deviates from the average global warming trend into the warming trend, irrespective of its trend or quality”

    Stockwell shows that no matter whether the site raw trend is greater or less than the comparison trend used for homogenisation, the adjustment will convert the site trend to the comparison trend; since most sites in Australia have a trend cooler than the comparison trend they are warmed by the adjustment.

    Another conspiracy no doubt.

  7. hro001 says:

    From Lew’s Latest Lamer™:

    I therefore suggest that I remove the citation “(e.g., Condon, 2009)” and replace it with “(see supplementary material for sources).”

    But, but, but … on Sept. 3, Lewandowsky claimed:

    I recently published a paper on the motivated rejection of science that is forthcoming in Psychological Science.

    So, did he “stop the presses” when he received Jeff’s initial complaint? Or does “recently published” mean something completely different in Lew-speak? Curious minds would like to know.

    And speaking of surveys … If you haven’t already done so, please do consider casting your pre-election vote, in a poll being conducted within a virtual constituency for which the candidates are James Delingpole and Andrew Weaver. Details and poll** at:

    Survey participation invited: Does fear of CO2 cause extreme voting?

    ** Poll will close on Sept. 29 or after 200 responses received, whichever occurs first.
    Thanks,
    Hilary Ostrov

  8. AB says:

    When fighting these people keep a detailed written record and put it on the net. This is a very effective tactic.
    http://turiteadocuments.wordpress.com/a-rogues-gallery/

  9. u.k.(us) says:

    “I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part.”
    ======================
    An apology, of sorts ?
    Hard to tell.
    Innaccurate context, leads to an unintended tacit association.

    I don’t believe it either, who does that.

  10. banjo says:

    Psychologists,scientists? Awww c`mon.
    Until the mumbo jumbo is kicked into touch it`s right up there with aromatherapy and feng shui.
    Bring on the neuroscientists,fire the quacks.
    http://www.psychology4a.com/Science%201.htm

  11. ferdberple says:

    ” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part.”
    ===========
    Really? Are you in touch with your sub-conscious? Doctor heal thyself.

  12. Manfred says:

    Unfortunately, the likes of University of Western Australia Professorial Fellow Lewandowsky consider that they preach from an unimpeachable podium of self-righteousness. Their self-perception that they are the Cognoscenti of a Save-Gaia crusade renders them not only impervious to challenge and indeed, even legends in their own minds, it renders them incapable of insight, something that is far, far more dangerous.

  13. Alec Rawls says:

    Turns out Whoopie Goldberg thinks the moon landings were faked:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/20/whoopi_goldberg_entertains_moon_landing_conspiracy_theories.html

    Anybody want to bet which side of the global warming debate she’s on?

  14. E.M.Smith says:

    @cohenite;

    In the QA process, any station too deviant is replaced with an average of surrounding ASOS stations (i.e. Airports). This means that any place with still winter air that gets a stratified cold layer will be replaced with an average of warm mobile air over tarmac. The decision on ‘to deviant’ is based on the surrounding averages. I’ve called this The Procrustean Bed method of QA.

    Perhaps we need “Procrustean Homogenizing” to name this process? Any temperature that does not match the preconceived notion of trend will be stretched to fit in the present, or trimmed to fit the smaller “bed” of the past…

  15. geran says:

    You are playing the game of chess, they are playing the game of “can I put this Cheerio in my mouth”.

    Everyone knows that it is not even a contest, unless you make the wrong move….

  16. Louis says:

    “…and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).”

    That’s much more than just a “tacit association”. Condon, 2009 is the only reference given to provide an example of his statement about climate deniers. How could it not be intended as an explicit association on his part?

  17. 0U812 says:

    Hummmm …..

    Me thinks this ‘Lew’ person is mostly very desperate to get a ‘paper’ published in a ‘journal’ in this case Journal of Psychology, as if ‘Journal of Psychology’ was a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which I posit it is not, and he is counting on this fact not being evident to the ‘Faculty Reviewers’ of the said ‘University which will be nameless’ on his review committee to vote … [yea or nay].

    Therefore, I posit his ‘tenure’ is numbered by hours and not days at the ‘University which will be nameless’.

    [Just some random thoughts to you ... no need to publish ... I think it self evident.]

  18. Doug S says:

    Watching this false religion fall apart is a once in a lifetime experience. I’m fascinated by the minds and the thought processes of “believers”. Have they not studied history? Have they not learned the implicit lessons that history has to offer? It’s so foolish to “believe” as a part of a group or club or tribe. Science and the scientific method was the way to enlightenment for man, these cats want to walk back into the dark ages.

  19. wermet says:

    I have a theory concerning psychologists. I believe that the reason that many people choose to enter this field is to discover what is wrong with themselves. Now, this is (probably) a gross over exaggeration, but it does seem to explain much of their behavior that I have had the dubious honor to observe throughout my years.

    For example of the psychologists that I know personally:
    — 100% believe that 9/11 was an inside job!
    — Many believe that aliens have been visiting the earth, abducting people, probing them, experimenting on them, and guiding the course of our specie’s evolution.
    — Most believe in the healing power of crystals and most other forms of “alternative medicine.”
    — Of course, all believe in CAGW.

    Now if you want to identify a group of people predisposed to believe almost anything, psychologists would seem to be that group. You rarely find more than a light sprinkling of people with these types beliefs in the hard sciences, engineering, math, or accounting. BTW, I count climate scientists as belonging to the “soft sciences.”

  20. Blade says:

    The “denier” label again. This is a fine example of the proverbial “pot calling the kettle black”, or even better yet “the greatest trick the devil ever played …” type of mass hallucination.

    Let’s get it straight, okay!

    Those that believe we humans were born into a static Garden of Eden where there is a stable and unchanging climate being screwed up by human beings are the Climate Change Deniers. And yes, this includes those lukewarmers like Mosher and R.Gates who imply that we are still in the Little Ice Age ( “100% of the CO2 gain and 100% of the 0.7°C temperature rise in the last century are from AGW” ) and would still be in the LIA but for man’s actions, but are afraid to state it this succinctly.

    Those that believe the climate is ever-changing, ping-ponging all over the place from glaciation to inter-glacial, from Medieval Warmth to LIA cold, from 1970’s coolness to 1990’s warmness are NOT climate change deniers at all, it is self-evident! They ( We ) are Climate Change Realists.

    Nobody is ever going to convince me that some of the AGW kooks did not intentionally use the word “denier” in a sloppy and offensive comparison to holocaust deniers. Of course the irony is that the creepy holocaust revisionists are far more likely to be leftists who are completely comfortable with the AGW scam.

  21. Blade says:

    ATTENTION: MODS

    last comment got sucked into the blackhole. Can you save it?

    *** PLEASE DELETE THIS ONE ***

    Thanks!

    Reply: Naw, we’ll just leave it here as a testament to your lack of patience. ~ mod

  22. pat says:

    it seems like only yesterday that greens/unions & environmental groups worldwide were storming Rio Tinto AGMs. little did they know Rio has been with the CAGW program for at least a decade!

    28 Sept: SMH: Paddy Manning: Rio Tinto sees man-made climate change
    Climate change is occurring and is largely caused by human activities, miner Rio Tinto’s head of coal in Australia, Bill Champion told a Brisbane conference this morning.
    In a speech on sustainable development and mining, Mr Champion said the “scale of the necessary emissions reductions and the need for adaptation, coupled with the world’s increasing requirements for secure, affordable energy, create large challenges which require worldwide attention”.
    Rio Tinto has factored a carbon price into its investment decision-making for the past 10 years, Mr Champion said…
    “We recognise the value of action on climate change…
    “We factor into our planning and decision-making, including our choice of investments, the costs and associated risks of emissions and business disruption, as well as the costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation, and the opportunities created for our business by the move to a low-carbon economy.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/rio-tinto-sees-manmade-climate-change-20120928-26pr8.html

    28 Sept: Australian Financial Review: Miners face ‘social licence’ to operate, says Rio
    Green mining technologies such as carbon capture will be a big industry in the future, Rio Tinto’s Australian coal boss says…
    One of the key questions for companies such as Rio Tinto would be how to keep their “social licence” to operate…
    http://afr.com/p/business/companies/miners_face_social_licence_to_operate_aPEexNxDkX834i2CGPCYAJ

  23. Mark Fawcett says:

    Lew says “rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations”

    Is the great man aware that _his_ google search results will be biased by the history of previous searches _he’s_ done…unless he takes some careful steps to avoid this.

    Cheers

    Mark

  24. theduke says:

    Meet Erich Eich, editor of the Journal of Psychology, and the man who saved Lew from the deserved scorn of one angry conservative blogger named Jeff.

    When I listen to this stuff, I get the impression that pyschologists and fellow travelers are some kind of bizarre outlier tribe in the therapeutic sciences. I’m dubious that pyschology should even be classified as a science.

  25. ecoGuy says:

    Hmmmm, trying to associate what old Lew does with science is a fruitless exercise.

    I think the only real AGW going on here is Academic Global Warming where certain academics seem to have come down with an affliction or disease of bad logic due to the all imagined excess heat their brains need to deal with – they are virtually frying their integrity in the very literal public arena..

    Time for some ice in a towel…

  26. DirkH says:

    Lewandowsky had his media blitz; it is now no longer necessary to defend the claims. Another social scientist/ethicist/psychologist or whoever is designated to will make the next proclamation of AGW skepticism as mental illness.

    And Lewandowsky also got his money.

  27. DirkH says:

    wermet says:
    September 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    “I have a theory concerning psychologists. I believe that the reason that many people choose to enter this field is to discover what is wrong with themselves. ”

    Psychology was a pseudoscience from the start, and made , together with Marx1sm, Popper write his definition of the scientific method.
    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

    Siegmund Freud only got popular after his nephew Eddie Bernays, the inventor of modern PR/propaganda, helped sell his books in the US.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

  28. sophocles says:

    Doug S says:
    September 27, 2012 at 8:22 pm
    Watching this false religion fall apart is a once in a lifetime experience. I’m fascinated by the minds and the thought processes of “believers”. Have they not studied history?
    =============================================================

    They haven’t and certainly in no real detail. “Those who do not know
    history are doomed to repeat it.”

    You can already see the same sort of acceptance of a dogma, and the
    rejection of those who refuse to adopt the insanity which the National
    Socialists seized upon in Germany in the second half of the 1920s.
    Fortunately, it has not yet gone so far as modern equivalents of the
    Nuremberg rallies, nor the Brown Shirts, but the potential is there should
    a charismatic demagogue adopt it as a cause.

    It’s already a grand addition to (or update for) Charles MacKay’s famous
    book! (“Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”)

  29. DirkH says:

    Doug S says:
    September 27, 2012 at 8:22 pm
    “Watching this false religion fall apart is a once in a lifetime experience.”

    No. It is a run of the mill PR/propaganda driven enterprise. Examples:
    In about 2005 futerra, UK propaganda company, schooled BBC journalists to report Global Warming as fact instead of as scientific theory, omitting counter opinions as would be appropriate when reporting about a theory.

    Modern day example of a PR/propaganda driven campaign and its collapse: The bizarre weaseling of the Obama administration regarding events in Libya. Obviously after the unforeseen event, the PR hacks needed time to fit it into their propaganda roadmap and issued the order to blame a youtube video even though other knowledge already existed.

    Unfortunately, you will see more of such PR/propaganda driven pseudorealities presented as fact by the NYT and other conforming outlets in the future.

  30. DirkH says:

    sophocles says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm
    “You can already see the same sort of acceptance of a dogma, and the
    rejection of those who refuse to adopt the insanity which the National
    Socialists seized upon in Germany in the second half of the 1920s.”

    That is not astounding at all. The Naz1s used Bernays’ techniques as well. Goebbels had his books.

  31. rk says:

    honestly, i’m a little surprised this would pass muster with the Human Subjects committee. To just willy nilly use disparaging words to describe people you are studying hardly seems judicious. The entire reason for Human Subjects review was to make sure that the Psych researcher didn’t adversely impact the subjects of his research.

  32. wikeroy says:

    sophocles says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    “Fortunately, it has not yet gone so far as modern equivalents of the
    Nuremberg rallies, nor the Brown Shirts, but the potential is there should
    a charismatic demagogue adopt it as a cause. ”

    I don’t agree. It has gone that far many times. When Sting, or U2, or some other “wannabe your great leader” ( but pay me too, please ) has a rally, the masses was even more hysterical than they ever was at Nuremberg.

  33. richardscourtney says:

    rk:

    Your post at September 27, 2012 at 11:09 pm says in total

    honestly, i’m a little surprised this would pass muster with the Human Subjects committee. To just willy nilly use disparaging words to describe people you are studying hardly seems judicious. The entire reason for Human Subjects review was to make sure that the Psych researcher didn’t adversely impact the subjects of his research.

    “A little surprised”? Clearly, you don’t know much about the AGW issue, academia and institutions.

    As a start in your education I suggest you read this
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

    Richard

  34. Blade says:

    September 27, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Reply: Naw, we’ll just leave it here as a testament to your lack of patience. ~ mod

    Thanks for the laugh. :-) But it has nothing to do with a lack of patience.

    Either the comment gets preliminarily posted with: Your comment is awaiting moderation or it gets tossed to the spam bin with NO feedback at all.

    For over a year and a half I have immediately followed up SPAM binned comments with such a notification. Is this now a problem? No offense, just asking.

  35. stephen richards says:

    Mark Fawcett says:

    September 27, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    “Lew says “rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations”

    Is the great man aware that _his_ google search results will be biased by the history of previous searches _he’s_ done…unless he takes some careful steps to avoid this.”

    Does he also realise that Google applies biases to AGW searches, contre the “deniers”.

    I have to say that this idiot has completely lost the plot and is dire need of a psychologist.

  36. Pointman says:

    As with all great tragedy, there were elements of comedy to it, but unfortunately more in a Benny Hill sense, rather than Dante. Lewandowsky thinking he could take out McIntyre on points of statistical methodology, was right up there with a one-legged man entering an ass kicking contest.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/intentions-profiles-and-predictability/

    Pointman

  37. Tom Davidson says:

    D. Healey said “The first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging.”

  38. Peter Hannan says:

    Who believes psychologists? Well, unfortunately, many. Do they contribute anything useful or real? Well, a few, maybe. But, in serious, scientific terms, dealing with reality, most are wankers (Brit.) or drongos (Aus.). Want to guess how I classify Lew?

  39. markstoval says:

    “I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.” — Anthony Watts

    OMG! I am in trouble. I am so bad that I always thought of Mr. Watts as a warm fuzzy teddy-bear who was much too kind. What does that say about me? :-(

  40. Tony Mach says:

    The Google search ranking does and will change for various reasons – it can not be considered reproducible.

  41. Matthew W says:

    “I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland”

    I have been a long time reader of “The Air Vent” and I don’t think that I would have described you as “acerbic”. I thought that suffered fools too well and show great restraint.

    Keep up the great work.

  42. Geoff Sherrington says:

    pat says: September 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm Miner Rio Tinto boss accepts global warming???

    I think if you read more carefully, you will find that the main action is being taken to reduce a pollutant produced by man. Whether this pollutant causes global warming is a separate question.
    Rio took over parts of my former company. In the mid 1980s I had noted to my management colleagues that CO2 was one of the fastest growing industrial pollutants, so I did an audit of it for our group, with recommendations on remediation. It had nothing to do with global warming, an increase in natural catastrophes or climate change. That all remains to be proven – and is a long way from proof in any signficant sense of consequences. I recommended greater use of nuclear power, which has been opposed by successive governments here as they kowtow to the green vote.

  43. Matthew W says:

    markstoval says:
    September 28, 2012 at 2:41 am
    “I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.” — Anthony Watts

    OMG! I am in trouble. I am so bad that I always thought of Mr. Watts as a warm fuzzy teddy-bear who was much too kind. What does that say about me? :-(
    ================================================
    You can keep thinking that Anthony is a warm, fuzzy teddy bear

    Jeff ID wrote the post

  44. DirkH says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    September 28, 2012 at 3:47 am
    “I think if you read more carefully, you will find that the main action is being taken to reduce a pollutant produced by man. Whether this pollutant causes global warming is a separate question.
    Rio took over parts of my former company. In the mid 1980s I had noted to my management colleagues that CO2 was one of the fastest growing industrial pollutants, so I did an audit of it for our group, with recommendations on remediation.”

    That means that office workers are in acute danger as they are living in a highly polluted environment. Did you consider lobbying for legislation that prevents office workers from having to breath air with elevated CO2 levels?

  45. atheok says:

    Very Bizarre!

    As I read it, Lewpy indirectly admits he did not verify his statements about Jeff Id. Then he further proposes to use a Google search listing instead. In his statement about the Google search listing, he admits that the listing may (and will) change.

    Delving into the whys of the Google listing is too much trouble for the Lewpy, so unverified wild results are therefore listed as fact. That the search list itself is more likely to refer to CAGW religion sites falsely disparaging Condon, is not proof of CAGW conspirists is a bizarre twist of the facts. I expect Lewpy believes the inability to reproduce search results exactly will protect him from adverse claims, like sheer unmitigated fraud and gall. Not to overlook Lewpy’s condescending tone towards Condon.

    Book Lewpy and his fellow shrinkers for the next Galactic Hitchhiker’s ship for all of the hairdressers and similar ilk.

  46. manicbeancounter says:

    Condon has a minor victory, but no acknowledgement that, as a skeptic, that he has anything valid to say. This is the same with Lewandowsky as well. To admit that there is any possibility of alternative viewpoints within the science would open the flood gates to genuine questions about the weighting we should attach to the consensus.

  47. James from Arding says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    September 28, 2012 at 3:47 am

    “In the mid 1980s I had noted to my management colleagues that CO2 was one of the fastest growing industrial pollutants, so I did an audit of it for our group, with recommendations on remediation.”

    ===============================
    A simple search… http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pollute
    “1. To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter. See Synonyms at contaminate.”

    How is that CO2 makes the atmosphere “unfit for living things”? Particularly if you are willing to accept that “It had nothing to do with global warming, an increase in natural catastrophes or climate change.”

  48. Man Bearpig says:

    A video for Lewadowski

  49. Brian H says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    September 28, 2012 at 3:47 am

    pat says: September 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm Miner Rio Tinto boss accepts global warming???

    I think if you read more carefully, you will find that the main action is being taken to reduce a pollutant produced by man.

    Yeah, piling on here. You must be a fracking loon; man is doing a slow, overdue, and still inadequate job of returning the base for virtually all organic life (some extremophiles excepted) into circulation, after its over-deposition by the unthinking hyper-sequestration by the flora and coral and plankton in chalk and coal and limestone beds, by the gigaton, resulting in the current CO2 near-famine.

  50. Dave says:

    “presented in an order based on Google-rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations.”

    I’m assuming Lew doesn’t realise how google rankings work – he’ll get ones influenced by his search history.

Comments are closed.