From Tom Nelson, it was too good not to repost, especially when Lewandowsky hands out moral lessons while being immoral himself with his labeling skeptics as “moon landing deniers” with a gussed up survey and statistical slight of hand that turned out to be a an academic scam used as a tool to dehumanize people that have legitimate doubts about the science.
Now that Lewandowsky has declared the AR5 draft leak issue “dishonourable” (something not even the IPCC itself said in their statement) I expect we won’t see any use of AR5 draft information by his mouthpiece pawns, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli on “Skeptical Science”, because well, using that new “dishonourably” obtained information would be wrong according to Lew.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher of climate change denial at the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia, said the premature leak of the report was “dishonourable.”
“Science is one of the most transparent endeavours humans have ever developed. However, for the transparency to be effective, preliminary documents ought to remain confidential until they have been improved and checked through peer review,” he said in an emailed comment.
“The leak of a draft report by a reviewer who has signed a statement of confidentiality is therefore regrettable and dishonourable.”
“However, what is worse than the leak itself is the distortion of the content of the draft chapter by some deniers (no, they are not skeptics),” he said.
Prof Lewandowsky said that the report’s statement that humans have caused global warming was a “virtual certainty” meant it’s authors had 99% confidence in that view.
“That’s up from ‘very high confidence’ (90% certain) in the last report published in 2007,” he said. [Hey Stephan: How, specifically, were those 90% and 99% numbers calculated? What, specifically, changed between 2007 and now that accounts for the alleged 90% reduction in uncertainty?]
“In other words, the scientific case has become even stronger and has now reached a level of confidence that is parallelled only by our confidence in some very basic laws of physics, such as gravity or thermodynamics.”
To claim otherwise by cherry-picking part of a sentence out of context is absurd, he said.
“Although it illustrates the standard approach by which climate deniers seek to confuse the public. Climate denial lost intellectual respectability decades ago, and all that deniers have left now is to misrepresent, distort, or malign the science and the scientific process.”
For the last few years, my new passion has been rock climbing…Most airlines [Wait, with the fate of my grandchildren allegedly hanging in the balance, this guy still takes unnecessary fuel-guzzling trips to climb on rocks?!] can handle that, whereas few take sailplanes as check-in luggage
“Prof Lewandowsky said that the report’s statement that humans have caused global warming was a “virtual certainty” meant it’s authors had 99% confidence in that view.”
Now ain’t that impressive. Reminds me of election results in the DDR.
It is good that he mentions Newton’s ‘law of gravity’ as this original piece of fiction was really what started the modeling bandwagon rolling centuries ago and like ‘global warming’ when a theory/model can explain just about everything,then people know there is something radically wrong with the followers of the bandwagon.
Rarely did anyone ever ask what the ‘laws of gravity’ actually are insofar as not a single person has been able to trace Newton’s approach,at least up to now.It is breathtaking in its audacity to subvert some of the greatest achievements of Western astronomical tradition yet the modelers neither know nor want to know.
Edgar Allan Poe ,in praising Von Homboldt ,was probably among the few who questioned a thoery that explains so much with so little –
“To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of
explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law — would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?” Allan Poe
At the bottom of the mathematical modeling hoopla,of which this global warming mess is merely a sideshow is Newton’s agenda which is an offshoot of Ra/Dec modeling – a homocentric exercise as cruel as any the world has ever seen in that it is vicious.
The theory of gravity indeed !,if only the world knew what it actually represents.
‘nuf said.
“Although it illustrates the standard approach by which climate deniers seek to confuse the public.”
Classic projection. It is the alarmists that never want the public to see the entire body of evidence.
Please, good doctor, explain how the following fits the narrative:
1) Missing hot spot.
2) Temperature during the last interglacial.
3) Missing water vapor feedback.
4) Missing reduction in outgoing IR.
5) How even a 100% increase in CO2 that is only a 1.1% increase in GHE could possibly cause a 20% increase in temperature.
“Science is one of the most transparent endeavours humans have ever developed. However, for the transparency to be effective, preliminary documents ought to remain confidential until they have been improved and checked through peer review,” he said in an emailed comment.
=======================================================================
Translation: “Science is one of the most transparent endeavors humans have ever developed. So now lets make it opaque.”
Lewandowsky: “To claim otherwise by cherry-picking part of a sentence out of context is absurd, he said.”
“Prof Lewandowsky said that the report’s statement that humans have caused global warming was a “virtual certainty” meant it’s authors had 99% confidence in that view.”
I hope that “virtual certainty” was not cherry-picked!
It’s funny how the more global temperature diverges from IPCC projections the more certain they become that it’s man’s co2. What if we go into a decade long cooling? What then? How do they climb down after nailing their flags to the mast? 16 years of a temperature standstill and they become more convinced. Amazing stuff. This couldn’t happen in any other field of science – I think.
Steve Sherwood, one of the authors of the report and Co-Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a researcher of climate change denial at the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia.
Obviously neither of these guys has any financial or other conflict when commenting on climate pseudoscience.
Isn’t amazing how people can create fields of pseudoscience to investigate without having the basic intelligence to determine if the underpinning pseudoscience is sound ??
All of the discussion about climate pseudoscience is about peripheral issues like a storm or a period of dry, wet hot or cold weather – who cares about things we cannot do anything about ?
Lets investigate the basis for the hypothesis and how climate pseudoscience has made a fundamental error and what evidence there is to demonstrate this error.
The witchdoctors have conflated narrative adhockery with peer-review in their Just So Stories For Little men. These stories will go the way of The Song of The South soon enough.
Absolutely the CAGW scam is 100% mann made.
De Nile is a river in Egypt and the phoney Dr may soon wish he was in it.
The projection of these clown is revealing, in simple justice shall we do unto these artists as they state they would do unto us?
Such lunacy is refreshing, keep them talking as we have no friends as useful as these experts.
What I would like to hear Lewandowsky tell me is what scientific principals underlie “Cognitive Science”!
Obviously Stephan, like most climate alarmists, is not familiar with the old joke about 87.34% of statistics being completely made up. What a prat.
I thought Newton’s theory had long since been supplanted? By Einstein… and even he wasn’t sure he had it all right?
Is lewandowski having a freudian slip?
Rock climbing is a very hazardous pastime. Statistics in Australia from 1955-2004 show these figures:
Table 1: ACAD Overview
Fatal, Severe, Serious, Moderate, Minor, Unknown
Category % Entries 5 4 3 2 1 0
Rock Climbing 69.2 204 25 19 76 50 29 5
Mountaineering 21.0 62 46 1 8 6 1 0
Gym Climbing 3.7 11 1 2 6 2 0 0
Bouldering 1.7 5 0 0 0 5 0 0
Abseiling 4.4 13 11 0 2 0 0 0
Climbing Sub-Total 100.0 295 83 22 92 63 30 5
Other 7 5 0 0 1 1 0
Total 302 88 22 92 64 31 5
Statistics from Iain B. Sedgman : Climbing Accidents in Australia http://uobcommunity.ballarat.edu.au/~isedgman/climbing/Accidents.pdf
It will be interesting to see how Professor Lewandowsky gets on with his encounter with the laws of Gravity.
Yes, it is entirely dishonorable to leak the draft of the AR5 working group 1 report. The report is still a draft and tentative in nature. It is still subject to revision and change just like the raw temperature data. After revisions the facts , conclusions and recommendations could be entirely different and could be opposite as to what is presented in the draft reports. In recent days, there has been controlled leak into the mainstream media that is entirely different and contradictory to the leak draft report to prepare the political masters to allocate special budget to further confirm a settled science , provides the political masters a sound political platform to scare the voters to maintain the status quo and photo opportunity for crying in the next weather episode that has no connection to climate. Anyway the public in general does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
“climate deniers”
“a researcher of climate change denial”
I have NEVER met a ‘climate denier’ or a ‘climate change denier’ in my life.
Is this man for real?
Do ‘Universities’ (And in the case of the University of Western Australia I use this term very loosely.) now study straw-man?
This pseudo scientist is an embarrassment for Australia.
the CAGW Gatekeepers are always good for a laugh, especially in the MSM, which kept Monckton’s “16 years” – the highlight of Doha – “confidential”.
of course, the MSM jumped all over Alec’s “leak” within hours, and produced almost identical meme headlines worldwide, showing their usual –
“…loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.” (George Orwell)
@DirkH
it’s the GDR, German DemocraticRepublic – RIB
Sorry, RIP
Hi Anthony,
Im fascinated to learn that Lewandowsky employs “mouthpiece pawns, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli “. Could you provide support for that statement please? Or perhaps consider withdrawing it as ad hominem.
REPLY: Why should I bother? The facts of association are clear enough. Lewdowsky’s, Cooks, and Nuccitelli’s essays with ad homs are far worse than that for real people to see, and unlike fake people such as yourself who make ad hom stock in trade as I have observed from your ID on numerous occasions elsewhere. Your whining is denied. – Anthony
Science should be transparent, as in this particular case
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/10/solar-cycle-24-still-in-a-slump/#comment-1172258
:
I wonder if anyone’s bothered to tell the poor fellow that there hasn’t been any stat sig warming since around 1997, and – if I don’t miss my guess – the warming trend isn’t likely to restart for at least another decade.
It is becoming increasingly evident to anyone who hasn’t got their head up their backside that it is Lewandowsky, Cook and their ilk that are the deniers now.
Of course, something that doesn’t help their case is that since the death of Peak Oil and the dawn of the shale gas revolution, there just isn’t the political will to promote CAGW any longer, there’s more money to be made from fraccing than there was taxing the dwindling reservoir of conventional fossil fuels, and, as anyone who has been paying attention is well aware, politics and money has been the top and bottom of the AGW hypothesis all along.
Really ? Perhaps he should start by staring into a mirror.
I interpret that as meaning that they have a 1% chance of keeping their jobs should temperatures fall in a sustained manner.
Aside from the minor detail that science has no idea what gravity is and even less idea about gravitational anomalies. And as for thermodynamics…
Lewandowsky is a piece of work. First he was a expert in understanding the psychology of the so called “Deniers”, now he is an expert in interpreting the IPCC reports and an expert in gravity and thermodynamics. Wow such talent for only one man.
“preliminary documents ought to remain confidential until they have been improved and checked through peer review”
Wrong on many different levels.
It makes unsupportable assumptions about who should conduct peer review. It confuses “journal review” (selected reviewers before publication) with wider review (anybody who reads the document and raises valid objections).
In addition, it invites us to assume that the IPCC documents are reporting “science”. But the IPCC doesn’t perform any science and is not presenting or interpreting scientific observations. So wrong again.