![cook_lewandowsky1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/cook_lewandowsky11.jpg?resize=225%2C195)
Steve McIntyre writes:
Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here.
Since then, information obtained through FOI has shown that responses by both Lewandowsky and Cook to questions from Chambers and Woods were untrue. Actually, “untrue” does not really do justice to the measure of untruthfulness, as the FOI correspondence shows that the untruthful answers were given deliberately and intentionally. Chambers, in a post entitled Lewandowsky the Liar, minced no words in calling Lewandowsky “a liar, a fool, a charlatan and a fraud.”
Even though the untruthfulness of Lewandowsky and Cook’s stories had been clearly demonstrated by Geoff Chambers in a series of blog articles (e.g. here), in the published version of the Hoax paper, instead of correcting prior untrue claims about SKS, Lewandowsky doubled down, repeating and substantially amplifying the untrue claim.
Read the entire post here
So long as the msm only publish one side of this debate, the likes of Cook and Lewandowsky will not care how many flaws are found in their work, as it will have still served it’s purpose.
The Chancellor of the University of Western Australia must be so proud of having such an honorable, honest and hard working faculty member on staff, a faculty member who is bringing such a high level of research ethics and public interest to his Institution.
http://www.uwa.edu.au/university/governance/chancellor
The Chancellor does not provide the public with his email address so we can send him notes of congratulations, but Lewandosky`s immediate boss in the School of Psychology does.
Head of School/Professor Maybery, Professor Murray murray.maybery@uwa.edu.au
Think I`ll send Murray a note to make sure he knows what a great faculty member he has in Lewandosky.
Climate Audit has just posted a detailed article today, detailing the lying that is the hallmark of the climate alarmist cult.
Alarmists lie because if they admitted the truth, their false narrative would come crashing down.
The fact is that nothing unusual or unprecedented is or has been occurring. Current climate parameters are all well within historical norms [including polar ice cover, which is above its long-term average]. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Any honest scientist would look at the complete lack of physical corroboration, and correctly conclude that the “carbon” scare has been falsified: despite the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, global temperatures continue to stagnate.
The alarmist crowd has no integrity, none at all. They have been given permission to lie by the late Stephen Schneider, and now they lie like children caught with chocolate on their faces, standing next to an open cookie jar.
The rest of us know they are lying. But when called on their lies, they double down and still insist — despite mountains of evidence falsifying their claims — that catastrophic AGW is upon us. The worst of it is, they know they are lying. They lie for only one basic reason: because they are liars. They have made the deliberate decision to lie in order to advance their alarming narrative. Their lies are entirely self-serving, because they are cashing in on the false alarm they are promoting.
It is truly despicable the depths to which many alarmists have sunk to. Personal integrity means nothing to them; their false narrative is everything, and if it must be supported with lies, then that is just the cost of admission. Basic honesty is simply not in them. As Steve McIntyre points out, they are ‘bald faced liars’. Read McIntyre’s article; you will see. And as usual, McIntyre thoroughly backs up his accusation with chapter and verse.
It’s spreading. In this morning’s Department of Water Resources California Water News:
“. . .blatant inaccuracies and critical omissions did not constitute scientific misconduct. . .”
http://yubanet.com/california/Interior-Denies-Spinning-Klamath-Science.php#.UVSHuldc2Il
“Washington, DC March 25, 2013 – The U.S. Interior Department has rejected a complaint from one of its own Scientific Integrity Officers that it presented distorted summaries of studies on the effects of a still-pending decision to remove dams in the Klamath River. Interior’s review confirmed the substance of the complaint but concluded that blatant inaccuracies and critical omissions did not constitute scientific misconduct, according to a response posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).”
[…]
“By blessing abuse as ‘standard practice’ this review stood Interior’s scientific integrity policy on its head,” said Dr. Paul Houser, who also filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint which has since been resolved. “I feel like I fell through the looking glass into a world propelled by circular reasoning.”
This “survey” was done for the express purpose of discrediting skeptics, so the ends justified the means, a philosophy espoused in the Marxist playbook and followed by socialists all over the world.
It’s humorous that they perceive themselves as the “Pro-Science” group, yet they are willing to lie, twist data, or alter and obfuscate the facts, to bolster their cause.
I think Freud once said that an obsession with the pathological is itself pathological.
any possibility Alarmist will ever learn the meaning of the words “integrity” and “ethics”?
And we have Gleick, a host of Cli-Sci malfeasance whitewashers in the UEA, UVA and Penn State, the remarks of Schneider on lying and exaggeration to promote the CAGW disgrace, IPCC’s lies re use of gray literature, cherry-picker lies like strategically using one tree (N=1) for robust proxy temperature, upside down proxies that showed a bend the wrong way (Tiljander series), and the manipulations to kill the RWP, MWP, LIA and the 1936 20th Century hot record. The terrible beating the data has taken to give us a 0.7C temp rise in 100 years is astonishing. I would like to see a statistical sampling of nose lengths for comparison between warmers and sceptics.
This reminds me of some humour I found on a site run by a Canadian student who calls herself a climate scientist but will delete any comments contrary to her AGW religion.
Quote from her site: “Now, when deniers attempt to construct a scandal, it doesn’t get off the ground. Scientists are there immediately to set the record straight, and the media realizes it is a non-story.”
So we wait now for the straight jacket reply..
No evidence points that way phil.
Never happen – they dine with the devil, but never understand why all of that intestinal rumbling comes about.
This may be a good tack – we have fought against them using Queensbury rules, while they act like those project thugs you see assaulting 90-year olds in their elevators.
It’s time we hit them where it hurts – in their big, stupid melon heads.
While shooting lewpapaer in a barrel is always fun I feel that SM is seriously wasting his many and obvious talents on this half-wit. Lew is a P***k. A P***k that has found a way into the wonderful world of climate funding even though he would never pass the entrance exam for any real science course. He is paid to generate nonsense and give it the veneer of ‘science’.
Steve, get back to Marcott. Lewpaper is just another distraction eating into your valuable time.
(BTW – they say a picture paints a thousand words – the one up top says it all really)
To quote George Costanza from Seinfeld: “It’s not a lie, if you believe it”.
Cook and Lewandowsky provide an interesting contrast to Hansen (as I described him in a comment on Newsbytes below). The timing of this post now has the quality of cosmological mystery, at least for me.
Hansen, as can be seen by anyone, is repositioning. A native, highly developed instinct for self-interest combined with the Gollum like knowledge that there is not just one condition of being that is immutable.
The above two, on the other hand, whilst no doubt possessed of high sensitivity to signals indicating sources of personal nourishment, are a product of a system that has grown to accommodate such beings.
Hansen is a precursor and creator of conditions, Cook and Lewandowsky are amongst those for whom the nest is compelling.
As such, Cook and Lewandowsky have a limited awareness of the conditions needed to sustain the nest, and their mutability. They think there is no practical constraint to their exercising of their instincts.
In particular, in this case, Lewandowsky considers himself further protected by the malleable and in-determinant nature of phsychobabalism, where all things are ultimately adjudicated by the practitioner, and Cook is unaware by background and habit of meaningful relationships between words, deeds and accountability.
This means that things such as the above are not just unsurprising they are inevitable.
Of course, as expressions of what would be called a herd in the case of mammals, or perhaps a swarm in this case, individually they are of limited capacity. Second-rate, if an association with human terminology is excused.
So whilst Hansen seeks strategic cover, Lewandowsky, Cook, and similar types are, without their awareness, increasingly revealed and vulnerable.
This is how such organisms always behave. The progenitors and formulators know to hide when the time comes, those who have accrued to this are left to take the consequences. And it is these who are cut down.
Those of Hansen’s ilk are well aware of this, and count on it to protect themselves. It is only those such as Cook and Lewandowsky who don’t know this.
So, how many skeptics were actually surveyed if most of them apparently came from sks?
philjourdan says:
March 28, 2013 at 11:59 am
any possibility Alarmist will ever learn the meaning of the words “integrity” and “ethics”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO
What you and I consider “integrity” and “ethics” they do not. All that matters is advancing “The Cause”
This is the mindset of the Warmist. He KNOWS ‘Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence’ he just isn’t going to bother telling you that.
There is another reason the Warmist insist there is a ‘Consensus’
In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite. Thus, the idea of light could not exist unless there were an idea of darkness, nor truth without falsity, nor high without low. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created….
From the point of view of the Warmist the debate is over and it is time to move on to the next discussion, implementation. It is the fact that ‘Deniers’ are still hung up on objective facts and insist that the ‘Consensus’ that has been reached does not exist matter that has the Warmist labeling us ‘Deniers,’ crazy, and committing ‘Crimes against Humanity’
This is why Peter Glieck and Mike Mann and Al Gore are ‘Heroes’ despite breaking laws, telling lies or not living up what they preach. It would take reality in the form of a mile high glacier sitting on their homes to get through this mindset and even then I have doubts.
Re: March 28, 2013 at 11:59 am
philjourdan says
“any possibility Alarmist will ever learn the meaning of the words “integrity” and “ethics”?”
Unfortunately I doubt it.
And it’s not just individuals who lie – it’s organizations too.
The UK Met Office for example – in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 the Met Office produced a 17 page booklet entitled ” Warming, Climate Change – the facts”
and on the inside cover in big green letters was the warning –
“It’s now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term”
and on Page 04 the mother of all hockey sticks!!!
http://people.virginia.edu/~rtg2t/future/gcc/UK.Met.quick_guide.pdf
Hard to reconcile those words and images with the revised, truncated ‘decadal’ forecast they slipped out on Christmas eve last year.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/
Interesting to see what their “alarming” rate of change was in 2009!!!
There are days I just sit, read, absorb and am just stunned by the sand box attitude of these people, “scientists” ? Me thinks, ass grabbing (cya) political animals (pigs) come to mind. (There must be a story in there somewhere).
This recent series of posts makes it obvious that the pro AGW camp lies about pretty much everything. And they have no problem with it, no conscience. Their number one rule is never admit you made a mistake and certainly never admit to lying. Instead when caught in a lie, double down on it, accuse the skeptics of lying, make up stuff and change the subject. This behavior sounds a lot like the definition of psychopathy. One has to wonder how many sociopaths there are in the upper echelons of the pro AGW movement.
And just think, lying is the least of the crimes committed by these Marxists.
I bet the team is regretting their choice of being supercilious and arrogant toward Stephen McIntyre.
They sound more like a cartoon every day, as in “I am Napoleon”.
We are the authority, respect my authority and ignore your lying eyes.
At this rate of decay its over by Christmas.
@ Gail Combs says: March 28, 2013 at 1:16 pm
In a nutshell, these are a class of being that has only a tangential relationship with what could be called “standard” behavioral and intellectual norms based on the observable impacts of these on life.
Or a parasitical relationship in that it is remote from those things that actually sustain it. A class of being that has separated itself out.
I took the (revised) survey on WUWT. Were the results of that survey ever published on WUWT or elsewhere?
Find myself having a hard time following the climate “debate” here…
warmist = socialism; akin to non-integrity and unethical…
anti-warmist = anti-socialism; akin to integrity and ethics…
So warmist bad and anti-warmist good.
Am i on the right page?
RE: Fred from Canuckistan, Re: Chancellor of the University of Western Australia
The Chancellor is Dr Michael Chaney. He “worked for eight years as a petroleum geologist in Australia and the United States. ”
A possible aproach to the Chancollor:
The key fact in the body of the letter needs to be that while the research paper purports to look at blog responses from debatable categories of web sites, the lead researcher Tweeted the existance of the survey. Therefore, there must be an undisclosed preponderance of people who subscribe to the researcher that participated in the survey. The survey was salted by Followers of the Lead Researcher.
philjourdan says:
March 28, 2013 at 11:59 am
any possibility Alarmist will ever learn the meaning of the words “integrity” and “ethics”?
==========
You can’t teach ethics, or integrity.
The State of Illinois required me to attend a 4 hour (bi-annual) seminar that was supposed to install/reinstall said traits.
It always struck me, as an insult.
Simply amazing …
And it seems that Lewandowsky’s Recursive Fury-paper has been withdrawn (again!) by Frontiers in Personality ..
Lewandowsky is as valuable as Mann … and soon Cook will be too
To Fred from Canuckstan and others who suggest emailing the Chancellor of the University, you might want to think about emailing the Vice Chancellor instead . The Vice Chancellor (or VC) of a university is basically the CEO. The Chancellor is like the Chairman of the Board. The behavior of an individual staff member is likely to be below the Chancellors notice. The Chancellor is likely to regard it as an operational matter and therefore the responsibility of the VC.
3×2 (March 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm) says:
“While shooting Lewpaper in a barrel is always fun I feel that SM is seriously wasting his many and obvious talents on this half-wit.”
I’d agree, but as Steve generously acknowledges, this was very much a team effort. Barry Woods, Foxgoose, Jeff Condon, DGH, Simon Turnull of Australian Climate Madness, Brandon Schollenberger, A Scott and I, and a lot of others worked on this, mostly independently, exchanging information on threads like this. Steve’s talent for clear exposition of a complex story, and the authority he commands, was a vital ingredient.
Lewandowsky and Cook have an influence on the debate out of all proportion to their talent. Why this is, and how to counteract it , are complicated questions. Lots of people are working on the answers. Without the aid of Steve and Anthony, our work would be a waste of time.
u.k.(us) wrote: “You can’t teach ethics, or integrity.”
Yes you can, but it must start in early childhood and must progess into adulthood.
I look at the photo of Cook and Lewandowsky and just see a couple of otherwise nonentities who have found what probably seems to them a loving intellectual home in the AGW movement. Only a doctrinaire, jackbooted mob like the Greenshirts would accept the likes of such a pair of otherwise losers. Useful idiots being in relatively short supply they are welcomed and patted and petted as part of “the Team” and their pockets pissed until they feel so warm and loved but most importantly, listened to. They will do anything for more – which is rather the point and how the LSD Left works basically.
It is all pretty sad at the human level. I wonder what their parents think?
Lewandowsky, the Baghdad Bob of Climate Science?
“There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”
“Our initial assessment is that they will all die”
“God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis.”
“These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying”
“They’re not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion … they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.”
“They do not even have control over themselves! Do not believe them!”
“Faltering forces of infidels cannot just enter a country of 26 million people and lay besiege to them! They are the ones who will find themselves under siege. Therefore, in reality whatever this miserable Rumsfeld has been saying, he was talking about his own forces. Now even the American command is under siege.”
“They tried to bring a small number of tanks and personnel carriers in through al-Durah but they were surrounded and most of their infidels had their throats cut.”
“We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein’s soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly.”
“On this occasion, I am not going to mention the number of the infidels who were killed and the number of destroyed vehicles. The operation continues”
“We’re giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn’t accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted.”
“I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly.”
“Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected.”
“We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those who are staying in Washington and London have thrown these mercenaries in a crematorium.”
philjourdan says:
March 28, 2013 at 11:59 am
any possibility Alarmist will ever learn the meaning of the words “integrity” and “ethics”?
=================================================
In a word…. NO
to both items…
Lewandowsky should be nominated for the Lysenko Prize. [Yes, there is such a thing.]]
Did you ever notice that if you rearrange the letters in “What Lysenko Spawned” you get “Stephan Lewandowsky?”
@ jorgekafkazar says: March 28, 2013 at 5:55 pm
“What Lysenko Spawned” = “Stephan Lewandowsky”.
Now that is truly remarkable. When what should be a complete co-incidence occurring as a result of an association of random elements is so utterly true it makes one wonder as to the extent of the mysteries of the universe.
Determining the total number of phrases that could be formed from Lewandowsky’s name and evaluating the probability that any of them reflect anything about Lewandowsky himself by random association, would be a far more valuable endeavour than the compulsion to “prove” mans evil utilizing the proxy of CAGW.
Such an exercise would have the virtue of undeniable evidence at least which immediately elevates it above CAGW.
Kajajuk says:
March 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm
If you have evidence to the contrary just speak your mind.
We are in the last days of the CAGW industry in Australia. Take some heart from the fact that the Green-ALP alliance which spawns opportunists like Lewandowski, Cook et al will be trounced in our Federal elections in Sepptember. Then the gravy train stops. Dead in its tracks. It is not an exagerration to say that the CAGW industry is despised by the vast majority of hard working Australians who will dispose of the whoile scam democratically with an election. So many Australian workers are just waiting for their vote to be cast and decency to be restored to what was once an honourable country.
What is sadder? The fact that (many) Alarmists have yet to demonstrate a comprehension of ethics and integrity? Or the fact that no one (who answered the question here) believes the alarmists are capable of attaining such knowledge?
The former demonstrates a character flaw in the individuals (and to even the poster who said “Organizations also lie”, organizations are merely groups of people). The latter demonstrates a resignation that Alarmists are incapable of education and learning.
dbstealey says:
March 28, 2013 at 11:16 am
“The alarmist crowd has no integrity, none at all. They have been given permission to lie by the late Stephen Schneider, and now they lie like children caught with chocolate on their faces, standing next to an open cookie jar.”
And who was Schneider to give anyone “permission” to lie? Did he request (or was granted) that right by the US Government? Was he elected to any position that allowed him to write that?”
No!!! It was just hyperbole.
Anthony – I can’t help but wonder why SS is still listed on the rhs as merely “unreliable”. It seems to me that the site in general, and Cook in particular, should be listed further up the page.
Irreverently I note that the heading a little above “Unreliable” is “Tools”. I don’t know how well the word tool as an epithet translates into American but to many in the UK, a tool is exactly how we would describe Cook. Maybe it’s time to move him up, although you may think it wiser to ignore my suggested destination.
Kajajuk says: March 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Find myself having a hard time following the climate “debate” here…
warmist = socialism; akin to non-integrity and unethical…
anti-warmist = anti-socialism; akin to integrity and ethics…
So warmist bad and anti-warmist good.
Am i on the right page?
Nah, not really …ya gotta do your own thinking around here … come along with an opinion, express it, and discuss it if need be.
@Gail C
Good post. I would like to point out that the difference between the light/dark and true/false comparison is that darkness is the absence of something. A falsehood could, of course be made by omission but that facts in this case are the the presence of a false statement, not the mere absence of truth. There is a stinking pile on the carpet that must be expunged.
We do not only battle against the darkness by letting in the light, we refute what is false and vain.
In the post-normal academic world, there is no such thing as “truth”, which is an imperialistic conceit. There are only points of view and feelings. How else can you explain that a journal would even allow articles with such titles as these two into print? “recursive fury”? what does that even mean? It is just seeking attention.
@ Craig Loehle says: March 29, 2013 at 6:45 am
…”recursive fury”? what does that even mean?…
True. And the use and acceptance of such things illustrates your point about views and feelings, that is, the personal “sense” of things having primacy over a truth that can exist independently of the possessor, and that to question such terminology amounts to an assault on the individuals proffering it. They and it are sacrosanct.
DirkH says:
March 29, 2013 at 4:39 am
If you have evidence to the contrary just speak your mind.
——————————————
I have no “evidence” of labels and assumed generalities; as well i have no mind for the tactics expressed or the camaraderie of any ‘circle of jerks’…whatsoever.
Anyways, i did find this article interesting;
http://news.yahoo.com/storm-became-big-enough-span-atlantic-165848194.html
Such a large storm system, a twice winter event (?), must have a massive effect on the heat content of the Atlantic basin as well as the atmospheric dynamics on a colossal scale. I wonder if climate models include such realities in the fantasies?
This is shaping up like the Bellesiles affair.
I’ll always remember one of Lewandowski’s Australian students commenting about him: ‘Have a shave and take a bath, you grub!’
LOL!!
geoffchambers
I’d agree, but as Steve generously acknowledges, this was very much a team effort. Barry Woods, Foxgoose, Jeff Condon, DGH, Simon Turnull of Australian Climate Madness, Brandon Schollenberger, A Scott and I, and a lot of others worked on this […]
Sorry Geoff. Apologies to all who have worked to expose this crap for what it really is. I guess that I have so little respect for those attempting to pass Lewpaper off as science that it is easy for me to forget that they do get ‘airtime’ and are taken seriously by some. As far as I am concerned Lew has about as much to add to ‘the science’ as the guy proclaiming ‘end of the world’ outside my train station at 5pm every night. Take him or leave him (I choose the latter).
La Tee Dah