Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations

Stephan_Lewandowsky

Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – screen cap from his YouTube video

People send me stuff.

Amid complaints about the veracity and ethics of his psychological research trying to equate climate skeptics to conspiracy theory nuts and “moon landing deniers”, it seems that Professor Lewandowsky is no longer at the University of Western Australia and has moved to the UK and is practicing his craft at Bristol University, managing to convince the Royal Society to give him a grant:

Professors Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology in the School of Experimental Psychology, and Fred Manby, Professor of Theoretical Chemistry in the Centre for Computational Chemistry, have both been successful in securing this prestigious award from the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science.

Source: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html

I know of at least two, possibly more, professional complaints that are in progress against Lewdandowsy (and his sidekick, Skeptical Science’ s John Cook) at the University of Western Australia for his data fabrication and his questionable science composed of outlandish made-up claims designed to smear climate skeptics worldwide.

His most recent skeptic smear paper has been taken down, pending investigation.

No announcement or reason for the move was made that I (or others) can find so far. UWA still has his page in place here and there’s a new page at Bristol University here. Neither page says anything about this move or status, and at his blog Shaping Tomorrow’s World there’s no mention of this change in his bio page. The last update was by John Cook on March 22nd.

It will be interesting to see how Lewandowsky’s furtive exit will affect UWA’s handling of the various complaints.

h/t to A. Scott and to Jo Nova who also has some thoughts here on how Bristol University and the Royal Society have now come to “own” Lewandowsky’s baggage.

UPDATE: Richard Tol provides some insight in comments. I wasn’t aware of a “mobility award” and there is nothing in the announcement he cites about it or its conditions.

Lewandowsky won a mobility award: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html The grant is conditional on him moving to Bristol.

There is a long lag between initial idea, grant application, and award. This has nothing to do with recent events.

So while his move may cool the complaints raised at UWA, it seems that he’s simply “following the money”.

Here’s Lewandowsky’s video:

About these ads

122 thoughts on “Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations

  1. Oh crap – don’t push him too hard – he might come back to Canada and become a commentator for the CBC.

  2. So sad to hear about this. His life story was great in that movie where John Goodman played him. Oops, sorry, it was Jeff Bridges.

  3. We (the UK) don’t want him. Our newspapers are full of stories about immigrants and refugees trying to claim welfare benefits and Royal Society grants! We can’t even get rid of terrorists without ‘violating their human rights’.

  4. It is difficult to see how far the Royal Society will fall. Does it have any scientific credibility left??

  5. Well, it is pretty certain his Hypothesis will be: Climate skepticism is based fully in misinformation, and that he is going to track how that misinformation is processed by the media and ourselves and conclude that some outlandish mechanism, say “Devil’s Denial Hypothesis” is the basis of people accepting misinformation and believing in it.

    I suspect every word he writes based for this ‘prestigious’ grant will be an attack on Climate skeptics.

  6. Why the hell did he have to come here? Let me guess, The Royal Society (kindred spirist) and our government, anxious to throw money at anyone who can convince the general public that AGW is happening and we need to close our dirty power stations and build more windmills. The fact that the EU have told us to do these things or pay huge fines is in fact the main reason, but they don’t want the public to know that!

  7. We don’t run terrorists out of the UK, ‘cos retribution in their home country might abuse their ‘uman rites, innit? (British joke) Lewandowsky’s safe enough.

  8. I imagine that the Royal Society will get some feedback regarding this move. Strange that this fellow should be imported into GB at this particular time, just as he was starting to stink abominably. Does the stench have something to do with his attraction for those movers and shakers who got him into his new home with his lucrative grant?

  9. I wish decent science people would stop questionning global warming “scepticism” and rather call it “good science” and call the warmist’s some derogatory name.

    It seems good science people have little inclination, nor talent for political game. Pity.

  10. Phil Jourdain
    Sorry to disappoint, but the UK is unlikely to run him out of town. They gave him his first break at the Guardian back in July 2012 (following a little noticed plug at Huffington Post, written by the “writer in residence” at “Psychological Science” no less, the review that finally published his article six months later). It was when the Guardian article was rerun at the government sponsored Psyops blog talkingclimate.org and publicised at BishopHill that it was ripped apart by a small band of B-Hillbillies. Meanwhile the WUWT crowd and the Aussies at JoNova’s and AustralianClimateMadness were all doing their bit.
    It’s been a fascinating story with important implications about how the blogosphere can or can’t influence events in the outside world, and it isn’t over. There’s a seriousdiscussion going on elsewhere about the best way to procede – discrete protests through official channels, or calling it as you see it, which is Anthony’s tactic here. It’s a subject which has wider implications than the trivial question of Lewandowsky’s academic future.

  11. Blimey, as soon as these unprincipled louts get far enough out, they get a prestigious award! It’s all Gleick to me.

  12. Oh the irony:

    The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’.

  13. “Their strategy is to undermine the credibility of climatescientists.”
    That is quite a conspiracy from professor Lewandowsky’s mouth.

    BTW: SkepticalScience and Tamino’s blog are also ‘on the internet’ outside academic peerreview.

  14. It’s the Aussies’ revenge! We sent them our criminals for a few centuries, now it’s revenge! ;-)

  15. I’m 60 years old. Completely “up to date” with all modern technology. I have two B.S. Degrees in Engineering, and on MS. Experience in fossil fuels, manufacturing, nuclear, power plants, medical devices. I’m currently “not working” …I like to say, “hopefully between contract jobs”.

    The most discouraging thing in life, for me right now, is to see clowns as Lewandosky simply jump from stipend to stipend, and have his “fellow travelers” care for his every need.

    Where does one meet up with Lucifer, and where does one sign one’s soul away, is my primary question???

  16. Who needs scientific ‘credibility’, when you can provide scientific ‘celebrity’ ?

    Don’t be so cerebral…Instead….CELEBRATE !

    Future screen caps need to show Dr Lew in full costume with his eye patch and parrot on the shoulder….strike the Jolly Roger….as we celebrate….the newest RS pirate !

  17. When I read this I assumed that there was confusion between the “University of Bristol” and “The University of the West of England”? The former is long-established university with an excellent research record. UWE is a recently re-designated local college. So far as I know, Bristol University is not active in promoting AGW-as real[1]. However, UWE was active, and may still be. I assumed that the “University of Bristol” was merely hosting a Royal Society function.

    However, I appear to be wrong.

    Lewandowsky has considerable skills in fundamental physics, including quantum mechanics and the relationship to chemical bonds. His appointment, if I understand it correctly, is indeed to Bristol University, but as the Cognitive Psychology chair[2]. This is completely baffling, given the controversy over falsification of research results and his activism in promoting the dead CAGW-as-real agenda. It has perplexed other members of the university and appears to be a purely cynical political manouevre. Popcorn time[3]!

    [1] Climate Change denial conference hosted at UWE http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/uwenews/news.aspx?id=1438
    [2] Professor Stephan Lewandowsky http://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/people/stephan-lewandowsky/overview.html
    [3] Brendan O’Neill Pathologising dissent? Now that’s Orwellian! http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6320/

  18. I have just watched the video the red tie and the sneering tone when talking about the free market and sceptics says it all really. I would still like one of these people to tell me how a gas in the atmosphere is going to play havoc with the world’s climate when its concentration rises from 0.035% to 0.039%, because common sense tells me it won’t! I would also like to ask why should I pay more car tax, more flight duty, higher energy and petrol bills and watch my country turn into an economic backwater to prevent 0.0001% of this CO2 entering the atmosphere!

  19. There really *is* a conspiracy. It’s currently centered exactly where the world’s oldest real thermometer record shows no trend change in 350 years, no plot required since a verbal description is so easy: a noisy straight line that hugs its linear trend and recently plunges through it.

  20. Wow talk about a conspiracy theory ….that evil free market……those Rothschilds ………gasp….
    people can amass large fortunes………The horror….the horror of it.
    He claims to be part Psychologist!
    Talk about an extreme case of projection.!!!!!!!
    That video proves He is a marxist ……….
    I haven’t heard a speech like that since Stalin died.

  21. Too convenient, if you ask me. I think Lew’s hoping the investigations will be dropped with him halfway across the world. The pressure will be off UWA, too – no rush to look too closely at anything as “he’s gone now, so it doesn’t matter anymore” (perhaps). He’ll be back when the heat has gone. UWA will reinstate him, welcoming him back with open arms. Forgive me for being cynical, I’ve learnt not to trust any individual or university. They’ll say what they need to say and cover their “donkeys”. How’s Cook going? Has he done a bunk, too?

  22. Checking the Jo Nova link, I see that she is up for a “best Australian blog” award. But voting shuts down tomorrow for US voters, so if you want to vote, do so now. Requires finding her blog (on the second page of 5) checking it off, and paging through three more pages and hitting”done” when done.

  23. Obviously Stephan Lewandowsky’s move to Bristol is not a flight from adverse consequences at the University of Western Australia.

    So far there have been none at UWA, and there is no way to know at present whether the recent complaints against him will result in anything but standard-issue administrative coverup. Meanwhile, such moves take time to arrange.

    From what I’ve been able to learn about the Wolfson-Royal Society award Lewandowsky received, it was probably also in the works for a while, but it would be foolish to assume that his role as a CAGW propagandist over the past 5 or 6 years played no role in his receiving it.

    The project for which he is cited in the award notice is his research program of the last few years on misinformation. This has included and presumably will continue to include his imputation of “conspiracist ideation” and anti-science attitudes to CAGW skeptics.

    Would he have landed this award on the strength of his earlier work in cognitive psychology? Lewandowsky is not a superstar memory researcher.

    PS. Lewandowsky’s professional training has all been in psychology. The commenter who imputed knowledge of microphysics to him must have a different researcher in mind.

  24. UPDATE: Richard Tol provides some insight in comments. I wasn’t aware of a “mobility award” and there is nothing in the announcement he cites about it or its conditions.

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    Lewandowsky won a mobility award: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html The grant is conditional on him moving to Bristol.

    There is a long lag between initial idea, grant application, and award. This has nothing to do with recent events.

    So while his move may cool the complaints raised at UWA, it seems that he’s simply “following the money”.

    The Wolfson Foundation awards are for boosting salaries to attract high ranking academics to UK Universities, they’re basically for a few years as a startup bonus for someone. I wouldn’t think that it would be worth moving halfway around the world for that. Judging by the recent paper he wrote last year he’s been in collaboration with the group at Bristol for a while, and is currently on sabbatical leave there. Perhaps they applied for the grant to make the sabbatical permanent?

  25. Lewandowski got a “Mobility Award”??

    “Mobility”? That sounds like an Orwell label for a “Tuck Tail & Run Award”.

    The Lewandowski affair is like a long running soap opera.

  26. What distressed ME most about this whole sordid affair is that my RonSir® glasses, for generations the trademark of distinguished scientific and engineering nerds the world over, are now the ‘new’ face of scientific charlatans. I can’t imagine that the Shuron people are pleased at this development either since it tends to tarnish their brand.

    I may need new reading glasses.

    W^3

  27. What sort of man is Lewandowsky? Well, here’s a book, readily available at Amazon.

    ‘Computational Modeling in Cognition: Principles and Practice’ (Paperback)
    by Stephan Lewandowsky

    Here’s the description:
    ‘An accessible introduction to the principles of computational and mathematical modeling in psychology and cognitive science.’

    So, Mr. Lewandowsky apparently feels (and a feeling is probably all it is) that computational and mathematical modeling can be used in the determination of human behavior.

    Nuff said.

  28. Any reports of John Cook planning to follow his mentor with a move of Cartoon Central to the UK?

    That *would* mean a seriously lousy start to my week.

  29. This conspiracy theorist is now in Bristol?
    An abject data fabricationist that should not be allowed to pollute young peoples mind with his conspiracy theories.

  30. Lew appears to have lost his ‘baggage” enroute. His staff info page at Bristol shows him responsible for only a single publication, with his former UWA student, Simon Farrell (at Bristol since 2003) who teaches courses in ‘the psychology of science”. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/people/stephan-lewandowsky/index.html

    Perhaps Lew was attracted by Bristol research which.. “reveals that small, low-powered studies are ‘endemic’ in neuroscience, producing unreliable research which is inefficient and wasteful.”?

    “..many studies lack the ability to give definitive answers to the questions they are testing, and many claimed findings are likely to be incorrect or unreliable.”??

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/news/2013/119.html

    Sound as if it would be right up his alley.

  31. If the RS wishes to promote the rubbish Lewandowsky produces, they’re free to do so, and we are free to regard them has a absolute joke for doing it. Like Mann, give him the spotlight and a bit a pressure and he will blow big style has he cannot keep his ego in check. The RS just bought themselves a time bomb of dog sh**

  32. I just love that video. You only have to watch it and you know the Lewny comes from another planet too. I love the eyebrow flicks. Does he practice them and the little sneers or do they just come out from the creature’s soul? Sorry, rhetorical musings – I actually don’t give a stuff about this clown. Jim South London is being quite cruel to Zac the Alien I think. Jim you should be more respectful of good comedy. But the resemblance is uncanny.

  33. He’s even uglier to look at than Michael Mann! And his ideas are just as ugly. Of course he suffers from the usual leftist inability to listen to anything that contradicts his lies and smears. One would think that his sort of buffoonery woould sooner or later cast some doubt on the AGW fantasy.

  34. While I definitely appreciate Anthony’s H/T … I’d like to point out this really is Jo Nova’s ‘scoop’ – it was her hard work that allowed her to develope this lead well over a month ago. It was then a matter or waiting for confirmation, which this announcement provided. Jo deserves the credit here … and while we’re doing so, Geoff Chambers provided the link to the award story that led me to Lews new staff page in the UK.

    I’d like to encourage caution against treating this as in any way related to the controversy over Lews terrible work and problems with the Moon Landing and Recursive Fury papers. They were, and are junk – however it is unlikely his move is related.

    We certainly don’t want to be accused of nefarious intent or other such sundry conspiracies lest we help spawn ‘Son of Recursive Fury”

    This was very likely in the works for some time, and appears to be a sabbatical – that Lew is still listed on staff at UWA – and will likely return tehre? when the grant runs out?

  35. Wolfson has CAGW form:

    Wikipedia: UEA Climatic Research Unit
    The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences…
    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.[7] The UK Government (Margaret Thatcher) became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    The UEA-Wolfson Molecular Structure Centre
    Its name too has changed, to the UEA-Wolfson Molecular Structure Centre in recognition of the generous support of the Wolfson Foundation for the Centre. The aim of the Centre remains the same, however.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/chemistry/people/faculty/mooreg/rescentres

  36. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    Lewandowsky won a mobility award: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html The grant is conditional on him moving to Bristol.

    Maybe this is like the Government where it is far easier to provide awards to an incompetent for promotion than to fire him. Also explains a lot about many of the people at the top. Of course places like Penn State are already fixed in this way. If this is the case then the UWA is at least trying….

  37. A. Scott says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    This was very likely in the works for some time, and appears to be a sabbatical – that Lew is still listed on staff at UWA – and will likely return there? when the grant runs out?

    He is apparently currently at Bristol on sabbatical but my understanding is that these grants are to supplement the salaries of newly hired senior faculty rather than sabbaticals. The institution is expected to pay the full salary and Wolfson pays a bonus.

  38. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm
    Lewandowsky won a mobility award: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html The grant is conditional on him moving to Bristol.

    There is a long lag between initial idea, grant application, and award. This has nothing to do with recent events.
    —————————————————–
    Thanks Richard, that makes sense. IMHO
    It’s most likely cheaper to honor the contract than try to remove the grant and face unending lawyers with their hands out.
    It might not be a bad idea to get him some extra media face time, though.
    He’s like Mann in that he’s bound to say something that’s not so bright.
    Besides there’s something written about providing enough rope and not interrupting him while he makes a well documented mistake.
    I fear Bristol will regret their choice once old Lew’s methods are front and center.
    If his skeptic’s survey was any indication of the professional skills and high standard of ethics he brings to Bristol they will not get their money’s worth.
    cn

  39. Congratulations to Dr. Lewandowsky. Analyzing the human propensity for seeing conspiracies of every conceivable kind around every conceivable subject, would seem to be a contribution to our understanding of human psychology. It might be possible to develop medications or other therapies, to not only help individuals to overcome their cognitive deficits; but also create a more rational basis for the debate of public policy. And, as in all scientific endeavor, should Dr. Lewandowsky’s ideas be proven to have shortcomings; we will be able pursue other hypotheses knowing that Lewandowsy’s had been properly investigated. JP

  40. Chad Wozniak says:
    April 28, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    “He’s even uglier to look at than Michael Mann!”

    Good point Chad. I’ve never understood why we listen to scientists ideas without first weeding out the less attractive ones. JP

  41. “Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – screen cap from his YouTube video”

    I think I can guess why you felt obliged to mention that the pic was from his own video.
    LOL

  42. Out of this and other experiences in the climate “science” field, Is this really only about Global Marxism?
    Those that support this, are they also Marxists?

  43. There is a little known clause in the original contract by H.M. Government drafted by the Colonial Office in 1760 which allowed the then authorities in New South Wales to repatriate convicts or settlers who became of unsound mind in the Colony. At the time in the UK it was assumed that anyone who went to NSW was either bad or mad or more likely both. I believe that original Colonial Office edict has just been invoked. Cheers from sunny Sydney.

  44. There has been a funding cut announced in the Australian tertiary education sector. Also conservative government coming in a few months. It’s a good time for him to make an escape.

  45. “They don’t like the market place, basically because the marketplace doesn’t like them. [vii] The marketplace doesn’t reward them as much as they think it should. They prefer a system where people like them form the government and bureaucracy, where they take a large slice of everyone else’s income by threat of force, and then they pay themselves what they think they are worth out of those taxes. This stands in stark contrast to most people, who are generally paid only what the market will allow.”

    The educated class of the Western World, mostly people the free marked has no need of, turn to Marxism and become the regulating class in stead?

  46. So according this “professor” I am now also a free marked believer if I am critical of AGW?

    I have already been labeled “big oil funded” and “tobacco denier” etc etc..

    When do I have to carry a star so all can see?

    Where is the scientist in the video? Hmmm isn’t this some sort of hate speech to get somebody to act not according to the law towards critics?
    Take him down in court and then as a professor?

    [Did it cost anything to become a "free marked believer", or will you only have to pay if he gets more power (and gas and electricity and taxes)? 8<) Mod]

  47. How can he be a “scientist” and “professor” when he publicly is so 100% against free/fair speech in science and elsewhere?

  48. Jon:

    At April 28, 2013 at 11:37 pm you ask

    How can he be a “scientist” and “professor” when he publicly is so 100% against free/fair speech in science and elsewhere?

    Your question is thrown out to everybody but very few can answer such a conundrum.

    I respectfully suggest that you address your question to atarsinc because – as his posts in this and other threads demonstrate – he provides words which defend irrational, illogical and immoral ideas.

    Richard

  49. He will be in good company:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/climate-craziness-of-the-week-attention-citizens-you-are-thinking-the-wrong-thoughts/

    Conference – Facing Climate Change, Climate Change Denial – University of the West of England, 7 March 2009
    “Man-made climate change poses an unprecedented threat to the global ecosystem and yet the response, from national policy makers right through to individual consumers, remains tragically inadequate. The Centre for Psycho-Social Studies at the University of the West of England is organising a major interdisciplinary event Facing Climate Change on this topic at UWE on 7 March 2009.

  50. Need to keep a check on these “prestigious awards” these guys like working “behind the scenes” to ensure that they get to add those words to their CV – now wasn’t there a prominent warmist or two who just happened to use influence and money from their backers to in effect smooth the way for their “prestigious awards” – reminds also of the “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours , in proposing each other, revealed in the released CRU emails.

    Maybe we are seeing the making of a world dishonour roll in the annals of the history of climaticastrolog.? Guess it helps massage their own feeling of power and padding and magnify the meglomania?

  51. Jim South London:

    re your post at April 29, 2013 at 2:32 am .

    Yes, the ultra-right does oppose AGW because that opposition fits their agenda.
    Indeed, if you review the files of WUWT you can find more examples of it in their posts which e.g. claim H1tler was “left wing”!

    But
    those nutters are not relevant to the real debate about AGW except that – as you say – those nutters enable people such as Lewandowsky to assert ‘guilt by association’ upon all climate realists.

    The denizens of WUWT demonstrate that AGW is rejected for a variety of scientific and philosophical reasons by people with wide ranges of political, religious, philosophical and scientific opinions.

    Richard

  52. And the UK gets one more prat to its ranks.

    Well, good ridance from an Aussie perspective. The guy is a waste of time and space !!

  53. At Bristol university, I wonder if he’ll be down the corridor from Tamsin Edwards?

  54. As another Bristol graduate, I’m saddened to hear this. Bristol is generally regarded as one of our better Universities, but they’ve just cut their chances of getting me to respond again to one of their frequent appeals for money!

  55. Bristol University certainly has a high reputation and isn’t tainted, AFAIK, with activist academics touting the idea that dissidents should be considered to be suffering from a psychiatric disorder requiring intervention and sectioning or being put on trial for crimes against humanity. Perhaps he thought he was applying to the University of the West of England, some five miles up the road and five thousand miles to the left LOL!

  56. If I was student at Bristol university and had my work marked down for poor data usage , I would be tempted to point I was still working at a higher level of acedmic standard than Bristol’s leatest lectuary who makes his data up and then lies about it. And that I therefore should not be marked down at all I was more than meeting the standard for acedmic pratice laid down by the university .

  57. richardscourtney

    He wont get the chance of accusing the Skeptic Movement of being Anti Semetic (just anti bad science) One ultra rightwing nut job rant on an extremist website is the excepton that proves the rule.

    Give a Junk Psycologist enough Sustainably Sourced Fair Trade Hemp Rope and he will eventually Hang Himself.

    Steve dont delete that Youtube Clip look totally crediball in it.psst.

    A Cospiracy Theorist accusing another bunch of Cospiracy Theorist of being Conspiract Theorist.

    Keep talking Steve doing a great job for our movement. Soon be back on the plane to OZ to face the discipliary charge of bringing his old University into disrepute for fiddling his Data.He can always claim its a Consracy Theory by a bunch of Conspiracy Theorist i suppose to prove a Conspiracy Theory.He can always get a job at Roswell .Is AREA 51 recruiting?

    Skeptics claim yet another easy scalp.

  58. @Max Hugoson:
    “Where does one meet up with Lucifer, and where does one sign one’s soul away, is my primary question???”

    You jest, but please re-think your words. That is not a joke. You still possess something no money can buy or restore and which, by implication, Mr Lew has squandered for eternity.This is as much true whether your “belief” is metaphysical or existentialist.

    Of course the former allows the possibility of redemption, which the latter does not.

  59. atarsinc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    I could agree with what you’re saying about Lewandowsky if it wasn’t for the obvious fact that “climate change denial” in and of itself isn’t necessarily a conspiracy theory. So he’s wrong to label it such, and wrong to label all “deniers” as conspiracy theorists. As richardscourtney has pointed out, the background and core beliefs of “deniers” are remarkably diverse. Some might go so far as to suggest conspiracy, yes, while at the other extreme some might simply be questioning some relatively minor aspect of the science – a minor quibble overall, and yet still get labelled as a “denier”. I would go so far as to say that the level of diversity amongst so-called deniers is equal to any race or other grouping of people…the only thing linking them being this ridiculous label…and therefore to suggest that all these people are “the same” and mentally deficient in some way, is plainly fascism.

  60. @Suffolk Boy
    ..no its a place where academics openly display anti-Bush posters on their office door.

    To be fair, it really is sad that the department so recently departed by the late Richard Gregory should take into its embrace such as Lew.

    As someone pointed out earlier, its peculiar that a guy given a post as cognitive psychologist should be spending all his time conducting what is (nominally) social psychology.

    Conspiracies disavowed, but there really a whiff of “old boys club” going on here: “Not what you know but who you know”.

    As for computational modelling, it is actually a well established and respectable approach to attempting to understand cognitive processes. But how survey papers can be connected with that appears cryptic to say the least.

  61. Jim South London:
    re your post at April 29, 2013 at 2:32 am .
    “Yes, the ultra-right does oppose AGW because that opposition fits their agenda.
    Indeed, if you review the files of WUWT you can find more examples of it in their posts which e.g. claim H1tler was “left wing”!”

    He defined his own movement as being in the middle, open to all people from the left and the right; Stalin denounced him as right wing; so if you share the opinion of Stalin, that is your choice.

  62. The criminals were supposed to be transported to Australia, not the other way round.

    I’m betting he’ll be a favourite with the BBC as a climate change authority.

  63. Nah – he’s just over here for the cricket: the Oz touring team starts the 4-day county warm-up matches in June and the Test series on 10 July.

    Otherwise he must have changed career to become a dentist, like all the rest ;-)

  64. The Gillard has stated that it will take funding from Universities and funnel that into schools. And today, the Australian treasurer, who incidentally was voted as the “Best Treasurer in the World” by some 2bit EU economist magazine a couple of years ago, along with it, have announced a $12bil shortfall in tax revenue. Really? Are you surprised about that Gillard, après the “Proice ohn cahbohn” (Making the business of doing business, already expensive in Australia, even more expensive. Further placing pressure on business to export that business overseas. Textiles and Bangladesh anyone)? Now he knows his day are “Gonski”, along with the Gillard too.

  65. Lew Flew? Who knew?

    I don’t see any downside, by leaving down under for up yonder, Lew will raise
    the average IQ of both countries.

  66. DirkH:

    I am copying your post at April 29, 2013 at 5:51 am so others can see your proclamation of the truth of the part of my post from which you have quoted. Those who want to read the whole post – and so see your quotation of me in context – can jump to it by use of this link

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/stephan-lewandowsky-flees-australia-in-wake-of-investigations/#comment-1290949

    Jim South London:
    re your post at April 29, 2013 at 2:32 am .

    “Yes, the ultra-right does oppose AGW because that opposition fits their agenda.
    Indeed, if you review the files of WUWT you can find more examples of it in their posts which e.g. claim H1tler was “left wing”!”

    He defined his own movement as being in the middle, open to all people from the left and the right; Stalin denounced him as right wing; so if you share the opinion of Stalin, that is your choice.

    H1tler was a fascist; i.e. ultra-right. He claimed he was “in the middle”.
    You say you agree with H1tler that “he was in the middle”..
    I do NOT agree with H1tler and that does NOT mean I agree with Stalin; I do not.

    Richard

  67. “richardscourtney says:

    April 29, 2013 at 7:34 am”

    Actually, Hitler *was* ultra left, initially in his early political career. He became ultra right wing a short time after Hindenburg promoted him.

    PS. Sorry Mods, spelling error in my email addy.

  68. Patrick:

    Your post at April 29, 2013 at 7:42 am says to me

    Actually, Hitler *was* ultra left, initially in his early political career. He became ultra right wing a short time after Hindenburg promoted him.

    If that were true then it would have no relevance.

    Stalin commented on the ultra-right H1tler long after “Hindenburg promoted him”.

    I was objecting – and do object – to an ultra-right nutter claiming I must be a Stalinist because I mentioned that H1tler was ultra-right.

    Richard

    PS Churchill was on the Liberal benches before he walked across the House, but nobody objects to statements that he was a Conservative.

  69. “The Gillard has stated that it will take funding from Universities and funnel that into schools. And today, the Australian treasurer, who incidentally was voted as the “Best Treasurer in the World” by some 2bit EU economist magazine a couple of years ago, along with it, have announced a $12bil shortfall in tax revenue. Really? Are you surprised about that Gillard, après the “Proice ohn cahbohn” (Making the business of doing business, already expensive in Australia, even more expensive. Further placing pressure on business to export that business overseas. Textiles and Bangladesh anyone)? Now he knows his day are “Gonski”, along with the Gillard too.”

    One of the objects with the carbon tax and quotas is to hurt the private sector economy. That means less production, consumption and taxes!!

    Why surprised?

  70. Come listen to my story about Lewandowsky
    A poor academe who disgraced all that’s science-y
    Went out one day looking for a government grant
    when out from his brain came a loony denier rant

    greenie gold… eco tea…

    Well the first thing you know, old Lew is on the team
    the consensus hailed his genious and his new insulting meme
    they said you’ve really done it, you have proved that they’re all dumb
    and with this meme we can keep them under thumb

    aw, screw it, I’m sick of Lewandowsky…

  71. richardscourtney,

    Fascism only works with an extremely strong central government that is largely in control of the means of production. There is no functional difference between Soviet Communism and Fascism. In Fascism the means of production is owned by a powerful party member and controlled by the party. In Soviet Communism the means of production is officially owned by ‘the people’ but it is run by a powerful party member and controlled by the party.

    There is very little difference between either system only difference is who officially owns the means of production. In either case control which is far more important than ownership rests in the hands of party members, the party and the state which are essentially one.

  72. Tom…you dont understand the concept of Fascism at all. It is totally different to Communism. The core principle is the rule by force of substantial minority co-ordinated population groups or communities. EG, an ethnic group or party. That is the very source of the word “fascism”: the fascine, a bundle of twigs (the symbol of ancient Rome), illustrating how individuals are weak and together they are unbreakable. This is precisely how fascism came to power in Europe, through the focused application of force and terror by minority parties bound by focused intent.

    Now if you want to say Communist states have in practice been fascist states then you have a point, but the Marxist ideal was (pasttense) that the state is an expression of popular social revolution reflecting fundamental socio-economic processes.

    The two things are utterly different. Fascism only requires a focused “will to power” and the application of force by one minority to succeed. This is why we can sensibly compare Environmentalism to fascism, even though the manifest ideology of individual Environmentalists may be Marxism..

  73. Well Richard you should know when to bit your tongue. Conservatives do not like being associated with Hitler and Mussolini. As a student of government who understands exactly how fascism works, something I have yet to see a single leftist actually demonstrate even the faintest understanding of, I find the knee jerk response of Fascism is right wing to be similar the AGW. Its taken at face value by those who propose it with little inspection to see if it is actually true.

    The simplistic study of how Mussolini’s fascists system is supposed to work makes it ever clear that it is not right wing. A limited Lockean government is antithetical to Fascism.

  74. Wamron,

    I made no comparison with Fascism and what you read in a book written by Marx. I specifically said “Soviet Communism”. In caps specifying a specific thing. This was not an error or a typo. In other words the real thing that actually existed in practice. I suggest you read more critically next time before jumping on a high horse.

  75. Let me fix that for you:

    “practicing his witchcraft”

    There. Done.
    (Fulsome apologies to [real] witches).

  76. Tom:

    To be clear and for the benefit of others, I don’t “bite my tongue”.

    Fascism disgusts me.
    If you want to promote and/or excuse it then that is your right.
    But do not expect me to engage in a discussion which enables you to promote it.

    Richard

  77. Richard,

    I doubt that Fascism disgusts you as you don’t even know what it is. It is very hard to be disgusted by that which you do not know. You are not the first who has accused me of being a Fascist simply because I know what it is. So I’m rather cold to such an response. Taking the time to learn about Fascism is not promoting it. As I said I am a conservative. I favor Lockean limited government where the government exists only to serve that which the individual practically cannot. Lockean limited government is antithetical to Fascism. The government is simply not powerful enough for Fascism to work. Fascism is the natural result of powerful government. It is what happened in Rome. It is what is happening now. No matter what the founding principles of any government as long as the government has great power the government will eventually become Fascist.

  78. richardscourtney –

    “H1tler was a fascist; i.e. ultra-right. He claimed he was “in the middle”.
    You say you agree with H1tler that “he was in the middle”..
    I do NOT agree with H1tler and that does NOT mean I agree with Stalin; I do not.”

    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Fascism and Communism are distinguishable how? By gulags vs stalags? Mass murder vs mass murder? KGB vs Abwehr/Gestapo?

    The mistake is in thinking in a linear fashion. Bend that line into a circle and the fascist and the communist stand side by side.

  79. Tom and fretslider:

    I do not know if your ignorance is real, pretended, or deliberate. But it is reprehensible.

    Totalitarianism is evil whomever or whatever political philosophy applies it.

    The idea that all totalitarians have the same political philosophy is – to put it politely – mistaken.

    Excuses for H1tler, Stalin, Pol Pot and etc. don’t wash. And their politics were very different.

    This thread is about Lewandowsky and not your liking for ultra-right politics.

    If you persist in your attempts to disrupt this thread by pushing your politics at me then my responses will only consist of linking to this post.

    Richard

  80. Everybody wants to buy cheap and sell expensive. That is as consumers we want free marked. But as workers/sellers we mostly want plan society principles?

  81. richardscourtney says:

    I do not know if your ignorance is real, pretended, or deliberate. But it is reprehensible.

    Excuses for H1tler, Stalin, Pol Pot and etc. don’t wash. And their politics were very different.

    This thread is about Lewandowsky and not your liking for ultra-right politics.

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

    I’ll forgive your patent naivety. It’s obvious you haven’t a clue.

    I made excuses for no-one. The fact that you chose to read that into my reply speaks volumes.

    As for disrupting the thread, well you just made a laughing stock of yourself.

  82. fretslider:

    re your post at April 29, 2013 at 1:40 pm.

    If I made “laughing stock” of myself with ultra-right-wing nutters then I am honoured.
    I refer you to my post at April 29, 2013 at 1:25 pm.

    Richard

  83. richardscourtney says:

    ” ultra-right-wing nutters”

    ——————————————–

    I equated fascism and communism as pretty much the same thing, they have the same result.

    You have a lot to learn.

    I am neither left nor right. You are deluded.

  84. ReTom:
    “I made no comparison with Fascism and what you read in a book written by Marx. I specifically said “Soviet Communism”. In caps specifying a specific thing. This was not an error or a typo. In other words the real thing that actually existed in practice. I suggest you read more critically next time before jumping on a high horse.”

    Firstly that sentence doesnt make any sense as a sentence and secondly it bears no relationship to what I said.
    He said Communism (OK, Soviet Communism, makes no difference to what he said) is the same as Fascism being both defined by state power. What I pointed out was that Fascism is NOT defined by state power. Bodies which are not states can embody fascism.

    “I doubt that Fascism disgusts you as you don’t even know what it is. It is very hard to be disgusted by that which you do not know. You are not the first who has accused me of being a Fascist simply because I know what it is.”

    But………HAHAHAHAHA……he obviously knows squat about anything. Its another time-wasting pillock in our midst. Ignore it folks, the noise will go away of its own accord.

  85. Wamron,

    Since Mussolini modeled Fascism as a merger of the state, the private sector, and the party, hence the word Fascism from the Latin Fasces representing the strength of this union, I dont know where you get off saying that Fascism doesn’t require the state. I’ll go with Hanlon’s Razor on this one. Fascism absolutely requires a strong central state.

  86. I could go along on the principle of defining the left and right as being the difference between heavily regulated with collective solutions( Marxism and strong religious) and the free with individual solutions( classic liberal)?

  87. DirkH, Tom and fretslider:

    It required a World War to put things right the last time your politics gained traction. My family lost everything – yes, everything – in that war, and we would be willing to do it again: very many others would, too.

    At April 29, 2013 at 5:51 am DirkH claimed H1tler was not right wing because H1tler said he was “in the middle”.
    At April 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm fretslider says, “I am neither left nor right”.

    I refer you to my post at April 29, 2013 at 1:25 pm.

    Richard

  88. “Jon says:

    April 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Why surprised?”

    I’m not. The point is *THEY* are.

  89. “richardscourtney says:

    April 29, 2013 at 8:16 am”

    You can try to re-write history about Hitler all you like, but that won’t work. What is more interesting, for me (About the war), is that when just before Germany fell and the borders of Europe were “re-written”, if you watch footage of Stalin, Eisenhower, and Churchill on steps at the Tehran conference you can see the levels at which the leaders were sat at. USA, USSR and then Britain. It is clear the political significance of each country was being set right there and then.

  90. Patrick:

    I have not, am not, and will not “rewrite history about H1tler”.

    He was NOT the misunderstood good guy you bar stewards are trying to pretend.

    I refer you to my post at April 29, 2013 at 1:25 pm.

    Richard

  91. Richard,

    You keep trying to equate the government system of Fascism with Hitler. You cannot personalize a government. Fascism was invented by Mussolini not Hitler. The word is Latin not German. Its origins should be apparent to anyone. You are trying to play Godwin accusing anyone who disagrees with your ignorant definition of Fascism as a Fascist. How Fascist of you. Fascism is not an ideology. National Socialism was the ideology of Germany. The ideology of Mussolini’s Italy was far different but Fascism was the means through which both of the government was run. The ideology of America is Enlightenment. But the government is run as a Federal Republic.

  92. “richardscourtney says:

    April 30, 2013 at 6:32 am”

    I never said he was misunderstood. He was very charismatic, a great orator, albeit with extreme views on subjects such as race, and had a strong following. He was a rubbish artist and his first book was a flop, which angered him. I did say he was initially left wing and turned extreme right wing after Hindenburg promoted him (Because right wing extremism suited his goals at that time). His second book became a national institution almost, and was compulsory reading too pretty much. When Hindenburg died he was already in the right place at the right time to take full control of the political machine in Germany. The rest is history as we say.

  93. If Stephan Lewandowsky is like Michael Mann (i.e. AW in response to comment above), does this mean that we will eventually see those who falsely accuse him being investigated for abuse of their positions? (For the avoidance of any doubt, I am referring here to the Attorney General and Governor of Virginia.)

  94. Anyone reading this thread will see clearly that Lewandowsky was right. And that no one on the thread has read or understood his research. Nor for that matter, are they intellectually capable of understanding it.

    Offended by the sound bites about it? Sure, that’s easy and everyone here obviously is offended. The truth hurts.

    What a slimy load of disgusting comments. Truly, this is some of the worst of the internet.

  95. Mike Barnard,

    You are a complete bozo; a despicable Lewandowski apologist.

    Run along now, back to your sKs belief-thread. This is the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site. So you can comment here — and we can laugh at you.

    Bozo.

Comments are closed.