From Tom Nelson Lewandowsky’s skeptic seepage plus see the FOIA documents link added at the end.
Emailer WL writes:
[Stephan Lewandowsky at 2013 American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference] “Skeptic discourse has seeped into the scientific arena and may have contributed to shaping climate scientists thinking’ and interpretation…
…without any awareness on their part.
…strong reasons to expect seepage based on the psychological literature.”
Nothing worse than a weak minded Climate Scientist and seepage. I thought leakers were supposed to be OK though? Pass the Lewpaper.
From slide at 0.55 of http://youtu.be/fYzEWOHWTLk
Related, this quote from Mann:
Chaos and the Hockey Stick — Editor’s Picks — Medium
Mann compares it to asymmetrical warfare.
“One side, us, the scientists, have to be true to our principles, have to be truthful to our audience, have to state our findings with appropriate caveats, and the other side sees absolutely no need to do that.”
Like maybe stating that you didn’t actually sample the majority of skeptics with a survey, but just send it to mostly to websites friendly to your crusade? And then lied about it when pressed on the issue and backdated your response to make it look like you revealed the information before skeptics figured it out?
Simon Turnill adds to the ‘Lewseepage’, with these FOI documents:
Hi Anthony and Steve,
I have put all the Lew FOI materials online in a ZIP file. Thought you may wish to let your readers know so they can trawl through the stuff themselves!
Lewandowsky and UWA – Freedom of Information Documents
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t you just hate it when opposing viewpoints find their way into a scientific debate? I cringe when that happens…
It was Dana’s piece in The Guardian identifying Fox News as the fount of scepticism (as shown by his “colleague John Cook’s PhD research” and the links to Cook’s AGU Chapman Conference video. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/08/global-warming-denial-fox-news that sent me to the fascinating videos.
Lewandowsky, Gleick, Cook, Oreskes etc. …the whole gang is there on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W36z3MmrA2M&list=PL7Ihm2Mh3MZ5ZVQhhGP8pGu85dj6ued__
lew-paper, very appropriate.
Got to admire Mann’s afrontary
Like he gets millions in funding and skeptics function on a shoe string. Asymmetric indeed.
“One side, us, the scientists, have to be true to our principles, have to be truthful to our audience, have to state our findings with appropriate caveats… ”
Principles, what principles? Caveats like we may have got one or two proxies upside down , like we may have faked some of the data that did not fit too well.
“…and the other side sees absolutely no need to do that.”
No, we have no need to invert the data, and don’t get to adjust it each year to suit our persional prejudices. Damn, there’s that asymmetry popping up again.
Stop the skeptic seepage!
Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!
I guess it all Depends…
Greg says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:00 am
“Got to admire Mann’s afrontary
Like he gets millions in funding and skeptics function on a shoe string. Asymmetric indeed.
“One side, us, the scientists, have to be true to our principles, have to be truthful to our audience, have to state our findings with appropriate caveats… ””
First rule of propaganda is it has to be maintained at all costs that it is the truth. Once trust is lost, all propaganda becomes ineffective. The state can now decide to continue risking his credibility with nutcases like Mann and lewandowsky, and so lose all credibility, or concentrate on the more essential lies, and let CO2AGW go.
Given that these days even 100% pure regime media like Guardian and Thomson Reuters backpedal occasionally; I think the regime is throwing CO2AGW under the bus. Risk/Reward ratio turns bad.
have to state our findings with appropriate caveats,…..
may, might, maybe, woulda, coulda, shoulda
..there’s no findings
Don’t tell me we have had accelerated warming in the last decade, when global temperature readings say just the opposite. And, don’t pee on my shoes and tell me it is raining. The “deniers” do not need to use propaganda, since the climate data gives the reality.
The EPA has a place for this prevaricating idiot in its Economic Impact and Analysis unit.
Lewandowsky is to honesty and integrity what crap is to taste and nutrition.
Severian says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:08 am
I guess it all Depends…
I see what you did there…
Hardly surprising that the alarmist anti-science types found it necessary to invent a pejorative term for “learning”.
Tucker says:
August 11, 2013 at 8:35 am
Now that is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
Thank you. ∞
***
DirkH says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:02 am
Stop the skeptic seepage!
Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!
***
Nice word-play. 🙂 Maybe they need to stop guzzling laxatives.
Obseepuious: The act of being cowed by theoretical seepage. Lewandowsky is wackier than a box of frogs, with Mann whining along in a neck-and-neck heat.
“Maybe they need to stop guzzling laxatives.”
From the look on his face, I’d say he needs more, not less.
http://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/stephan_lewandowsky.jpg?fit=1000%2C1000
A clear case of “conspiracist seepiation”.
These are not ‘climate scientists’, they’re leeches, they’ve found a nice armpit in the climate-science world from which to suck money.
Greg and some others noticed Mann’s “affrontary” in all this. What Mann said and how he said it reminds me of the deliberate “projection” done in old soviet propaganda — paint the enemy as you really are, and paint yourselves as the guardians of the people.
His statement itself drips of it’s own insecurity in this regard – “One side, us, the scientists, have to…”. Mann realizes (consciously no doubt) that the people so mistrust the alarmists that he needs to specifically point out who the supposed good guys are. Of course, if they were so good and pure, he wouldn’t feel compelled to point out who he is referring to.
Like Greg, Dirk, and others, I too find Mann’s little statement telling of the mindset within the CAGW bunker – as many of the lower level rats begin running for their lives.
Mann’s “One side, us, the scientists, should be, ‘One side, we,…’ His grammar is not as bad as his science, but it’s still 6th grade poor.
Lewandowski, on the other hand, seems to not realize that there’s no falsifiable theory of Psychology. There are no grounds, therefore, for “strong reasons” to expect anything (hunch or accusation) based on Psychological literature.
Neither Lewandowski nor Mann evidently realize that there’s no falsifiable theory of climate, either, and so there are no grounds for strong reasons to expect anything there, also either. No shame in that for Lewandowski, of course, as he’s a scientific incompetent (no shame in that for a non-specialist), but as regards Mann, it’s a symptom of professional incompetence.
DirkH says: August 11, 2013 at 9:02 am
Stop the skeptic seepage!
Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!
OPE, yes. Fluoridation, children’s ice cream, Mandrake.
And answering to the Coca Cola company.
Effrontery, even.
The memes are battling, and superior ideas are invading the Holy Homeland!
In a red box and very small print, at 5:08 in the video,
I guess he never heard of Climategate!
Skeptics must be supra-geniuses.
After all, with little to no funding, virtually barred from science journals, unable to access the mountains of grant money enjoyed by the alarmists, and almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, somehow we’ve gotten our skeptic ideation to actually seep into the minds of scientists. What has seeped in?
Temps flat for 17 years.
Arctic ice extent recovering for last several years.
Antarctic ice extent setting new records last year, and close to breaking them this year again
Extreme weather as measured by ACE on a decline for decades
Drought as measured by Palmer Drought Index flat for decades
Sea level increases not accelerating and possibly starting to decelerate
Signature tropospheric hot spot completely missing
Scientists by the bushel coming up with some of the most absurd excuses as to why….
And how did we cause these ideations to seep into their unconscious minds?
Why, we pointed them at their own data.
How insidious of us, disguising facts as ideations cloaked in their own data.
Supra-geniuses I say.