Lewandowsky’s ‘seepage’, now with FOI

From Tom Nelson Lewandowsky’s skeptic seepage plus see the FOIA documents link added at the end.

lewpaperEmailer 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

About these ads

52 thoughts on “Lewandowsky’s ‘seepage’, now with FOI

  1. Don’t you just hate it when opposing viewpoints find their way into a scientific debate? I cringe when that happens…

  2. 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__

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. have to state our findings with appropriate caveats,…..

    may, might, maybe, woulda, coulda, shoulda

    ..there’s no findings

  6. 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.

  7. Severian says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:08 am

    I guess it all Depends…

    I see what you did there…

  8. Hardly surprising that the alarmist anti-science types found it necessary to invent a pejorative term for “learning”.

  9. Tucker says:
    August 11, 2013 at 8:35 am

    Now that is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

    Thank you. ∞

  10. ***
    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.

  11. 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.

  12. These are not ‘climate scientists’, they’re leeches, they’ve found a nice armpit in the climate-science world from which to suck money.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Greg says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Got to admire Mann’s afrontary

    Effrontery, even.

    The memes are battling, and superior ideas are invading the Holy Homeland!

  17. In a red box and very small print, at 5:08 in the video,

    Bullying and intimidating tactics of deniers vis-a-vis journal editors and publishers are a topic for another day.

    I guess he never heard of Climategate!

  18. 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.

  19. Too conservative, they are too conservative? No wonder why these guys have a hard time with their facts. He should get out more and talk with people on the street. It would be educational for him.

    Made to hallucinate? The correct explanation for ‘seeing’ the ‘window and needle’ as being part of what they first saw is that all of the flashed words trigger associations with one or the other word. Everyone is different in their ability to recall on demand any given sequence of real time informatiuon. Some of us can have a very high ability in this regard. Watching the last 5 minutes of that video was a bit of torture. Could I sue him?

  20. The most absurd aspects to all this is the way the alarmists have targeted CO2 as pollution and managed to connect it to, first catastrophic global warming, then extreme and damaging climate change, while getting us to ignore what’s most important.
    Before we even started debating whether this theory involving CO2’s effect as a greenhouse gas was correct or not, what should have been given greatest weighting……..because it is not just a theory and anybody that made it into high school learned this in science/biology………. CO2 plays a key role in photosynthesis.

    Every animal on this planet either eats plants or eats something that ate plants.
    In 50 years, even if the warmest global climate models were correct(even the cooler ones look too warm right now) what will be the most important thing to the 9 billion people on this planet?.??? Food and water.

    The speculation about how climate change might negatively effect crops is just that, speculation(and it looks like they got it backwards).
    The last 20+ years of measuring our planets vegetative health, crop yields and plant responses proves irrefutably the huge benefits of increasing CO2.

    Even with the absolute worst case climate change scenario painted by alarmists, CO2 should be allowed to increase anyway.

    Instead, they have been picking the game(and changing the rules) and we have been playing their game and providing the evidence that they are breaking their own rules even as the focus is taken entirely off what should count 10 times more………………….CO2 is causing huge increases across the board in the plant world, which produces more food for the animal world.

    That is the only science that was taught and settled a long time ago but has been brainwashed out using climate alarmist tactics similar to how a magician uses slight of hand to trick you.

    If Michael Mann manipulated data to make the hockey stick graph as it looks, then he’s a fraud but he, Al Gore, the IPCC and other noted alarmists are drawing the worlds attention to temperatures, especially speculation about future temperatures…………..even as the world gets greener and greener and greener every year because of the thing they have tricked the world into thinking is pollution.

  21. Like any religion ‘the cause ‘ is much harder on those that they call ‘heretics’ for the failure to believe ‘totally and without question’ than it is on those that don’t believe at all. And Mann is a classic example for he is nastier to those on his own side , should they question his claims in the slightish way , than to actual AGW sceptics, Its not enough to ‘believe ‘ what really matters is if they believe in the ‘right way’

  22. “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.”
    =============

    [snip . . I think we have decided that those comments aren't helpful, and they are sooo last year . . mod]

    PS: Love the “comment preview” function.

  23. What is the difference between “seepage” and “considering new ideas”?

    Sorry, I am not a psychologist and my mind is more easily subverted by seepage of things I haven’t signed up to believe, already.
    Maybe I shouldn’t need to ask that question.

  24. Skeptics made temps go flat for 17 years and made the climate models to miss nearly every single one of their predictions on the high side.

    That’s just a fact, everyone.

    It is not “we” against them.

    It is Mamma Earth against them.

  25. DirkH says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Stop the skeptic seepage!
    Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!

    What a coincidence, I watched “Dr. Strangelove” last night for the first time and so understand the reference.

  26. “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”…like we did with convergence.

    …You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.
    But the caveats were on display…
    On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find the paper.
    That’s the display department.
    With a torch.
    Ah, well the lights had probably gone.
    So had the stairs.
    But look you found the paper didn’t you?
    Yes, said McIntyre, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.

    And it said… we dont know.

  27. Your quote from the Mannequin didn’t take my breath away but surely it should have. Am I now cured and see him as something akin to a Hanna Barbera cartoon character or have I entered the darkness and no longer care? State our findings with appropriate caveats LOL LOL for the rest of the day

  28. EJ says:
    August 11, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Notice how ‘Dr.” Mann talks about principles, not science.

    Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.

    Groucho Marx

  29. This guy has a fantasy view of how scientists think and work. He is a psychologist of sorts, and sees everything as a personality disorder.

  30. DirkH says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Stop the skeptic seepage!
    Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!

    And

    Richard of NZ on August 11, 2013 at 3:29 pm @

    DirkH says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Stop the skeptic seepage!
    Preserve the purity of our precious bodily essence!

    What a coincidence, I watched “Dr. Strangelove” last night for the first time and so understand the reference.

    – – – – – – –

    DirkH & Richard of NZ,

    DirkH => Are you old enough to remember George C. Scott in ‘Dr. Strangelove’?

    Body [fluids] floods indeed.

    Touché to you both!

    John

  31. Fred on August 11, 2013 at 9:20 am

    Lewandowsky is to honesty and integrity what crap is to taste and nutrition.

    – – – – – – – –

    Fred,

    Nice.

    How about this one?

    Lewandowsky’s conspiracy seepage creepiness is to Mann’s incompetent statistical data management as General Buck Turgidson’s (Dr. Strangelove) body fluid seepage paranoia is to Mr. Smith’s (the Matrix) loathsomeness of what is the nature of reality.

    John

  32. Lew might be onto something here, seepage…
    As I regularly work outside in -30 C weather, I can tell you the cold seeps into your bones, no amount of wishful thinking nor fixed ideology will stop it.
    Same effect in a major, 1 hour or more, power outage up here, the cold seeps into your home.
    So Lew may have accidentally hit upon a metaphor for the true believers horror, the cold truth is seeping into their reality, the chill of realizing you are a fool may be a new and unknown sensation for the true zealot.

  33. Anyone else notice that Mann had to directly state that his side was the supposed “good” one? Could it be without his stating that, no one would have guessed they were the “scientists” side?

    One side, us, the scientists, have to be true to our principles

    It is pretty bad when even your own side knows (but never states) that you are anti-science. Mann knows that. That is why he had to make sure he claimed the high ground.

  34. Robert Clemenzi says: “Bullying and intimidating tactics of deniers vis-a-vis journal editors and publishers are a topic for another day.” –Stephan Lewandowsky
    I guess he never heard of Climategate!

    The whole video was pathetic, from the sincere tone to getting lost in the projector menus to the meaningless graphs accompanied by hand-waving instead of any actual science. In saner times, he’d have been laughed off the podium. The bullying and intimidation comment was precious: 100% projection.

  35. There was a time when the guardians scientific purity knew what to do about “seepage”, as that notorious heretic, Galileo, found out.

  36. Stephan Lewandowsky, listen to me carefully. You are a good person. You are not a insufferable putz! You are a good person. You are NOT an insufferable putz! You are a good PUTZ, you are not and insufferable person. You are an insufferable PUTZ, you are not a good person.

    Heh, just messin’ with you man. Love the new routine.

  37. I heard a slight variation on this theme last night on “Living on Earth”. It was from Suzanne Goldenberg. She started with questions about “secret funding” but had to admit that “liberals” do it as well. Then they segued to how the believers just dealt with scientific truth, while the deniers were beginning to be effective in confusing the message. As a result, it is becoming impossible to move forward because the Congress is all confused about where they should be led.

    It all reminds me of the old Soviet tactic of putting people who didn’t agree that they were living in paradise into physchological institutions, where they could be treated for their double-plus badthink.

  38. Gary Pearse says:
    August 11, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    This guy has a fantasy view of how scientists think and work. He is a psychologist of sorts, and sees everything as a personality disorder.

    __________________________

    You have that inverted… ” This guy has a personality disorder with a fantasy view on how psychologists think and work, and has no clue on how scientists think and work..”.
    How did he ever get a PhD? What does it say about his supervisors? His department?

    And somebody needs to remind Mann that you can’t wilfully commit career suicide jumping from a basement window – you’re already at the bottom….

  39. John Whitman says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    “DirkH => Are you old enough to remember George C. Scott in ‘Dr. Strangelove’?”

    I recently watched it on the Interwebs. Saw it the first time as a kid in the 70ies and was mightily impressed; as those were the days of doomsday horror; and there’s that British director making fun of it. And I found the “When Johnny comes marching home again” theme hypnotic as a kid.

  40. Sounds like Climate Realists are making an impact and the Climate Clowns don’t like the truth. They wouldn’t complain if they didn’t feel threatened.

    Sure makes my day!

  41. How does Mann square:

    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

    with his answer to John Christy of the NAS panal on whether he calculated the R2 statistic:

    We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning.151

    Montford, Andrew (2011-06-06). The Hockey Stick Illusion (p. 241). Stacey Arts. Kindle Edition.

    ???

Comments are closed.