UPDATE: After a cursory look at the percentages in the response to the Lewandowsky survey from the blogs he listed as participating, it seems the outcome doesn’t fit the title. See below.
====================================
From the “free the metadata” department, we have this gem. Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia’s Cognitive Science Department devised some sort of survey where he supposedly contacted skeptical climate blogs to ask we post a link to gather opinions for his survey. He says he contacted five and they all declined. Only one problem with that; none of the mainstream skeptical blogs appear to have any knowledge of being contacted. That includes WUWT and Climate Audit, among others.
I keep all my email, and I see no such contact or invitation. I’ve searched WUWT and found nothing in comments from him inviting to participate either. To be thorough, I also searched for any communications from his co-authors Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac. I’ve found no invitation of any kind, but I did find that a commenter in the USA, PaulW left a note about it on WUWT here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/new-wuwt-sstenso-page-now-online/#comment-469869 But, he’s not affiliated with UWA or the authors, and it was purely a comment of curiosity. One of our moderators, D.B. Stealey took the survey (now deleted) after seeing the comment, and noted “Interesting questions.” but he didn’t note any invitation to post it on WUWT, nor did I.
Similar lack of confirmed invitations are being reported in other skeptical blogs, and the list is growing. But, for some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted.
Jo Nova and Lucia Liljegren are asking some very pointed questions. Given the sheer lunacy on display in the paper…
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.
…I think Jo Nova nailed it with this line:
It’s as if Stephan did not want to know what real skeptics think?
Lucia asked Lewandowsky in a direct email about it and got this response:
Sorry, no, they likely replied to my requests under the presumption of privacy and I am therefore not releasing their names.
The blogs that did post the link (thereby publically identifying themselves, unlike those who declined) are:
%http://www.skepticalscience.com
%http://tamino.wordpress.com
%http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
%http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
%http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
%http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
%http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
%http://hot-topic.co.nz/
“…they likely replied” That seems to me to be pretty weak data for a scientist. Either they replied requesting confidentiality or they didn’t, there’s no “likely” about it when gathering hard data.
Time to fess up, perfessor. Show the list and proof of contact and confirmation that they declined the invitation. You have my full and complete permission to release my name. Other skeptical bloggers have also granted permission on Lucia’s website, so there’s no reason to hold back now.
In comments at Lucia’s, Steve McIntyre notes:
The University of Western Australia has fairly standard academic misconduct policies.
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au…..guidelines
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au…..rch-policy
If Lewandowky’s claim about 5 skeptic blogs was fabricated, it appears to me that it would be misconduct under university policies. The person responsible for investigating complaints appears to be the Pro VIce Chancellor (Research) ,Robyn Owens, dvcr@uwa.edu.au.
She is in a position to get an answer, given Lewandowsky’s refusal to disclose the information.
In other news, the Lewandowsky survey data was put online at Bishop Hill. See it here.
Make of that data what you wish, but it seems to me that if you only ask questions of one side, as shown is the blog list above, you’ll get one-sided answers. That’s hardly science.
UPDATE: After looking at the survey data provided on the Bishop Hill blog here, it is beginning to look like the answers were skewed by participants at those blogs for what they think he wanted to hear, rather than a true sample.
For example: If you look at column R in the Excel spreadsheet, labeled CYMoon, which according to the paper in question:
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). : An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.
It says:
CYMoon The Apollo moon landings never happened and were
staged in a Hollywood studio. .742
That is the result of this question structure:
Unless otherwise noted, all items used a 4-point scale ranging from \Strongly Disagree’ (1) to \Strongly Agree” (4). Table section headings correspond to latent variable names in
Figure 2.
OK do a simple scan of the 1’s and 2’s in column R, which correspond to ‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’ and you get them as the majority, with a smattering of 3’s and 4’s. So I decided to use Excel’s function for counting occurances. =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”1″, and =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”2″ =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”3″ =COUNTIF(R2:R1146,”4″
The (corrected, I had the 1 and 4 counts backwards originally, thanks Lucia) distribution of responses to the Moon Landing question are:
1067 Strongly Disagree
68 Disagree
4 Agree
6 Strongly agree
Total responses are 1145 (Rows R2 to R1146, top row R1 is title, so subtract 1 from 1146). Therefore 1067+68 = 1135 1135/1145 = 0.9912
Only 0.9% of respondents actually believe that the moon landings “never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio”. So what does that say about the title of the paper:
NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax
I see a retraction for this paper in the very near future.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tallbloke says:
September 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm
teven Mosher says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm
GHGs warm the planet, they dont cool it
———————————————————————————————————–.
How else does heat get radiated to space from the atmosphere to cool the planet?
==================================================================
Curious question indeed.
A radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from conducted energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system.
I am simply observing energy content of any system as a function of time, i.e. how long that delivered energy stays within a defined area. In regard to our planet the defined area is broadly the land surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere. How long the solar insolation, entering or leaving a defined area, stays before exiting determines T. and or heat content. This leads to a law. “At its most basic only two things can effect the heat content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system.”
When I heard of AGW theory I was rather surprised to learn that the only molecules (GHGs) which allow energy to escape into space, (cooling) somehow net heat the system above non radiationg (at common T) atmospheric gases.
Supposedly a non GHG atmosphere, mostly transparent to incoming insolation, allows the bulk of the insolation to reach the surface, where it the radiates back to space, again for the most part, bypassing the non GHG molecules. Of course this ignores conduction, convection and evaporation. In such a world the non GHG molecules would warm by collision, or conduction from the surface, which would then conduct to more non GHG above them, which would allow the surface atmospheric molecules to then receive more energy from the surface, etc, until convection, further conduction etc basically caused an expanding thermal dynamic equilibrium with a gravity induced lapse rate.
Now, as I understand it, if we add a so named GHG molecule to such an atmosphere, according to climate scientist, it will redirect some of that surface LWIR energy back to the surface, thereby increasing the residence time and heat content of the atmosphere, as solar insolation continues unabated and the system will gain heat while energy escaping is delayed. My point is very simple. Assuming (for now) the climate scientist are correct That single GHG molecule is also receiving conducted energy from the surface, which now has the opportunity to accelerate the loss to space of said conducted energy, which formerly, in the non-ghg molecule, could not radiate to space, thereby GHG molecules accelerate the loss of conducted energy, and delay the loss of LWIR radiated energy
I leave it to physics to determine what percentage of the energy in the atmosphere from the surface is conducted and how much is radiated, and to determine how often newly excited surface molecules , both atmosphere and ground, lose their energy via radiation, or via conduction. But the fact remains, a radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from conducted energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system.
I wonder if the paper’s peer reviewers asked for the raw data ! * ?
Daniel H says:
September 1, 2012 at 6:03 am
Anthony, there was recently another survey (longer, and with a 1-5 scale) put out by Lewandowsky’s research assistant, Charles Hanich, on June 4, 2012. It seems that the link for this survey was only posted on two blogs: Watching the Deniers and Skeptical Science.
Thanks Daniel. If speaking of conspiracy theories it is interesting to see where the climate-zealots see conspiracies.
Fascinating to see their lack of interest for climate science as such and their fixation, even obsession on question like Christopher Monckton and birth certificates?
The question of birth certificates is not trivial to them, it seems to be crucial to understanding the climate change??!
Illustrative is the conversation between catweazle666 and WtD linked here:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/question-for-readers-how-would-you-counter-the-denial-movement/
I was stunned to realise that WtD blog owner has not even heard of Younger Dryas, Bond events, but he is having a blog on climate and has the insolence to call the skeptic community “deniers”.
The comments are there for all to see (for how long?).
Also what was already mentioned in postings above, it is interesting, even a bit scary to see the hate with which WUWT community is seen in many of the zealots blogs communities. Pure hate.
It is such flawed papers as Lewandowsky’s which encourage such attitude and tries to give arguments to the haters. This is one more reason to have it put where it belongs – in the shame corner of pseudo-science.
I was wrong, it is not even Lysenkoism what Lewandowsky does, it is one level lower, more in line with the psychologists of the former communist countries.
I think that Lewandowsky should take guidance on the scientific method from Lisa Simpson. Her projects are often sensible and well-conducted.
Lisa Simpson is 8 years old.
Lars P,
The hatred comes from providing a venue where both sides of the debate can express their views. The alarmist crowd is losing control of the narrative, and it drives them crazy.
When an opponent is proclaimed to be silent and unable to defend themselves, in court or in official or academic capacity, and that silence is due to nefarious reasons such as someone accused by the Inquisition having already had their tongue cut out, or perhaps just falsely saying that a letter was sent and they didn’t reply, can this behaviour be described as Lewandowskyist?
Have Lewandowsky and Gleick been seen together anywhere? It looks to me that they are the same person.
What ever happened to “tar and feathers” and have they run out of “rails”, down under. GK
From the UWA CODE OF CONDUCT,
2.1 Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. Data management should comply with relevant privacy protocols, such as the Australian Standard on personal privacy protection.
2.2 Data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference. For data that is published this may be for as long as interest and discussion persists following publication. It is recommended that the minimum period for retention is at least five years from the date of publication but for specific types of research, such as clinical research, 15 years may be more appropriate.
2.3 Wherever possible, original data must be retained in the school or research centre in which they were generated. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data. When the data are obtained from limited access databases, or via a contractual arrangement, the location of the original data must be identified, or key information regarding the database from which it was collected, and this must be retained by the researcher or research centre. In all cases, prior to the publication of research findings a Location of Data Form must be completed.
Location of data form [RTF, 18.9 KB]
Updated 30 Oct 2009
2.4 Data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers. Where confidentiality provisions apply (for example, where the researchers or the University have given undertakings to third parties, such as the subjects of the research), it is desirable for data to be kept in a way that reference to them by third parties can occur without breaching such confidentiality.
““…they likely replied” That seems to me to be pretty weak data for a scientist. Either they replied requesting confidentiality or they didn’t, there’s no “likely” about it when gathering hard data.”
I think you did not understand what was being said here. The word “likely” was about the unspoken assumption of privacy.
I can tell you that if I replied “no” (or even “yes”) to an email request and my name was later published on a list of people who were asked a question in a private email, I’d be peeved.
I think you basically don’t understand what was done (and not done) and why, and you feel left and important and this is why you are making a big deal out of this.
Alice Thermopolis
There’s a discussion thread about the Lewandowsky / Cook talk on “Uncertainty, misinformation and social media” at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html#comments
Anarchist hate machine makes a good point a the top of this thread about the dangers of psychology aping the physical sciences. The social sciences suffer from an inferiority complex (to use a totally untestable and therefore unscientific term) with respect to the hard sciences, so they churn out articles like this, with no hard facts and just enough statistical jargon to keep the public from looking too closely.
Imagine IF Lewandowsky’s sampling method had been valid (which it’s not) IF his questionnaire had been correctly formulated (which it’s not) IF it had been administered correctly (which it wasn’t) with checks againt bias (which aren’t there) and IF he’d got the results he was hoping for (which he didn’t) – what then? All he’d have proved (which he hasn’t) is that people who are sceptical of one thing are likely to be sceptical of another, and that their opinions on one subject are likely to influence their opinions on another. To which one can only say: So what?
Chad Jessup says:
September 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Tallbloke, if you read Mosher enough, you’ll understand that he is talking about the GHGs in our atmosphere impeding the outflow of energy from our planet sufficiently to effect a warming influence; so, yes, Mosher is correct, GHGs do not cool the earth.>>>
Other than conflating statistical apples with oranges where’s the empirical proof for the atmospheric effects of greenhouse gasses? Not simple laboratory experiments regarding the radiative properties of CO2 in an enclosure, which could also indicate CO2 to be an extremely efficient conductor of heat [up to TOA?]
Anthony – I generally agree with you about this survey, but I’m a little puzzled by your concern with the small number of people agreeing with “moon landing was faked.” The 0.742 is a regression weight, and many of the others are larger, so it’s not clear to me that “moon landing was faked” played any great role – except in the title. I might be wrong, but at the moment I’m unsure.
Geoff Sherrington says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:13 am
A few months ago I tried to get some information about grants processes from the Australian Department of Climate Change. Evasion was expected and obtained. I am considering if I will apply for a grant so that i can at least see the requirements and hurdles that such authors face. Does anyone know how many highly qualified scientists are employed by the said department to consider, approve or fail applications for funds? We are not talking small sums here.
In the meantime, I just chuckle at the amateurism of a non-achiever having the silliness to challenge the achievements of many of the so-called sceptics that I know have contributed mightily to science and national economies.
——————————————————————–
Geoff, this was an Australian Research Council grant, and I can tell you a bit about that.
There is a pretty nightmarish application process (you can look at the application forms on the ARC website). The applications are then sent to the members of expert panels in each subject area. It is difficult to find panel members, because the pools of experts who are not themselves applying for grants can be very small, especially in highly specialised areas and the hard sciences. Also, I can’t remember whether they get paid or not, but if so it would be a pittance compared to the time it takes to read and understand large numbers of lengthy and complex applications.
After that, the panels meet and discuss the applications. I have sat in on some of those meetings, but only in the hard sciences, which was not where applications like Lewandowsky’s would have gone. What struck me was that in these meetings, of a panel of half a dozen or so, quite often at least half of them chose not to comment on individual applications, because they were outside their area of expertise, although within the broad discipline. So, quite often, 2 or 3 members would make the decision.
It’s a pretty inexact process, but not (in the hard sciences anyway) because of any deliberate bias that I detected. However, with the small ponds involved in many areas, inevitably a lot of panel members know, or know of, applicants. Also, there are guidelines for the panels imposed by the ARC. There was a period where climate change was identified a a research priority a few years ago, and of course this meant the ‘bad’ aspects of the impending catastrophe.
Hope this helps.
Fake but accurate raises its ugly head once again. Did this guy study under Briffa and Mann? He sure seems to have their techniques down pat.
Not likely for two reasons.
1. Nothing to blow up. If you can’t make it go “Boom!” with a little C4, the boys don’t find it that compelling. Seriously, I can’t think of anything they could whip up in the shop that would directly address any of the tenents of CAGW insofar as they may be susceptible to physical proof.
2. They have a policy against addressing anything that’s highly polarized. That’s why you’ve never seen them address any of the 911 nutter claims about thermite-laced structural members, despite MB’s long history of playing with thermite.
From the article:
Similar lack of confirmed invitations are being reported in other skeptical blogs, and the list is growing. But, for some reason, Dr. Lewandowsky refuses to divulge which skeptical blogs he contacted.
I challenge Lewandowsky to prove he hasn’t been lying outright about contacting skeptical sites.
“How do you smear skeptics like that based on less than 1% of your data?”
That’s how Mann and Briffa created their respective hockey sticks…
Daniel H @ur momisugly September 1, 2012 at 6:03 am
Do you realize that your name is an anagram of Denial?
RKS, sorry about my “half baked” comment at Bishop HIll. Here’s a question for you. Given a clear calm night, when a patch of clouds floats by (say 20k feet), does it slow the temperature drop? If yes, and I think that can be easily answered yes, then what if a cloud of enhanced CO2 floated by at 20k feet. Would it not have the same effect?
Anthony,
The data for the moon landings link to rejection of climate science is even worse.
The sceptics are in a small minority – 125 or 175 out of 1145 responses depending on the definition. Of 6 responses in CYMoon with “4”, 4 are from those who “accept the science” and the 2 from those who “reject the science” are from respondents who ticked the same for every conspiracy theory.
I have done a detailed analysis at
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/01/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-3-data-analysis-of-the-conspiracy-theory-element/
@Geoff Chambers says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:49 am
“[…]
Imagine IF Lewandowsky’s sampling method had been valid (which it’s not) IF his questionnaire had been correctly formulated (which it’s not) IF it had been administered correctly (which it wasn’t) with checks againt bias (which aren’t there) and IF he’d got the results he was hoping for (which he didn’t) – what then? All he’d have proved (which he hasn’t) is that people who are sceptical of one thing are likely to be sceptical of another, and that their opinions on one subject are likely to influence their opinions on another. To which one can only say: So what?”
Dang! I thought you were headed for a climate model analogy with all those IFs. You coulda, ya know, IF you only had of… ;o)
(Nice comment. I’d LIKE it, but I won’t do Facebook until they prove man landed on the moon… double winky.)
P.S. Any typos this week will be blamed on excellent rum.
Fixing the paper’s title:
NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is real: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science for profit, policy, and politics by AGWers.
To publish a paper full of egregious mistakes, misrepresentations and statistical error is stupid. But to attack in the process a group of people who make a daily habit of analyzing and dissecting inadequate research demonstrates a truly transcendent degree of stupidity.
at paper a group of people renowned for pulling apart sh, but he publihed a paper of that kind criticising a group of people who have turned