Lewandowsky thinks failure to get or find email is conspiracy theory

So let’s get this figured out.
“Denier” spam boxes filter out the survey, but the “believers” spam filters let it through?
Sounds fishy !!!

F. Ross says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:02 pm

.. ask for a “Delivery Status Notification” AND a “Return Receipt”. And even this is not foolproof

—-
Your right about that. I never automatically acknowledge receipt. That just informs the sending bot that it’s a live E-mail addy that someone actually reads and asks for a magnitude increase in the amount of SPAM sent to it.

Not being original here, but our Stefan’s modus operandi reminds me of:

“But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.”
“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”
“But the plans were on display …”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “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’.”

” Steve C says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm
timg56 comments that
……………………………………….
The bad news, Tim, is that Gina Rinehart in Australia, for one, certainly seems to feel just that way about us “wealthy” (though not nearly as wealthy as her) Westerners. The idea is not as unspeakable as it should be.”
Steve C, are you in the pay of UWA?

As I posted on another thread (but highly relevant on this one too), Lewandowsky reveals himself to be a deeply biased proponent of one side in the climate wars:
Stephan Lewandowsky reviews Mann’s book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”
His “motivated reasoning” does not exactly help him to be a trustworthy judge of survey questions and data, scientific study of “climate skeptics” etc. when he is so fervently, uncritically allied to Michael Mann.
Lewandowsky is behaving as a highly partisan activist, not as a scientist.

How desperate are these people!
Sickos! Lewandowski Glick Mann Cook Redfern Romm vtf is wrong with these people? Lying fanatics and at the same time so obvious stupid that Mr Bean reflects as Einstein in compearance..

Watts Up With That has currently around 125 million hits.
It is a major forum for anyone interested in Climate.
Any study of the beliefs of CAGW Skeptics must surely be diminished if WUWT is not included.
Stephan Lewandowsky claims to have sent WUWT, ONE email asking for collaboration on his project.
An email which he is unwilling to publish, so that its validity, date, content etc can be confirmed.
1. Shouldn’t he have tried just a little harder?
2. Shouldn’t he publish the request, just to prove he tried at all?

Lewandowsky tries to discredit skeptics partly by pointing out that blogs are a primary medium through which skeptics publish their perspectives, saying “By definition, denial is difficult to practice in the peer-reviewed literature….The internet, by contrast, provides opportunity for individuals who reject a scientific consensus to feed ‘each other’s feelings of persecution by a corrupt elite’ (McKee & Diethelm, 2010, pp. 1310–1311). Accordingly, climate ‘skeptic’ blogs have become a major staging post for denial..”
It’s terribly unfair for him to say that, but we need to understand that this demeaning attitude towards blogs is pervasive. Accordingly, I believe WUWT and other skeptical blogs need to be STRIKINGLY different from the typical online blog. That means no more Hitler-parody videos or anything like that. It needs to be IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS to anyone who ever visits this website that this is a serious place for serious discourse.

In 2010 John Cook of the notorious (and unreliable) SKepticalScience blog described working with a U. Western Australia cognitive scientist (it would appear to be Lewandowsky?) on cognition experiments about skepticism on climate change:
Cook and Lewandowksy collaborated on psych experiments in cognition?
(read the last few comments of the the thread)
A BH commentator guesses that the project may have been dropped and that Lewandowsky may have had pangs of scientific conscience, but that seems to be only guesswork. Did these experiments go forward, and did they involve Lewandowsky? It is well worth trying to determine if this project/experiment went further, or if it morphed into Lewandowsky’s later (very different) survey approach.
The Cook/SkS project involved having SkS regulars fabricate fake “skeptic” quotes on the blog for use in the experiment! They wanted to study cognition with and without exposure to various statements. One wonders if this went very far, and why they could not find real skeptic quotes to use.
Did Lewandowsky know of and endorse creating fake skeptic quotes which were publicly posted on the blog?? (were they ever posted or not?)
Psych experimenters might legitimately create statements within a study which are well vetted and controlled for, to study how people respond, but if fake “skeptics” were created on the public blog that might be a different kettle of fish.
It all sounds amateurish, unscientifice, and of dubious research ethics.

Lewandowski is the apocryphal ‘Egyptian fisherman’, with wet feet and a good view of the pyramids….
He is in de Nile, and it’s high time to wake up and smell the guacamole.
}:o(