Dr. Stephan Lewandowsy’s recent claim that because skeptics and lukewarmers alike ask to see emails, it amounts to conspiracy theory …
So now there’s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them.
…has inspired Josh yet again.
Please visit Cartoons by Josh and consider dropping into the Tip Jar
Simon at Australian Climate Madness notes:
You can sense the contempt Lewandowsky holds for those who dare question his methods in the tone employed here. I guess he thought he could brand all sceptics as conspiratorial nut-nut jobs and we’d just quietly slink away and say, “Yeah, you’re right, we are nut-jobs”. And his defence mechanism to this criticism is to resort to childish sarcasm in his responses – as one commenter puts it, how “professorial” is that, professor?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You know. Time goes on. And before you know it a Lewinski becomes a Lewandowsky. Gotta be an end extreme interglacial……………
I suspect Lewandowsky called this affair “Versiongate” because he desperately wants the skeptic blogosphere to take it up, so he can enter the ranks of martyrs to the warmist cause. I can just imagine him standing before a sympathetic audience milking it for all he could “I too have been subjected to evil tactics of the evil ones.” Here is what he thinks of the supposed subjects of his reasearch that he is supposed to view dispassionately. Note the use of “we”. [my bold]
Yes, what we need is a survey to “expose” those “thugs”. [sarc]
Methodology aside – what do people think of the validity and ethics of a study that aims to show people with a certain viewpoint have a psychological ‘problem’?
And should a psychologist attack (what they judge to be) people suffering from this condition?
What if a psychologist proposed a research project investigating whether conservatives (or liberals or anarchists) are paranoid schizophrenics? And then use the findings to attack them in public? Is that ethical?
Lewandowsy’s recent work ignores the scientific observations and published papers which supports the assertion of skeptics and lukewarmers that the IPCC extreme warming predictions are incorrect. The planet has not warmed as much as predicted by the IPCC. The warming has stalled. Why?
Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation from satellite vs ocean surface temperature indicates the planet resist warming or cooling changes (negative feedback) by increase or decrease cloud cover in the tropics. The extreme warming IPCC predictions of 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2 requires that planet amplify the warming which is positive feedback.
Quite obviously either Lewandowsy has never read any of the scientific material that is discuss at the called skeptics blog sites or he is purposely attempting to defer people’s attention from the scientific issues and thereby reaching their own conclusions concerning extreme AGW vs benign lukewarm AGW based on the facts. The so called skeptics do not state there will be no warming. (See below for details.)
I challenge Lewandowsy to reply to the following.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/uah-global-temperature-up-06c-not-much-change/
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … …We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity….
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)…. ….This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.” …This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
The skeptic blogs also discuss economic and engineering data that supports the assertion that green energy is a very expensive scam which will not significant reduce CO2 emissions and will result in a doubling of the cost of electricity and transportation which is of course a stealth tax on taxpayers leaving less money for food, housing, education, and so on. The Obama administration and the EU are advocating spending trillions of dollars on the green scams. There are therefore two problems. Extreme AGW is not a problem. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. And there is a second problem the green energy projects will not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions but will bankrupt Western countries and will result in massive net job losses. Is discussion of the green scams akin to disputing the fact that astronauts walked on the moon? I challenge Lewandowsy to reply to the following.
Obviously the Obama and fellow democrats do not want to talk about the green scams. Leadership would be admitting that “green” energy is a scam.
Wind Power producers on the edge of bankruptcy.
“Problems at Vestas will bolster critics of renewable energy who say companies are failing to perform despite the subsidies pumped into the sector. The debate over green energy is particularly polarised in America and has surfaced as a major topic in the run-up to the presidential elections in November.”
US and German solar manufacturers have reached bankruptcy.
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/chart-the-death-spiral-of-solar-bankruptcies-counting/
The solar death spiral has been long and ugly. Over the past year, there have been over a dozen stalwarts and startups that have headed to bankruptcy court. Here’s our chart:
The solar death spiral has been long and ugly. Over the past year, there have been over a dozen stalwarts and startups that have headed to bankruptcy court…. …Two companies even filed for bankruptcies in this week alone: manufacturer Q-Cells, which was the worlds largest solar cell maker in 2008 and power plant developer Solar Trust of America, which just a year ago was on its way to build a few gigawatts of solar projects in the American Southwest….
The fate of Solar Trust, which is mostly owned by Solar Millennium, is a reminder of the ….. of shepherding a power plant project to completion, even when all the permits are in hand. Solar Trust’s crown jewel project was the 1 GW Blythe Solar farm in California, and at one point the company was set to snag a $2.1 billion federal loan guarantee to build it before it decided to withdraw from the loan guarantee process last summer and change the technology it would use for Blythe.
Solar Millennium tried to sell Solar Trust to a fellow German company, Solarhybrid, only to see Solarhybird, too, file for bankruptcy last month.
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/vestas-to-axe-more-jobs-as-wind-turbine-manufacturer-forecasts-sales-slump-3508.aspx
Vestas to axe more jobs as wind turbine manufacturer forecasts sales slump Vestas is to shed another 1,400 jobs, bringing total redundancies for the year to more than 3,700, after the world’s biggest wind turbine maker slumped to a quarterly pre-tax loss. The Danish-based company, which recently ditched plans to build a plant in Kent, also reduced its forecast for current-year sales on Wednesday from seven gigawatts’ (GW)worth of turbines to 6.3. Next year is expected to be even worse at 5 GW.
Chief executive Ditlev Engels said: “2013, as it looks today, is probably going to be the toughest year that the wind industry has seen for a number of years.” Vestas plans to employ fewer than 19,000 staff by December to save an extra €100 million (£79 million). It blamed the sales slump on delays to projects in China and an expected slowdown in the US. ,,,, renewable energy who say companies are failing to perform despite the subsidies pumped into the sector. The debate over green energy is particularly polarised in America and has surfaced as a major topic in the run-up to the presidential elections in November.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/q-cells-bankruptcy-heralds-end-of-german-solar-cell-industry-a-825490.htm
Bankruptcies Have German Solar on the Ropes
The German solar industry is at a turning point. The bankruptcy of Q-Cells this week shows that the days of German solar cell production are numbered. Asian competitors took the lead years ago, and German government subsidies were part of the problem.
It wasn’t so long ago that people viewed Q-Cells as an energy company of the future. At one point, it was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar cells and quarter after quarter, it topped analysts’ expectations. The company proved to be a money-making machine even during the financial crisis, with some believing it might one day grow to become part of Germany’s DAX index of benchmark companies on the stock exchange….
http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/NewsReleases/Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
Vast amounts of agricultural land are being diverted from crops for human consumption to biofuel The immediate consequence of this is a dramatic increase in the cost of basic food such as a 140% increase in the price of corn. Due to limited amounts of agricultural land vast regions of virgin forest are being cut down for biofuel production. The problems associate with this practice will become acute as all major Western governments have mandate a percentage of biofuel.
Analysis of the total energy input to produce ethanol from corn show that 29% more fossil fuel input energy is require to produce one energy unit of ethanol. If the fuel input to harvest the corn, to produce the fertilizer, and to boil the water off to distill ethanol/water from 8% ethanol to 99.5% ethanol (three distillation processes) to produce 99.5% ethanol for use in an automobile, produces more green house gas than is produced than the production consumption of conventional gasoline. The cost of corn based ethanol is more than five times the production cost of gasoline, excluding taxes and subsides. Rather than subsiding the production of corn based ethanol the same money can be used to preserve and increase rainforest. The loss of rainforest is the largest cause of the increase in CO2.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
The Clean Energy Scam
The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol–ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled from plant matter–in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil’s filling stations no longer even offer plain gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, …. …The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.’s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn’t exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402
Biofuels ‘crime against humanity’
Massive production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices, a UN official has told German radio. “Producing biofuels today is a crime against humanity,” UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told Bayerischer Runfunk radio. Many observers have warned that using arable land to produce crops for biofuels has reduced surfaces available to grow food. Mr Ziegler called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to change its policies on agricultural subsidies and to stop supporting only programs aimed at debt reduction. He says agriculture should also be subsidised in regions where it ensures the survival of local populations. Meanwhile, in response to a call by the IMF and World Bank over the weekend to a food crisis that is stoking violence and political instability, German Foreign Minister Peer Steinbrueck gave his tacit backing.
Too bad Lewandowsy sent out electronic surveys instead of printed ones. Science has proven it’s harder to clean yourself with electrons than with paper.
The shrieking doesn’t help either. Despite the promises of science fiction, we still don’t have sonic showers, thus no sonic bidets either.
Although if we did have those in development, Lewandowsy could finally do something to benefit and advance science, by volunteering as a test subject to determine which frequencies and amplitudes are practical and efficient, and which ones will permanently scramble his sperm makers.
I would suggest that, if ‘comprehension dropped’ when reading ‘skeptic’ comments, it was because they used REAL skeptic’s comments, and the REAL science spoken of in those comments, was too much for the warmist shills.
James in Footscray;
What if a psychologist proposed a research project investigating whether conservatives (or liberals or anarchists) are paranoid schizophrenics? And then use the findings to attack them in public? Is that ethical?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, but what they have done is SO much worse than that.
They told the first group that 2+2=7. Then they gave them a multiple choice question in which they were asked if 2+2 =
a) 3
b) 9
c) 7
The second group was told that 2+2 = 4 and was given a multiple choice question asking if 2+2 =
a) 4
b) 9
c) 7
The first group anwered 7 and the second group answered 4 because the second group had lower comprehension skills…
If anyone things my little 2+2 comment above is just for laughs, it isn’t. There’s been plenty of studies showing that if you present some material with obviously wrong information in it, and then give the reader a multiple choice question that doesn’t have the right answer, they will choose the wrong answer that was mentioned in the reading material, EVEN if one of the choices is “none of the above”.
The example came from a study (wish I had kept the link) where university students were given some reading material about gravity on the moon. They were then asked question like which would fall faster on the moon, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead. The right answer (they’s fall at the same rate) was not one of the options. One of answers was that the feathers wouldn’t fall at all, they would drift toward earth. Astoundingly, that one was chosen almost as often as the feathers would just float.
Steve McIntyre has shredded Lewandowsky’s reckless and inept blatherings in a superb lengthy post:
Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam
up date on best ski season since 1990 in australia and the experts said no more snow because of global warming just for the record I believe we landed on the moon. latest snow report http://ski.com.au/reports/australia/vic/fallscreek/index.html see what the CSIRO has to say about global warming http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/great-season-but-climate-change-brings-snow-blindness-20120907-25jno.html so much for the village Idiot’s
I’m sure he’ll paper over the cracks.
not sure if Oreskes will appreciate this coverage of her participation in a forum alongside Stephan Lewandowsky and Anna “I Can Change Your Mind About..Climate” Rose in West Australia recently:
22 Aug: Communist Party of Australia: The Guardian Workers’ Weekly: Madlands and Merchants of Doubt Book Tour
by Richard Titelius
In a church hall in Perth’s conservative western suburb of Floreat, on a Saturday afternoon on the penultimate day of the London Olympic Games, a less spectacular though far more poignant presentation attended by 60 people concerning the destiny of humankind was taking place…
Enter the next speaker Naomi Oreskes, an academic with a background in oceanography and the history of science who has written a book with an atmospheric scientist Eric Conway on their experiences with those lobbyists which also included a handful of scientists – who make it their job to cast doubt – deny and sow misinformation about climate change. These purveyors of doubt act in and for the interests of capital in the belief that the free market is the best way to organise a society as it gives people freedom of choice (that is often aided with liberal dollops of advertising to convince you of this so called freedom). However, for Oreskes and others, “because a response to climate change requires a change away from this world view, it is seen as threatening by the current world order.”
Oreskes says that those who oppose the rule of the free market are seen as extremists and even labelled Communists which is probably the “worst” label one can have politically in the US. Individualism said Oreskes was also a deeply held belief in the US that was fostered by capital as it increased consumption and therefore profits whereas its opposite number, community, unity and working as a collective, was seen as something that worked against the profit motive. Oreskes added that it is now too late in the piece to leave the development of a solution to climate change to individualism and free markets and that the longer we wait from here on, the more a government or centrally planned intervention will be necessary…
http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2012/1561/15-madlands-and-merchants.html
September 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm | kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“[ … ] The shrieking doesn’t help either. Despite the promises of science fiction, we still don’t have sonic showers, thus no sonic bidets either.
Although if we did have those in development, Lewandowsy could finally do something to benefit and advance science, by volunteering as a test subject to determine which frequencies and amplitudes are practical and efficient, and which ones will permanently scramble his sperm makers.”
———————
The outcome would be a bit more dramatic than that, when operating a ‘sonic lew’, the ‘lew’ paper would be retained and Lewandowski would be flushed.
September 8, 2012 at 3:24 pm | William McClenney says:
[ … ] And before you know it a Lewinski becomes a Lewandowsky.[ … ]
——————————————–
Lewinski, Lewandowski … both done the same thing.
“””””….. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science……”””””
And this paper provides “empirical confirmation” of English language illiteracy.
Sadly, this piece of crapology would not even meet the minimum entrance standards for acceptance in the Bullwer-Lytton prize cometition.
From Streetcred on September 8, 2012 at 5:23 pm:
Nah. Lewandowsy swallowed the Kool-Aid, and Lewinski wasn’t paid for it.
looks like Steve McIntyre re-published the Lewandowsky article to correct the posting date, so the link above broke.
updated hyperlink:
Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam
Poor Lewy, his lewpaper is broken, and he’s got poo on his fingers…….
.
.
.
.
and he’s trying to lick it off. !!!
And I have watched the Buzz Aldrin punch at least 20 times.
I wonder who put the money that made it possible to create such bullshit. Taxpayer ? Who is accountable for the grant ? This may stop any further grant to that institution ?
Skip to My Lou?
Fly’s in the buttermilk,
Shoo, fly, shoo,
Fly’s in the buttermilk,
Shoo, fly, shoo,
Fly’s in the buttermilk,
Shoo, fly, shoo,
Skip to my Lou, my darlin’.
Global Churning?
To Dr Lewandowsky
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid. Not only what you think is right about
it: Other causes that could possibly explain your results and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
“In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.”
I suspect you recognize these words but would not be surprised if you do not, as you do not practice the advice in them. Your so-called experiment/survey is pseudo-science.
You have let down yourself, the University of Western Australia and most importantly, the students you are charged with teaching. It is possible to design experiments in psychology and social studies which are robust and honest. An extremely poorly designed internet survey of web sites where the web sites are not aware and in agreement with the survey is not science. It has no more value than a survey in a women’s magazine.
Your use of language and behavior in discussing climate change makes a mockery of your professorship, which you clearly do not deserve. The reputation of a supposedly prestigious university is being tarnished by your presence and therefore the qualifications it awards in psychology and social studies will be equally diminished.
Your disgraceful pretence at an experimental survey is an embarrassment to science and only serves to further adulterate the already sullied image that climate science has brought upon all scientists.
If you had any honor you would resign and let real scientists try to repair the damage caused by your prejudice against those whose opinions differ from yours.
Nice YouTube link, but I thought the Monty Python one would have been much better seeing as all the Village Idiots graduated from the University of East Anglia.
Lewandowsky’s fanbois have been out in force in the comments on his latest, facile, puerile and carefully-avoiding-the-issues posting.
Lucia of the Blackboard posted some pertinent questions (politely) and the local thugs then accused her of being dumber than a first-grader, an extreme right-winger, a denier, a tacit supporter of Monckton, and not important enough in the blogosphere to count.
Anyone who knows about Dr Lucia L., or had done basic research before shooting off their mouths, would know that each of these accusations is utterly, manifestly untrue. But, it was preferable than answering her questions, apparently.
Lucia is able to take care of herself (and she did), plus a few people who also post here and on Bishop Hill have been trying to get the discussion back on track. But, it’s an ugly spectacle:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyVersionGate.html#357
The cognitive dissonance over there is extraordinary.
The moon landings may have been faked, I don’t know, I have not looked into it. I assume that they were not, but it is not my expertise. Does that make me Skeptical? Or just that I am smart enough to not state categorically that “the moon landings were not faked” when I don’t know anything about it? Does NASA want me to make a religious statement affirming my belief in the moon landings to prove that I am not crazy? Am I disallowed to talk about anything just because I have not researched the moon landings and am ready to state that it happened?