The Daily Lew

So much happening in LewWorld, so little time. I’ve decided to simply aggregate all of the posts on Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky into one news item.

First my own observation. Yesterday, Lewandowsky wrote this:

I have several phone conversations scheduled for tomorrow, Monday, W.A. time, with the ethics committee at my university. I will report on the outcome as soon as a decision has been finalized.

No news, and it is 4AM Tuesday in Australia as of this writing. I wonder what the ethics committee said? Maybe they pointed out more ethics issues than Dr. Lewandowsky expected?

UPDATE: On Climate Audit, it is reported by Dave S in comments:

Lewandowsky just wrote Roy Spencer as follows:

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:01:19 +0800

Subject: survey contact

Dear Dr Spencer:

Please find enclosed correspondence from my research assistant dating back to 2010. He contacted you at the time to ask whether you would post a link to one of my research projects on your blog.

There appears to be considerable public interest in the identity of the bloggers whom I contacted for my project in 2010, and I am therefore pleased that my university has today affirmed that there are no ethical issues involved in releasing their identity.

I will post the relevant information on my blog shortly.

Kind regards,

While we are the subject of ethics, I find it curious that in the same essay he’s linked climate skeptics to a racist rapper who wanted to dedicate a week to killing white people:

If even Mr. Bolt is concerned about anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, then we have arrived at a Sister Souljah moment for climate denial.

Lubos Motl says about this:

So at various points, they’re linked to anti-Semitism, a black rapper named Sister Souljah who wanted to kill several whites every other week to compensate for the fact that blacks kill each other, to moonlanding conspiracy theories, and so on.

When you have nothing substantive to bolster your defense of the indefensible, I guess all that’s left is the race card. Stay classy Lew. In other news… 

Steve McIntyre tears apart the survey, labeling it appropriately:

“Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically. Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper.”

And it turns out Pielke Jr. was contacted as the Third Skeptic.

In the Climate Conversation Group » Personal message to Stephan Lewandowsky

They note the curious autoresponder message in Lewandowsky’s email:

[auto-reply from Stephan Lewandowsky] Note that although I endeavour to keep all email correspondence private and confidential, this does not apply to messages that are of an abusive nature.

No matter if the good doctor makes abusive racial comparisons though. Here’s more news via Tom Nelson:

Lewandowsky’s real finding: warmist professors more likely to believe in faked data | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Steve McIntyre checks the data behind Professor Stephan Lewandosky’s bizarre peer-reviewed paper claiming sceptics tend to believe the moon landings were faked. Truth is, turns out what was faked were responses to Lewandowsky’s sloppy survey – and the paper should be withdrawn:

Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science” « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response…The points that are on the top left of the graph are the more outlandish conspiracies, especially the “smoking” point which ranks right at the top. In my opinion this is a signature point. Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy, but alarmists have been trained to think skeptics do. The high rank there is the “Oreskes Effect”.

After 120,000 comments on this blog, I can’t recall a single skeptic who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, nor do I remember reading a comment on it on any other skeptic blog, nor have I even heard a hint of it in an email. But the two issues are often tied in alarmist propaganda..

Frequently people like Naomi Oreskes claim Fred Singer and others have doubted that smoking causes cancer, something which is an outright misrepresentation (see my point #3 here). Singer wrote about the statistical failures of the passive smoking case, which is scientifically entirely different from the well documented link between smoking and cancer. Given that this dishonest material is circulated widely on alarmist blogs, it’s likely that all 11 of those responding “yes” to that conspiracy question are the fakers, dutifully ticking off the boxes they have been trained to tick.


I agree. For the record, both of my parents were heavy smokers, but suffered major smoking related health issues, and both died prematurely of them.

Myself, I’m a victim of the issue not only because of the loss of my parents, but due to the smoky household I grew up in.  See this WebMD article:

Secondhand Smoke Raises Kids’ Ear Infection Risk

Study Shows Higher Risk of Middle Ear Infection for Children in Homes Where Parents Smoke

As a small child, I got many ear infections (and I still do). This resulted in me being treated with Tetracycline, which has been known to cause hearing loss and now discontinued from general use due to that and teeth yellowing (which I also have). My hearing loss affected me greatly through my childhood and teens, caused me all sorts of problems in college (before the Americans with Disabilities Act required accommodations), and ultimately led me to my career path of  TV Meteorology where I didn’t have to listen, but talk the camera.

So if anyone wants to label me as some sort of “denier” about the health effects of smoking, let’s step outside this blog and have a conversation about that.


UPDATE2: Lewandowsky lists the 5 skeptic bloggers he contacted:

Shortly thereafter, the first of the 5 bloggers, Mr McIntyre, found his misplaced email.

This leaves us with 4 bloggers whose identity had to remain confidential until now.

I am pleased to report that I received advice from executives of the University of Western Australia earlier today, that no legal or privacy issues or matters of research ethics prevent publication of the names of those bloggers.

So here they are:

  • Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
  • Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
  • Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
  • Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)


Of course, having failed to communicate effectively, he went ahead and did a paper with one sided results.

UPDATE3: Lewandowsky Censors Discussion of Fake Data « Climate Audit

Rather than answer the question, Lewandowsky, the author of a paper entitled “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, deleted the question

It seems Lewandowsky can’t tolerate the word “fake” when it comes to the data. below is the second before and after:

Original comment:

Edited comment:

I don’t think they understand how fragile their survey was and how easy it was to create fake responses. Instead, they assume they are accusing Lewandowsky of dishonesty, where the accusation actually lies in the realm of incompetence.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cui bono

It’s just impossible now to take Lewandowsky seriously. He’s just shooting himself (and his fellows) in the foot. Or worse:


That’s not what the reference to Sister Souljah means. He is referring to Clinton’s attacking of Sister Souljah, and saying that’s what someone needs to do here.


Lewandowsky seems to have entered an epic meltdown (too much CO2?). And what gave him the idea that Pielke Jr. is a climate skeptic?

It’s futile to point out the logical failures of this sort because logic is lost on the true believers. They believe what they want and no amount of facts and figures showing them where they’ve gone wrong will convince them otherwise.
I tend to think that the alarmist vs skeptic debate is less about real science (in the case of the alarmists) and more about psychology. When it’s all over I think the psychologists will study this for years.

Pamela Gray

You tell it Anthony. I have experienced the tragedy of the smoking-cancer connection. Those that believe otherwise are ignoring the data and in my experience number only a few folks. If the results of the survey show a connection between disagreeing that smoking causes cancer, and CO2 causes global warming, the connection is a huge red flag planted on the head of a fake responder.


I think the major problem with Lew’s “Sister Souljah” post is that he is evading all of the genuine issues about his incompetence, criticisms of his study, etc. by trying to change the subject.
His proposed “Sister Souljah” moment is for climate skeptics (in Australia primarily) to distance or dissociate themselves from the “Galileo Movement” there. The analogy is supposed to be that as Bill Clinton criticized Sister Souljah for her offensive lyrics etc., so are climate skeptics to criticize the GM etc.
Whatever possible criticisms might be made of anyone in the GM (I don’t follow them and don’t know enough about them to comment), that topic is a DIVERSION from real objections which have been raised about Lewandowsky’s work.
Lew’s mode of argument is in effect “nah nah nah nah nahhhh…. you criticize me, I will criticize someone who may or may not have any similarity to you, we don’t know yet because you may not even know anything about them, but I will bring them into this discussion anyway, just for the heck of it!” Now isn’t that an honest, forthright, and indeed scientific way to analyze scientific issues. [/sarcasm]
Professor Lewandowsky is beneath contempt.


Rather than saying that “Skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy” (moon landing), it would be more accurate to say that skeptics don’t believe that conspiracy any more than warmists do. As in both sides you can find all kind of weird people, and among them, probably a few moon-landing-conspiracists.


Thanks, Anthony, I think it is very helpful to bring the various Lew links together here, for one new discussion thread.
It’s also may be the closest approach to “15 minutes of fame” that execrable ideologue Lewandowsky will ever attain, so he should be grateful, too!
I am still filled with astonishment that he is supposed to be a PhD and even a Professor of some kind! Nothing much should surprise us anymore, but this “study” really should not pass muster in a first-year undergrad course. What happened to academic and scientific standards?


Anthony, it’s worth remembering though that the debate about the health effects of smoking itself is a far cry from the debate about the need for the sort of smoking bans and persecution of smokers that we’re seeing today. Ear and throat infections have both been pretty clearly linked with parental smoking. If we believe that smokers don’t tend to get respiratory infections more often than nonsmokers then it seems very likely that the increased infections in the children are due to secondhand smoke. If we believe that the smoking parents DO tend to get such infections more frequently and pass germs on to their children then the causal effect comes into question: and I’ve never seen a study that corrected for that variable … though there may be some out there: it’s not an area I’ve examined that closely.
Heh, speaking of “climate deniers” and “smoking deniers” you might find it interesting to check out these two quite recent/current conversations on your opposite-number blog:
You’re mentioned by name at one or two points as well I believe.

P Wilson

What keeps me sane is the knowledge that scientists who overturned the jargon, or dogma of their day and who were chastised for it were found out, retrospectively, to have been correct, such as Galileo and Darwin.. Of course, we were not around when they were, so we don’t know the extent of the jeering and boo-ing.
It is a failing on the part of rationality to advocate ad-hominem as a response, and therefore, the ideas of those committing ad-hominem ought to be examined.


My late father smoked. He was of the generation where smoking was “just fine” and he even rolled his own – not even a cigarette filter to help. When lung cancer hit him, it was brutal and swift. To watch a strong man deteriorate as he did is a thing no one needs to witness.

Latimer Alder

Two close friends have died very lengthy, hugely premature and very painful deaths from lung cancer. They were both heavy smokers
I need no lectures on the topic.
My contempt for Lewandowsky, his ‘subject’ and his stance grows daily to almost Mannian proportions.


The “smoking-doesn’t-cause-cancer-conspiracy” is a signature of a fake response…

Can the smoking and cancer question be interpreted to mean whether all cancer (even of one type of cancer) is due to smoking? Surely one can’t claim that all cancer occurrences are caused by smoking.


Let’s not generalize like AGW people do…
I am not a smoker but…
In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:
0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)
5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)
15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)
24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)
This is far from saying that smoking will automatically give you lung cancer. Let’s not get emotional here. Can we say that smoke makes people cough… yeah, I think so.


This is the elitist intellectual totalitarian playbook.
When people do not go along with their rarified, enlightened world view, they decide that there are some regrettable problems that must be remedied. By elistist intellectual totalitarians.
My political views are not easily penned in, and this is because I prefer evidence over political-party-based beliefs or the official government pronouncements.
This matter of noting educational or psychological defects in those who do not play along is a growing theme. In the end, though, it is totalitarianism: the elistist intellectuals will let the rest of us know what is valid to believe and valid not to believe.
I do not believe the govt developed the HIV virus in order to kill off Black people; I do see the attractiveness in this belief to some in the Black community, and I am in no rush to force these parts of the Black community to change their minds.
Cass Sunstein is. He mentions this “conspiracy theory” as one of a few examples in his article, “Conspiracy Theories.” Written with A. Vermeule, so just google those names to pull up the article. In the article, Sunstein “suggests” a few ways that the ” government” (or, the Regulatory Czar) could counter any “conspiracy theory” that has been determined to be false enough, by a govt panel of presidential appointees, to need debunking. One strategy is disinformation on the disinformation by infiltrating the conspiracy groups.
In John Holdren “Ecoscience” style, Sunstein can simply claim he was raising a high level discussion, and was advocating nothing of the sort. Yeah, right.
Also coming out of the elitist intellectual totalitarian think tank is, from Communication Czar Mark Lloyd, advocacy for the return of the Fairness doctrine, and more. He and fellow travelers argue that the U.S. depends upon “deliberative democracy,” and that citizens must be sufficiently informed in order to be able to join in deliberations over how we govern. They then note a “problem:” we rank and file citizens have, with the ginormous EXPANSION of media and info avaiable to us, have foolishly stuck our heads in echo chambers.
To solve this problem – lest our republic fall due to the demise of deliberative democracy, the solution is, again, a panel of elistist intellectual totalitarians appointed by the president to promote and comtrol “content” in the media – especially that most scary, effective media of all – gasp – talk radio.
So, the govt would develop the “well-balanced mix” of what can ride the public airwaves. Thanks! Why did I not thik of this?
Again, you see that the problem is defined as us plain ol citizens not being properly educated, and being susceptible to psychological flaws such as the human desire to stick head in echo chamber.
In a related elistist totalitarian move, a high profile group on behalf of the National Cancer Institute took a quick glance, in 2003, at the epidemiological studies assessing whether abortion adds to risk of subsequent breast cancer. They said a clear “no,” although data are cetainly not definitive. The medical establishment has been free to carry on since then, and this has given new ammo to the opponents of that most threatening, scary group of volunteers, crisis pregnancy centers. Yes, those demon volunteers handing out diapers, getting low-income women linked with pregnancy/delivery medicaid, and offering to gasp – say a prayer with the woman, if she likes.
I count about ten ABC studies that have emerged since the NCI panel and in my view the science is far from settled.
Never mind new data. In 2011, Rowlands came out with a review (in the journal Eu J of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care) noting that the persistence of the ABC belief, and including that in decision-making, is either the product of people who cannot interpret epidemiological studies (I can, but he does not note me individually) or are up to no good. Elitist intellectuals bent on saving the planet from Paul Ehrlich’s impending population overload can rest assured that the opposition is either uneducated or in psychological delusion. Bryant and Levi followed in 2012 with more of the same: ABC education = “misinformation” (in the journal “Contraception”).
If these elitist totalitarians do not nip things in the bud, it will be difficult for them to continue controlling population dynamics in all of those countries where we educated elitists have to keep throwing money, since those uneducated savages keep reproducing like bunnies without our oversight.
That is the common strategy: discount disbelievers by labeling them as uneducated or psychologically misguided.
On the other hand, we could value free speech, and continued inquiry into these issues.
We also could emphasize NOT delivering a bunch of PC guilt onto kids as a proxy for education, but could actually educated the next generation in decent, thorough math, science, reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. Benezet 1935 is too good, and is a must-read.
These schoolkids have the potential to be just as clever as any of us, but the opportunity will be wasted if they are “taught” jingoism about how mommy and daddy are killing the planet and how we could all live just fine if we reduced our carbon footprint to fit within the solar panels on our roof.
I think I got through k-12, and college, just before the elitist intellectual totalitarian guiltucation took over education.


In other words, it was found that 1 of 13 people will develop lung cancer from smoking… hardly a majority.

Les Johnson

Lewandowsky of course has built a strawman. He is now attacking the poor science that led South Africa to abandon anti-retroviral drugs, and comparing these people to climate skeptics.
Wierd part is, when you point out that green groups did that with DDT and Golden Rice, they immediately say that I believe its all part of a conspiracy.
Strange people.


Steve McIntyre has posted this not long ago on his site, which indicates what “ethical issues” were being considered. In the same SMc thread all five ‘sceptic’ blogs now appear to have been identified.
Lewandowsky just wrote Roy Spencer as follows:
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:01:19 +0800
Subject: survey contact
Dear Dr Spencer:
Please find enclosed correspondence from my research assistant dating back to 2010. He contacted you at the time to ask whether you would post a link to one of my research projects on your blog.
There appears to be considerable public interest in the identity of the bloggers whom I contacted for my project in 2010, and I am therefore pleased that my university has today affirmed that there are no ethical issues involved in releasing their identity.
I will post the relevant information on my blog shortly.
Kind regards,
Lewandowsky is up late.
I would have thought that the University should have been addressing what to do about Lewandowsky’s fake data.


Yea, I would dispute that smoking CAUSES cancer, as there are many people who smoke and do not get cancer. However, making cancer more likely is solid. On the other hand, the effects of secondhand smoking are not well established. The EPA did a science fixed around the policy 20 years ago and concluded that secondhand smoking is a problem, and the methodology was very weak.


Lewandowsky has created a sewer masquerading as science. Whatever he now adds to it, the product will always be pseudo-scientific sewage. It is no surprise that such a man resorts to abuse in response to valid criticism.
The more Lewandowsky struts hubristically on his infamous stage ,the more the excellent reputation of the University of Western Australia and its alumni will be contaminated and decline by being associated with a man so lacking in judgement, sense and impartiality.

Pete MacMillan

There are many carcinogens used in our daily lives, smoking is one, asbestos (was/is) another, I seem to recall washing up liquid is another. Obviously there are many more.
Does smoking cause all lung cancer; no. Does it cause some of the lung cancer; yes.

John from CA

I just found this post on Stephan Lewandowsky’s site under his most recent post.
I am pleased to report that I received advice from executives of the University of Western Australia earlier today, that no legal or privacy issues or matters of research ethics prevent publication of the names of those bloggers.
So here they are:
Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.

Scooper's Temporary Ghost Micro Bear

Does Lewandowsky warrant this level of interest? He seems to be an activist rather than a scientist and his work is clearly absurd.

I hope the ethics committee pointed out that they take a very dim view of someone undermining the University’s reputation this way: that academics can’t use the good name of their University to try give credence to abysmal work which appears to have no purpose other than to denigrate some blog posters that he just happen to disagree with.

John from CA

Scooper’s Temporary Ghost Micro Bear says:
September 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Does Lewandowsky warrant this level of interest? He seems to be an activist rather than a scientist and his work is clearly absurd.
No, he doesn’t but the paper was reviewed, published, and picked up by the press.

Robert M

There is definitely a language problem here.
I believe that it is FALSE that smoking causes cancer. My Mom and Dad both smoked. (Both still going strong, no cancer.) My Mom at least a pack a day for over 40 years. No cancer. Ergo smoking does not cause cancer.
I also believe that smoking:
1. Dramatically increases the RISK of lung cancer.
2. Increases the risk of other health problems:
A. High Blood pressure.
B. Kidney problems.
C. Heart problems.
D. Other lung problems besides cancer. (COPD)
E. Other problems not mentioned above, but the list is extensive. Any of these problems WILL kill you. Sooner or later, and not a pretty way to go either.
3. Is just plain nasty. (In my youth) I never dated a smoker, not one single time. Smokers were automatically removed from the pool of potential mates.

I read the question “smoking causes cancer” as meaning “the result of smoking is cancer”. This is not true, because a lot of people who smoke do not get cancer (especially those who set fire to their houses smoking in bed).
The question “how many doctors think smoking causes cancer” was even more interesting, because I’ve never met a doctor who wasn’t extremely careful about what they say, does and doesn’t “cause” anything. After all, they regularly get sued for saying the wrong thing.
I just could not imagine a doctor saying something as categorical as “smoking causes cancer” … because more than likely someone would spend all their money then start a civil action against the doctor because THEY DIDN’T GET CANCER when they had planned to die early.


let’s face it, “Smoking causes lung cancer” is just a woefully incompetent statement, as are most statements on the survey. It is question that cannot be accurately answered, it is too open to interpretation.
If the question was something like “Heavy smoking significantly raises the probablility of getting lung cancer.” Then you could give a reasoned response.


AND…….. it is totally irrelevant who Lewy sent emails to.
The only relevance is where he did the actual survey, and it WASN’T on skeptic blogs.


I know that if I got an email with a survey like that, the email would be deleted and never bothered with again. JUNK MAIL and SPAM should be treated that way. always.
How many people remember junk mail they deleted even last week !!


Smoking may not CAUSE cancer, but the moon landings CAUSED aliens.
It’s true, look it up.

Why are we even discussing smoking and lung cancer? The Lew uses this topic (and others) to slander skeptics and take the focus off AGW; by following this line we are doing exactly what he wants of us- he wins. Whether or not we smoke or believe smoking causes cancer has no bearing on the science or not of global warming. Let’s just stay on message: The Lew is a lewnie.
For the record, I hate smoking and agree with Robert M’s points. It can cause grievous health problems in every part of the body as well as increasing cancer risk roughly 50-100 times.

Small clarification: I have no evidence that The Lew is mentally unstable, so I withdraw that suggestion- but his paper definitely makes you wonder.


How is smoker defined? I’ve read that anyone who smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime was classified a smoker and under 100 a non-smoker. There are a lot of variables that aren’t defined and to say “smoking causes lung cancer” is not scientific.” Why do people in some countries get lung cancer at a much higher rate than others? Considering the money involved, just like AGW, it makes one wonder about the results. AMA got millions to promote non-smoking along with millions more made available for promotion of non-smoking. No doubt, smoking is not good for you and certainly contributes to lung cancer. Any reliable study would have to include the occupational environment and lifestyles of the patients. For instance how is a smoking coal miner or an industrial worker classified?
I just read an article in the Atlantic from 1956 on the subject and it was stated that city dwellers got lung cancer at twice the rate of country people. The latest is that lung cancer among non-smokers is on the rise. Smoking is a huge risk factor but he cannot be said to be the cause and I would never defend smoking, but the discussion is scientific not emotional.


The problem with simply saying “We all agree that smoking causes cancer”, is that if it were true then all smokers must get cancer. Asbestos is a carcinogen, however not always. But if a smoker works in friable asbestos, their chances of getting lung cancer are six times that of a non-smoker. There have been too many marginal scientific studies published, and just like today’s CO2 bogus science, part of it is accurate, but part is inaccurate and anyone who points out the inaccuracies gets shouted down – shill for Big Tobacco, shill for Big Oil. Science goes out the window when PNS walks into a room.
We need to fight all PNS occurrences, not just selectively select a few to resist. PNS has been here in other guises, it led directly to the Dark Ages. Thomas Aquinas saved us then with the re-discovery of Aristotelian logic, how long would it take in the future for people to rediscover logic?

Bob Koss

Why is SL not listing JunkScience as one of the skeptics contacted? They even posted a link to the survey, although heavily caveated.
The link is titled: Attitudes Towards Science, about 1/4 of the way down this page.


“Rather than answer the question, Lewandowsky, the author of a paper entitled “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, deleted the question”
Lewandowsky deletes anything he doesn’t like. At the survey replication post, Skiphil showed us a good comment someone had posted at Lewandowsky’s blog. He was right on his prediction. The comment was gone from Lewandowsky ‘s blog very quickly. I recopy it here. It’s very accurate.
Skiphil says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm
lol, amusing comment on the Lewandowsky article, probably won’t last with all the snipping that is going on there:
18. LewPaper at 11:56 AM on 10 September, 2012
This blog’s policies emphasize “civil and substantive” discussions and fostering “conditions for reasoned debate”.
Do authors and members of the Editorial Board actually regard Professors Lewandowsky’s last several articles here as “civil and substantive”?
Does the smearing of all sources of criticism foster “conditions for reasoned debate”?
Across the academic and policy worlds this blog is an extreme outlier, a locus of reckless ad hominems and slovenly discourse. Its sponsors and and contributors should be deeply ashamed of what Professor Lewandowsky has done to this forum. Thank you for your consideration.

Meanwhile over at Pointman’s blog (, Lew has shot from relative obscurity to second spot in voting for the Climate Prat of the Year Award. Aussies in the first three places. Dear O dear.


I currently smoke 3 pack per day.(Marlboro Light 100s). I am aware of the risks. I have no male ancestors, back to great grandfather, who lived past 70. I have many female grandmothers who live into their late 80s and early 90s. I drink heavily too. And again I am absolutely convinced that what I am doing to myself reduces my life expectancy.
OTOH, I do not believe that the CAGW hypothesis is correct.

Gunga Din

I won’t get into the smoking diversion.
I do have a question though about the Lewpaper. Are any of the warmist main players still using this paper for anything other than what it really is? Is it being taken seriously?


possibly OT, or left field
but Lew has identified two groups by the sites they frequent, and subsequently targeted his survey(s) at those sites
how would he have conducted this survey in the olden days ? before the web

Steve C

On smoking causing cancer, as several folk here have noted, it’s not inevitable, but is perhaps one of those things that depends on genetic makeup. From what Anthony says, clan Watts must have a particularly susceptible gene somewhere, if both parents and at least one of their children have succumbed to tobacco-related problems. (Might be worth offering a DNA sample to some researchers somewhere? – Just a thought, I’d consider it.) Also, it depends what you smoke of course.
On politics, thelastdemocrat says: “One strategy is disinformation on the disinformation by infiltrating the conspiracy groups.” – Yes, that’s probably the commonest strategy “they” use. I can’t think of any current protest groups that don’t show signs of having been taken over: did no-one else notice how the “Occupy” protesters were “proposing” economic policies originated by the international bankers? Tea Party? Compromised. Show me a grassroots oranisation today, I’ll show you a compromised, astroturf organisation tomorrow. If you want to revolt, don’t form a “movement” or it will be infiltrated and corrupted just as soon as it gets out of your direct control. Just … do it, if I can say that without WUWT getting sued by a well-known sprtswear company.
On Lewandowsky … (snort of laughter) … it just gets better, doesn’t it? Puts your own problems in perspective.


I will say again that I believe that people are giving this outlier Lew to much credit and should just be ignored as he is simply trying to prompt PR for his cause.
As I sure most commenter’s here are aware people like Hansen and Mann are the people to watch and as this year has shown all they have left is begging people to believe them on twitter. Let them preach to there believes just question there LOL science when they finally try and fake some more.

Hi Anthony
More (worse?) censorship: ( I have attached a word doc, with before and after screen captures)
Lewandowsky’s very first article responding to criticisn: Nasa and the Blogosphere
I made the first comment, and I quoted Tom Curtis, and I linked to the original location of Tom Curtis’ comment at Sceptical Science..
This part of my comment has now been censored:
“Secondly, Tom Curtis at the ‘consensus blog’ – Skeptical Science’ one of the so called ‘pro-science’ blogs surveyed had this to say about the paper and its data. Perhaps a response from the authors is due.
Tom Curtis: “Given the low number of “skeptical” respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation.
It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.”
————————– end of censored comment
(the quote is comment 37# at the Skeptical Science link)
The above comment lasted at for SIX days before being removed.
This quote has now been removed, the moderator now saying accusations of fraud are not allowed, and too much extensive cutting and pasting.. (4 sentences!)
they also removed the link to Skeptical Science, less any of their readers see it..
I’ve attached before and after screen captures.
Censored page: (I’m comment 1#)
Tom did say (at Skeptical Science) he was under a lot of pressure, because of that quote…
Tom Curtis: Comment 108 (Skeptical Science)
Tom: “Finally, you say that I am damaging my reputation. My reputation at SkS has been built on reasoning in exactly this style, but with “skeptical” arguments and comments as the target. The only difference now is that my target is somebody closely associated with the defense of climate science. It appears, then, that my reputation with you has been built not on my analysis, but on my agreement with your opinion. [inflamatory snipped]
Perhaps you would like to reconsider that comment; [inflamatory snipped]
[SkS]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] [Mildly] Inflamatory snipped. Discussion of this topic is becoming a little too heated. Please can we all keep the discussion as impersonal as possible, and based purely on reason [for which Tom rightly has an excellent reputation IMHO].
If any passing Australian citizens are reading this… is a PUBLICALLY funded blog with Grants from UWA
Prof Stephan Lewandowsky (School of Psychology, University of Western Australia)
Prof Steven Smith (ARC Center of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, University of Western Australia)
maybe someone should contact the editorial board (or Jo Nova 😉 )


Ken Stewart:
At September 10, 2012 at 2:30 pm you ask

Why are we even discussing smoking and lung cancer?

I answer: because it goes to the heart of what is wrong with the survey.
Smoking greatly increases the risk of acquiring cancer (and several other diseases) but it does not cause cancer. This is similar to the difference between walking through a forest or along a country road: walking along the road does not cause a person to be run over but it does increase the risk that they will be run over.
Scientifically literate people will understand the difference between “cause” and “increased risk” so are likely to answer “No” when asked “Does smoking cause cancer?”.
So, what do you know from the survey if it indicates most climate realists don’t agree that “smoking causes cancer”?
Does that result indicate they reject the scientific finding that science greatly increases the risk of contracting cancer?
Does that result indicate they are more scientifically educated so have an above average understanding of the principles of causality?
The result of that question can be asserted to indicate either possibility. Simply, their answer can be interpreted to indicate that they accept “science” or that they reject “science”, and the interpretation can be reported as a ‘finding’. And if the climate realists mostly answer “yes” then that can also be interpreted to indicate either possibility (think about it).
So, the question itself is a demonstration that the survey is flawed; whatever result is obtained then the answer can be represented as indicating whatever the so-called researcher wants to assert about climate realists.

John M

MikeN says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:50 am

That’s not what the reference to Sister Souljah means. He is referring to Clinton’s attacking of Sister Souljah, and saying that’s what someone needs to do here.

I see your point. Given that meaning, it looks like it’s Tom Curtis who’s having his “Sister Lew Moment”.


Thank you to all of the people who have pointed out the difference between “smoking causes cancer” and “smoking increases the risk of cancer”. I too believe that smoking only increases the risk of lung cancer, and lots of other health problems. My father was a smoker for 40 years and died from lung cancer. The VA also determined that he had (possibly) been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, and ruled that as the cause of his condition. Who knows why he got lung cancer? Either smoking or Agent Orange or both or neither (he was also a farmer who handled a lot of pesticides). I have no idea, but I do not think that smoking automatically causes lung cancer, any more than I think Dad’s possible limited exposure to Agent Orange(he was in country when it was used, but never knew of direct exposure) caused his lung cancer.


Hey Lew: Bring it. Wear kevlar. You’ll need it.


That being an election year in the US, I wonder why the question are you Demo or Repu was not asked?