Guest post by Russell Cook
Lewandowsky et. al’s faulty methodology is just one of the paper’s problems; like many other ‘skeptic’ motivation analyses, its central premise is unproven and relies on a SINGLE highly questionable source.
Experts like Steve McIntyre pore over the manner in which the Lewandowsky paper’s survey was conducted. But there is another basic problem with this paper and others essentially similar to it, where a collective analysis proposes to explain why anyone would deny the settled science of global warming. Such papers operate under a false premise, namely that analysis is needed because the science is settled and skeptic scientists – who arguably are the only people qualified in this issue to offer science assessment opposition that might be valid – are corrupt.
No need to go any farther into the Lewandowsky paper than its first page to see this, where it says in the top paragraph that “More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions”, followed with a statement in the second paragraph that researchers “in history and sociology frequently cite the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by vested interests and political groups….”
This latter reference is in regard to the so-called ‘lies’ that skeptic scientists are said to be spreading via associations with right-wing think tanks. Immediately following each statement are citations from people who’ve made basically the same statements over many years: IPCC scientist Stephen Schneider and researchers William Freudenburg, Aaron McCright, Riley Dunlap, Chris Mooney, and Naomi Oreskes. A less evident but still troubling glimpse into this overall problem is the citation on pg 4 of Max Boykoff in regard to “the scientific consensus on climate change is often misrepresented in the media” and on pg 5 of Myanna Lahsen in support of the assertion that there is are “notions of a conspiracy among [skeptic] scientists.”
The core problem is the premise that skeptic scientists should be ignored because they are corrupt. The question is, who do these people rely on to prove this accusation? Rummage through any of the above individuals’ variety of writings and presentations, and a disturbing single source ultimately emerges:
- William R. Freudenburg, AAAS 2010 Annual Meeting, February 22, 2010, Organizer: Riley E. Dunlap, Discussants: Stephen H. Schneider, Naomi Oreskes, Speakers: Myanna Lahsen, Maxwell T. Boykoff, William R. Freudenburg,Understanding Climate-Change Skepticism: Its Sources and Strategies“(transcript here): “The Heartland Institute is one of the right-wing think-tanks that Riley [Dunlap] talked about, asking ‘can 19,000 scientists be wrong?’ Number one, that’s a very loose definition of ‘scientists’ that they use. And number two, a journalist Ross Gelbspan almost 15 years ago started saying ‘they sure can be’. What we’ve got here is a persistent and well funded campaign of denial.” (Note: At the above AAAS presentation, Naomi Oreskes said “the US coal industry launched a half million-dollar campaign … to challenge the scientific evidence regarding global warming….The number one point of this strategy was to reposition global warming as theory, not fact.”)
- Naomi Oreskes, 2007 PowerPoint Presentation “You Can Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming”, “Reposition global warming as theory not fact”, Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point, 51-52
- Chris Mooney, “The Republican War on Science” 2007 book: “…climatologist Patrick Michaels, a recipient of substantial energy industry funding” … End note 62 “Michaels’s industry ties are documented in Gelbspan, The Heat is On”
- Chris Mooney, “Is Climate Denial Corporate Driven, or Ideological?” Desmogblog, 1/19/11: “Recently, I’ve been reading some research by Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University who collaborates frequently with Aaron McCright, another sociologist at Michigan State. Together, they’ve done penetrating work on the right wing resistance to climate change science in the US…” (Note: Joe Romm stated in 2008, “Ross Gelbspan, whose defining books Boiling Point and The Heat is On were a big part of the inspiration for starting the DeSmogBlog…”)
- Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright, Pg 144 Chapter 10, Organized Climate Change Denial 2011 book: “The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex, and relatively coordinated ‘denial machine’ (Begley 2007)” (Note, this is the Sharon Begley Newsweek article in which she quoted without citation, “….the Information Council on the Environment. ICE’s game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” ”)
- And; Dunlap / McCright, Pg 148: ” …the fossil fuels industry pioneered the charge against climate science and policy making. (Begley 2007; Gelbspan 1997; Goodell 2007)” (Note, the latter is Jeff Goodell’s book “Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy” in which he said, “Western Fuels was one of the key backers of the Information Council on the Environment, a front group whose explicit purpose, according to Gelbspan, was to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”)
- Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff, FAIR, November/December 2004 “Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias”: “In terms of the global warming story, “balance” may allow skeptics—many of them funded by carbon-based industry interests—to be frequently consulted and quoted in news reports on climate change. Ross Gelbspan … charges in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming”
- Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff, “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press’ ”: …a small group of influential spokespeople and scientists emerged in the news to refute these [IPCC] findings (Gelbspan, 1998; Leggett, 2001; Schneider, 2001)” (Note, the Leggett citation is of Greenpeace’s Jeremy Leggett’s 2001 book “The carbon war: global warming and the end of the oil era” in which his acknowledgements section says, “to Ross Gelbspan for editorial assistance and for deploying his skills as an investigative journalist…” and where he says on pg 162, “Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist… had been researching the carbon club’s dissidents for more than three years.”)
- Myanna Lahsen, “Chapter 5, The Detection and Attribution of Conspiracies: The Controversy Over Chapter 8” 1999, Pg 116: “Oil and coal companies have spent millions of dollars to hire public relations groups to orchestrate such efforts as well as aggressive media campaigns seeking to undermine public concern about global warming (Gelbspan 1995; 1997). An early example of such campaigns was the Information Council for the Environment (ICE)”
- Stephen Schneider (& Richard Wolfson), “Chapter 1, Understanding Climate Science”, 2002 PDF file, pdf’s pg 41, “A concerted effort by a handful of climate ‘contrarians’ or ‘greenhouse skeptics’—scientists who do not share the views of most climate scientists—has kept the ‘debate’ on global warming very much in public view.22” … End note 22 “Gelbspan, R., 2000: The Heat Is On”
- And; pdf’s pg 46: “The amplified influence of these “greenhouse skeptics,” and their close ties to the fossil-fuel industry, are well documented by journalist Ross Gelbspan in his book The Heat Is On.”
- Stephen Schneider, “Laboratory earth: the planetary gamble we can’t afford to lose” January 1997, pg 160: “For an exposé of a number of prime “contrarians” and their supporters, see R. Gelbspan, Dec. 1995. The heat is on. Harpers 35. Gelbspan is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.” (Note: Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer)
I could go on at length, and readers here are likely to find other connections I’ve missed, along with related problems which would take multiple articles to describe, such as the Boykoff situation I wrote about last June. But my point is the unmistakeable thread throughout all of this. It is eerily too easy to spot Ross Gelbspan’s associations with practically any given person who claims skeptic scientists are corrupt.
And Gelbspan, as I’ve pointed out earlier, has never proven he has any evidence to support his accusation that skeptic scientists are paid to manufacture doubt about man-caused global warming.
It certainly appears that what we have instead is around two decades of efforts by enviro-activists to manufacture doubt about the credibility of the skeptics. So, how many more attempts to smear skeptics can be thrown on this pile before the whole thing collapses?
Russell Cook’s collection of writings on this issue can be seen at “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists.” You may also follow him at Twitter via @questionAGW
[Duplicated text removed. Robt]
Regarding Albert Einstein
The physics (Newtonian mechanics) that Einstein partially overturned had been accepted by all scientists in the field for over 200 years. It had been confirmed both by observation and experiment many times. What Einstein did was to propose and show that Newtonian mechanics was a special, but not a general, case. Relativity was the general case and extended Newton’s “laws”. Newton’s laws only break down at very high velocities (high fractions of c) and are still used at “normal” velocities, including such things as interplanetary navigation.
Einstein was not an intellectual with advanced degrees, but a man who only had a teachers diploma in mathematics. He was even unable to obtain a teaching position but had to take a job as a clerk in the Swiss patent office. His early work was done entirely in his own time and at his own expense, without the resources of a university or other research organisation. He could validly be called the ultimate amateur scientist. His work was later to be denigrated by a politically influenced national science body, possibly a favourable situation for the world.
We now can compare his situation with the current state of “climate science” and the denigration of the “sceptics”. There are parallels in every instance.
We come to the accusations of “amateur unqualified” people not working in the field whose opinions should be ignored if the bulk of the experts disagree.
The amateurs wish to extend the science (within the scientific method), not limit it, but the experts have a fixation on one small part of the science and ignore the scientific method.
The amateurs want the science to be open with regard to data, methods and results with free and open discussion most of the professionals in the field appear to want a “closed shop”.
The amateurs appear to want the science to be treated purely scientifically but politics seems to be a major factor for many of the professionals.
I am certain that there are many points that I have missed but I have been up all night and it will soon be dawn. I apologise if this missive is somewhat rambling.
Goodnight all
Jo Nova’s site is down again. Hit too many nerves over the Lewandowsky paper?
http://joannenova.com.au/
Is this Psychology or psychosis?
tadchem says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:19 am
“Look at how much money the ‘carbon industries’ are pouring into the environmental movement in a naive attempt to buy goodwill.”
They’re not buying goodwill. They are fighting each other. Example: Duke Energy supports Cap&Trade – they don’t care because they’re a local monopolist and it will harm the competition.
NatGas industry funding Sierra Club to rail against coal.
Maybe carbon based industries funding anti nuclear protests (this is only a suspicion, but why not).
Etc etc.
The new EPA regulation prohibiting new coal plants by limiting the allowed amount of CO2 per MWh? Just a new barrier to entry for upstarts. The list is endless – in the energy market, for every loser there’s a winner.
Richard of NZ says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:15 am
“Einstein […] could validly be called the ultimate amateur scientist.”
Great observation!
steveta_uk says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:03 am
““identical wavelength thermal radiation from the lower atmosphere turns it off”
Oh dear – it’s a shame when the CAGW nutters who are so convinced about the conspiracy theories being pushed on WUWT are given evidence that there really are conspiracy nutters pushing theories on WUWT,”
“Turns it off” should better be replaced by “is [partially] neutralized [by energy flow in the opposite direction, obviously]”. Look up Prevost exchange, the term does exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium#Prevost.27s_definitions
He was a bit early so he didn’t know about photons etc but it looks like he got the basics right.
Bob Shapiro:
Bob, stop talking. Take your hands away from the keyboard, and leave them away.
Building on DaveA’s quote (September 11, 2012 at 8:25 am) of Michael Mann referring “to some other books that have been written on this topic that actually trace much of the attacks against climate science and climate scientists to various organisations and front groups that derive most of their funding from the fossil fuel industry”, I mentioned Mann’s references in a prior WUWT comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/dr-michael-mann-compares-inconvenient-visitors-to-his-facebook-page-to-beetle-larvae/#comment-1043394
This sort of thing goes all the way to top people at the IPCC, as I detailed in my American Thinker piece last year, IPCC vice chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele’s saying Dr S Fred Singer was corrupt: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/climate_science_and_corruption.html
What I didn’t know at the time I wrote that article was the way van Ypersele was relying on Naomi Oreskes as his source for the accusation: “IPCC vice-chair: Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/28/ipcc-climate-science-attacks-tobacco
It’s been a wild exercise to see how people source this accusation, and then trace it back from there, only to see it arrive at the same “Gelbspan” origin… the few exceptions being references to the more murky handling of the accusation in the ’91 – late ’95 span of time before Gelbspan took over.
AlecM says: “…Hansenkoism…”
I LIKE it!
There must be mountains of evidence of a well funded denialist machine from those fossil fuel interests. I mean, they keep repeating it so it must be out there. Now let’s see…………..
What’s this?
Oh this is getting too much for me……………
and on and on………………….
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/tag/funding-issues/
Sorry the last reference is for CRU. Forgot the url
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Bruce C says:
September 11, 2012 at 7:14 am
Can someone ask Mr Lewandowsky (or whatever his name is);
Had the UN / IPCC, M. Mann, J. Hansen et all, and your own Govt. NOT started campaigning or mentioning anything about cAGW / Climate Change, would you yourself have noticed any difference in the Earths climate today?
—-
An excellent question to ask. You could try posting in on the Shapingthefuture blog (or whatever it’s called)
“Had the UN / IPCC, M. Mann, J. Hansen et all, and your own Govt. NOT started campaigning or mentioning anything about cAGW / Climate Change, would you yourself have noticed any difference in the Earths climate today?”
I guess this is supposed to be a trick question, because who knows much about the “Earth’s climate” without science. But if you asked instead whether people have noticed any difference in the climate where they live, quite a few could say yes. I could.
Yes, it is quite obvious who the real conspiracy-nuts are. The accusation of unfounded conspiracy mongering is pure projection. It is especially ironic for a paper that accuses its ideological opposition of conspiracy mongering to take a blatantly unfounded conspiracy theory as one of its premises. The funding advantage for the “consensus” over the last 15 years is on the order of $100b vs a few millions for the skeptics. For these consensoids to complain that they are being beaten by funding is preposterous.
I’d like to see the results of Lewandowski’s questionnaire separated out for the correlation between consensus views and his 9/11-truther question. It is well known that the vast majority of self-identified Democrats accept consensus climate views, and that an amazingly high number, something on the order of 50%, also give substantial credence to the claim that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Mainstream Democrat “trutherism” became such a phenomenon that there was no hiding it. Even radical leftist fruitcake Ben Smith at Politico did not even try. Here is his 2006 report on a Scripps-Howard poll:
Multiply those percentages together (Democrats who believe in consensus climate views and in 9/11-trutherism, and a strong correlation between these views is pretty much inevitable in Lewandowski’s survey, and if that is borne out then THAT is the correlation between climate-views and conspiracy theorizing that is actually newsworthy. It also fits right in with Lewandowski’s own conspiracy theorizing about skeptic funding.
So…. their point seems to be that oil money corrupts, but government money does not.
Must be the special ink.
Like most Stalinists, what these people fear most is informed dissent or, if you will, skepticism as a crucial component of scientific progress. They think they can freeze the truth as they perceive it in place. That’s why (to relate this to the post above on the paucity of tree-ring data gathering in the past quarter century) McIntyre’s Starbucks Hypothesis is so relevant. They have their truth and any attempt to continue research that might falsify it is considered subversive. Woe be to him who challenges the iron-clad consensus!! This is science?
It’s so obvious that their science is ideology-driven and that their policy goals have shaped the science.
The fact is that the theory of AGW was embraced and beloved BEFORE the science was remotely settled. The knee-jerk, hostile response to any attempt to disprove it is settled indicates that Climate Science has become politically-motivated, authoritarian science.
Call it “statist science.” That’s what it’s really all about. Giving their friends in government (“the state”) more functions and regulatory power.
Most? That wouldn’t apply to any of the big US think tanks like Heartland (under 10% I think), Cato, etc. Maybe Marshall gets a somewhat higher percentage.
Here are other conspiracy theories (besides truthism) likely accepted by more warmists than contrarians, and that would have been included in a SCIENTIFIC (impartial) survey. (I’m not saying these are wrong–I’ll leave that broad-brush insinuation for Dr. Lew to imply.) There must be half a dozen more:
JFK killed by the CIA / oilmen
UFOs
Diebold’s voting machines are rigged
Dark Alliance (CIA drug smuggling)
Conventional Western medicine is a racket / scam
Jo Nova’s site is up and running again.
No need to go any farther into the Lewandowsky paper than its first page to see this, where it says in the top paragraph that “More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions”, followed with a statement in the second paragraph that researchers “in history and sociology frequently cite the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by vested interests and political groups….”
=====================================================================
The “manufacture of doubt” by vested interests and political groups?
How about the “manufacture of belief” by vested interests and political groups?
On another thread regarding Lewandowsky smoking came up alot. Has the Doctor Lew said anything about Doctor Mann being defended by … er … represented by an attorney that defended “Big Tobacco”?
Why does the person bringing the lawsuit need a defense attorney?
Lewandowsky’s paper and rantings remind me of Gleick and his testimony/lecture to the senate on ‘ethics’ (no you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried).
Gleick was accusing skeptics, ‘funded by the fossil fuel industry’, of using ‘unethical dirty tricks’ and even categorised the deceit and ‘abuse of the scientific process’, his list included – ‘mischaracterising facts’, ‘scientific misconduct’, ‘personal attacks on scientists’, ‘arguments from ideology rather than evidence’. Gleick, who had received a ‘genius’ award was then caught using deceit and unethical dirty tricks by producing a faked document and impersonating a board member of Heartland in an attempt to discredit Heartland (and other skeptics) to prove his conspiracy theory (he was soon caught because he left the equivalent of his name and address on the document). Unsurprisingly skeptics suggested his list was actually his own tactical battle plan or even that during his testimony to the senate he had read out his own curriculum vitae by mistake!
Lewandowsky, on the one hand accuses skeptics of being well organised funded and in conspiracy with the fossil fuel industry and on the other hand of being paranoid nutters who believe in conspiracy theories……
Sorry, but I can’t help but see similarities between Gleick and Lewandowsky – but then I’m just a paranoid skeptic owed billions by the fossil fuel industry. In fact with this constant ‘melting’ we keep hearing about the Wicked Witch of the West must be getting very worried as Lewandowsky must expect that soon the only thing left of the Arctic will be a pair of ruby slippers and a few ‘Munchkin Men’.
One of the most iniquitous things that CAGW scientists and activists (now one and the same) have done is to pervert the English language in their obsession with the belief that their view is absolute and unquestionable dogma.
Skepticism is fundamental to a university education, most particularly in science. By corrupting the word skeptic, academics and scientists are subverting the foundations of progress in knowledge, technology and science.
Skepticism is doubt and being able to challenge the authoritarian view. All students of science should be taught that their lecturers are fallible. Whatever it is that is being taught should be doubted, questioned and overturned if possible by creative thinking. Students should be encouraged to be skeptical and to think of skepticism as a virtue.
When students hear the likes of Mann, Lewandowsky and anyone who is adamant that CAGW is right and skepticism is wrong they should consider these words:
“Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.” Robert King Merton
“Have no respect whatsoever for authority……Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
“Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation … Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.
“It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.
True Science teaches, above all, to doubt, and to be ignorant.” Richard Feynman
The next time a student of science hears the word “consensus” they should think of Bertrand Russell who wrote:
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
The current crop of Mannian scientists preaching CAGW to their students as being something which is without doubt, were understood by Tolstoy:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
When the likes of Lewandowsky produces such absurd work and CAGW scientists preach that the science is settled students should remember the words of Jaques Monod.
“In science, self-satisfaction is death. Personal self-satisfaction is the death of the scientist. Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research.”
Being skeptical and doubtful is something which today’s students, our future scientists and thinkers, should be proud of. If they are labelled a skeptic for doubting authoritarianism they should take it as a compliment.
I believe that there is at work a concerted effort to depict sceptics of the CAGW thesis as conspiracy theorists. Does that me a conspiracy theorist?
Dirk and AlecM
“switching off radiation”
If two identical bodies are side by side radiating at each other, how do they decide who radiates ?
FUD tactics?
mfo says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm
One of the most iniquitous things that CAGW scientists and activists (now one and the same) have done is to pervert the English language in their obsession with the belief that their view is absolute and unquestionable dogma.
Skepticism is fundamental to a university education, most particularly in science. By corrupting the word skeptic, academics and scientists are subverting the foundations of progress in knowledge, technology and science.
========
I was thinking exactly the same thing due to the misuse of terms in the Lewandowsky paper.
Lewandowsky clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of terms like Alarmist, Affirmer, Warmer, Luke Warmer, Skeptic, Realist, and Denier. It would make a difference if all sides of the climate debate could at least agree on the appropriate meaning for the terms.