UPDATE: For all you angry taunting types (Stoat aka William M. Connolley for example) that claim that this post represents a claim of conspiracy theory itself (hint: try to find the word in the post) you might want to register you participation in the original in the census here – Anthony
There’s a lot that has been going on behind the scenes with the Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky “moon landing paper” affair. It turns out that Dr. Lewandowsky is part of a larger association that I dub the Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link.
You see it turns out that all that serial deleting of comments when Steve McIntyre asked some simple questions about how some blog responders might have “faked” responses in Lewandowsky’s survey, thus rendering it useless for the conclusion, had a root in the behavior seen on John Cook’s main website, Skeptical Science. Poptech has just published a scathing review of the intolerance for debate/questions there. I found this one comment he posted as stunning:
“Exit strategy for the Meet the Denominator thread: Do we have one? […] Poptech is indefatigable …Against such an adversary traditional methodologies are doomed to impasse. This makes the thread the Skeptical Science version of Afghanistan (substitute with many other protracted losing campaigns). I say we let Rob write up a closing synopsis …but giving Skeptical Science the last word. And lock the thread & throw away the key.” – Daniel Bailey [Skeptical Science], February 18, 2011
John Cook opines:
“[O]ne of the moderators flagged Poptech as a spammer and that deleted EVERY comment he ever posted off all the comments threads.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], October 11, 2011
“[W]e should have a blanket ban of any mention of Poptech in any SkS blog posts – not give him any oxygen.” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], March 21, 2012
We have our troublemakers on WUWT as well, and I’ve banned a few, and I understand this is sometimes neccessary, but this sort of intolerant behavior when it comes to debating facts in evidence has surfaced again recently with Steve McIntyre’s straightforward questions to Dr. Lewandowsky. See Lewandowsky Censors Discussion of Fake Data:
Comment didnt last long.
There’s a curiosity about the time stamp, it appears to have been edited server side or perhaps Steve submitted the comment twice and the second one was deleted and the first one snipped. We can’t be sure, but it is clear that on that thread, wholesale intolerance for questions about the methodology of the Lewandowsky “moon landing paper” were the norm as many other commenters had their comments snipped or removed in asking similar questions. It is a green sea of “moderator response”.
There’s even identical language in the deletion between Skeptical Science and Lewandowsky’s thread:
Shub at Bishop Hill on identical language from mods at Lewandowsky blog and at SkS
[emphasis added]
at Lewandowsky’s “ShapingTomorrowsWorld”:
Moderator Response: As an FYI, compliance with the Comments Policy of this site is non-negotiable; moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
at Skeptical Science:
“…Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.”
Now here’s the surprise, and the reason for the post title. The website URL for that Lewandowsky thread is: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=1&t=210&&n=159
Who runs shapingtomorrowsworld.org ? This public domain information shows who:
http://whois.domaintools.com/shapingtomorrowsworld.org
Yes John Cook is the administrator for Lewandowsky’s outlet at shapingtomorrowsworld.org. So, given what happens on his own blog, where there’s serial deletion of comments, and even post facto modification of comments later without the commenters knowledge, it really should not surprise anyone to find that same sort of behavior going on at the Lewandowsky thread when difficult direct questions are asked.
What is even more interesting is that it appears to be a University of Western Australia owned domain, as this little note at the top of the report tells us:
What other domains is Cook associated with? There’s the next surprise. Again, this is public domain information available to anyone who cares to look:
http://whois.domaintools.com/climaterapidresponse.org
Yes, John Cook also runs the Climate Science Rapid Response Team website that marshalls over 135 climate scientists into action whenever there is an outbreak of difficult to answer climate questions posed by skeptics.
It also turns out, that Stephan Lewandowsky is John Cook’s academic advisor:
According to the SkS private forum, Cook and Lewandowsky are very close. One of the forum participants, Tom Dayton, described his background as follows:
Then my PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, where I briefly crossed paths with Steve Lewandowsky, John Cook’s current academic advisor and coauthor while he was a visiting professor.
That’s quite a little activist organization they have running out of the University of western Australia. I wonder if UWA officials realize the extent that UWA has become a base for this global climate activism operation and if they condone it?
It also begs the question of who’s paying the bills? Cook hasn’t produced anything recently in his chosen field of a cartoonist that I am aware of, and it appears he’s fully engaged in climate now.
[This post was edited for clarity about 45 minutes after it was first published – Anthony]
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre reports the survey was also distributed on the UWA campus. He writes:
Some information from sources at the University of Western Australia. On October 21, 2010, the following email was sent to the UWA staff mailing list:
UWA researcher Charles Hanich is seeking participants for a web-based survey of attitudes towards climate science (and other sciences) and skepticism. The survey carries no risks for participants. To participate in the survey please use this link:
http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=HKLJIN_61fa37b2
Completion should take less than 10 minutes and all data will be analyzed anonymously and without monitoring or identifying individual responses.
Ref: RA/4/1/4007
[Notice approved by:
Human Research Ethics Committee,
Research Services, University of Western Australia ]
For some strange reason, the invitation is online at a web aggregator here. (I Googled the survey id.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bill Illis said: “But what they have done instead is just create a whole `nother set of “myths” for the
pro-warmers to quote from endlessly.”
It’s a shame because some of the original myth posts are pretty useful for debunking the oversimplified tripe that passes for “skeptic” commentary at political blogs. I followed a link from one of those (a liberal blog) and started quibbling with some details in the SkepSci post, and ended up quibbling with a number of them.
I think part of the problem is they have debunked most or all of the myths worth debunking and now spend far too much time promoting and defending a caricature of “denier” which is basically a politically motivated rejector of science. But to do that they have to stretch the definition of consensus science to include all sorts of weird crap like Lewandownski’s own belief that rejection of science (defined by them) dovetails with belief in conspiracies. Circular thinking is the best way to describe it.
After being told that Lewandowski had 100 papers, I investigated and saw a lot of interesting papers. I purchased one and found it to be more scientific than I ever expected from a paper on psychology. Unfortunately this recent work of his is extremely poor quality.
I saved the thread on SkS facebook page where I made a complete idiot about of Daniel Bailey. They deleted my comments and banned me from the site but I have saved it for posterity !!
It is no wonder that academia works so hard to make unthinking drones. Here is what Lord Bertrand Russell said almost 60 years ago: “It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”
Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953, pg 49-50
Conspiracy? No, just simple consensus among powerful people who believe that they should maintain their power.
[pointless taunt – moderator]
I stopped visiting or even mentioning THAT website quite some time ago, shortly after first visiting it and experiencing the so-called “moderation” first hand.
Glenn, you make some good points, particularly about the depth (although I would say breadth) of the authors. There is even a healthy cross section of political opinion probably helped by the ban on politics. But there are also numerous problems. One is the constant violations of the ban on “sloganeering”. Unforunately it is very inconsistently enforced, even the moderators will sometimes sloganeer in response to sloganeering.
A related flaw (same as WUWT) is allowing one paragraph “proofs” and “disproofs” of some major portion of AGW or CAGW or the need for urgent action in any and all threads. As McIntyre (who doesn’t allow those) points out, the proof or disproof of such a complex subject simply cannot be done in a paragraph.
Most importantly I don’t think you have addressed the bad social science like Lewandowski’s being inserted and defended ad nauseum. In that case you forgot to light the blowtorch and you ended up with a gas explosion.
Glenn Tamblyn says:
September 13, 2012 at 4:42 am
I posit that is Sks is the non-science venue, and has an agenda.
The posters that come here from SKs seem to be focused only on the “science” that supports their view, i.e. the satellite record. The aim of Sks and it’s “policy” is to keep the focus on only things that support this assertion. Myopic? Yes. Scientific? No.
The other problem is that there is a clear agenda to promote their world-view. “Shaping tomorrow’s world”? What has this to do with climate science? It is an EMOTIONAL plea to live our lives the way THEY deem fit. Based on weak science. That is politics, nothing to do with science.
Some of us see through your political machinations. An honest look at ALL the data pulls the rug right out from under your agenda. You cannot control the discussion here, and it drives you nuts.
You are a liar Glenn, I have never done any such thing and have no such track record. Every single comment I ever made at Skeptical Science was in direct response to the original topic or a comment made by someone else in the discussion. In certain topics I get multiple commentators responding to me and in turn responded to each individually – that was not “flooding” anything. It is amazing that when you can’t back up your bullshit you resort to fabrications. This is not Skeptical Science were you can delete my responses. I am sure you can dig up the handful of comments I made in frustration at the moderators who kept obsessively censoring my comments as that is the dishonesty and lies one can expect from the zealots at Skeptical Science. You are not interested in the truth and this will be slowly and for you guys (painfully) exposed.
Words of wisdom from Glenn,
“Capitalism has reached its Use By Date, need a replacement” – Glenn Tamblyn
“If you can make the opposite view look not just wrong but deliberately misleading then that really weakens the other persons credibility.” – Glenn Tamblyn
“Power to the People.” – Glenn Tamblyn
Glenn Tamblyn says:
September 13, 2012 at 4:42 am
You might care to do an analysis of the posts at SkS and how many do not carry the John Cook byline. The author community over there is rich, deep and thriving. Why? Because there is a large community of people who are concerned about the issues, want to express opinions based on a deep understanding of the science and communicate that to others.
Which shows that:
“Dup-id” is as “dup-id” does.
(Apologies to Forrest Gump)
Seriously, anyone who is “concerned about the issues”, wants to “express opinions based on a deep understanding of the science” and “communicate that to others” would be wise to stay far away from the SkS and associated websites.
Seems that Lewandowsky has blown a hose in his head
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyDH.html
Jim Spice, do you think your comment was published here because A) It was an example of the razor sharp wit climate alarmists have in their armoury or B) It was an example of just what clunking bellends climate alarmists often are ?
My guess is B.
Ryan says:
September 13, 2012 at 3:17 am
“…We see this kind of thinking a lot from Team AGW and I don’t think we should stoop to the same kind of thinking.”
You are expressing noble sentiments, however this is not a situation where you can sit back with raised palms, deploring the uncivil behavior of others. To do that would be like calling yourself a pacifist for not raising a finger to help a woman or child as they were violated; it might fit the definition of pacifist, but it also fits the definition of coward.
What is the danger? Well, John Cook is meddling with free speech. And Lewandowsky is attempting to marginalize those who speak freely. That can be pretty dangerous, in any social setting, but especially when it becomes government policy.
Who is funding these two fellows, (and their cohorts, if there are any?) Is it the government, in any way, shape or form? If so, you ought be annoyed, if not alarmed, because it is your tax dollars that are going into meddling with your free speech.
I am not subscribing to any sort of conspiracy theory. However I do believe we need to stand up for our right to speak freely, share ideas freely, and come up with rational solutions freely, without facing the threat of marginalization or ostracism. “The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.”
Glenn Tamblyn says – Political comment is off-limits – boring as!
———————————-
They have two recent post/articles on the politics of AGW. I guess their “read only” post/articles. “Political comment is off-limits – boring as!” SMH
I can’t even get questions answered using the exact words from the post/articles. I admit I was wrong on one comment when i called the site tabloid trash. You folks post a subject one day allowing the author to make statements not backed by any science let alone peer reviewed science. Then two or 3 days later go after somebody who doesn’t believe your theory for their Gimp Gallish (?) not sure of the exact phrase. When i pointed it out my comment was deleted.
What i find amusing is the “we debunked” this that or the other. Like you are the final word in the debate.
I love their use of “osterich” , “we debunked” and “reference a citation please” ….
To Glenn Tamblyn,
My dad used to repeat to us a piece of advice my grandfather gave to him. He said there are three things you never want to give people cause to call you, a liar, a thief or a cheat. You Mr Tamblyn are treading extremely close to the line of being a liar.
I quit visiting SkS due to constant deletion of comments and rude arrogant responses. Deleted comments violated no policy except for the apparent policy of not allowing any dissenting opinion or difficult question. And with regard to aggression and insult and abusive language, few have demonstrated a higher ability at that than your own Dana1981.
I’d have to google you to find out who you are, but based on your comment above, one has to question whether or not you possess any sort of honor or integrity. There is no question on you having no sense of shame.
Wouldn’t this qualify as a conspiracy? Secret committees, hidden associations, using university resources for political activism, clandestine meetings?
REPLY: It’s only a conspiracy if skeptics do it. Don’t you any get anything? /sarc – Anthony
Since when did proving some people are suspicious of government, gullible or even outright dishonest PROVE the global warmimg hypothesis – ignore this stupidity !
Timg56… Dana, Daniel and the SkS crowd are SCARED to death by any question that even comes close to making the public notice their Emporer is not wearing any clothes. My wife said I was a bit childish for spending an evening making a total fool of Daniel on the SkS FB site but I am glad I did and saved the thread before they deleted it….
One can see the disgusting quality of SkS “moderation” in full display on the Lewandowsky threads at “ShapingTomorrowsWorld”
SkS authors and mods are out in full-court press trying desperately to deflect and obstruct all critical questions and points with combinations of snipping, diversion, stalling, obtuseness, and filibustering.
SkS flacks should be deeply embarrassed that they cannot press Lewandowsky to answer elementary questions about methodology and data. Instead, they tag-team opposition to any and all critics while SkS mods snip away. Those thread are a travesty for science and open discourse. Lewandowsky writes six of the more puerile posts I have ever read from a supposed academic scientist and the SkS crowd acts as his loyal team running interference for him, trying desperately to help him get to the goal line.
The goal line is evidently to keep a vile and incompetent paper in play long enough to enable more media headlines. Once it is part of the folklore of media commentary on climate issues it will never go away, and the SkS propagandists know this well.
Glen Tamblyn:
“Dispute the rebuttals by all means – that will be freely accepted and discussed.”
I call BS (and no, not Bad Science). I have repeatedly disputed the rebuttals with links to papers and information. In return I am not met with my comment being “freely accepted and discussed” but instead I get insults (“climate ostrich”, etc), ridicule and simple deletion.
And it’s not limited to SkS, challenge any key AGW pillar on any CAGW site and you’re met with exactly the same.
Want to know something ironic? The only sites who actually offer a full and free scientific discussion are the “anti-science” sceptic sites.
The oppressor claiming to be oppressed. Chapter 3 in “Tyranny for Dummies”.
Glenn Tamblyn says: More warmist BS, on September 13, 2012 at 4:42 am
____________
Note to sensible people (warmists can stop reading here):
In science, your predictive record is an objective test of your theory and your competence in your field.
The global warming alarmists have NO predictive track record. ALL of their scary global warming and wild weather predictions have failed to materialize.
The warmists have predicted catastrophic global warming in response to increased atmospheric CO2, yet despite increasing CO2 there has been no net global warming for 10-15 years.
The warmists have also predicted wilder weather in response to global warming, yet there is nothing unusual about today’s weather when compared to the historic record.
The evidence strongly suggests that global temperature changes experienced in recent centuries are overwhelmingly natural in origin, and that changes in atmospheric CO2 experienced over this period have NO significant impact on global temperatures or weather.
Furthermore, there is growing evidence that global warming alarmism is a social phenomenon, not a scientific one. For further information, please see
“Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, Charles Mackay, 1841.
Here is Glenn Tamblyn secretly conversing with his SkS pals and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”:
I don’t know whether to we should take Glenn Tamblyn seriously or laugh at him, to be honest.
PS: My first comment in WUWT threads in many months. I had to set up a new email account just for this since WordPress has all my other email addresses and wouldn’t allow commenting without log on to WordPress.
It’s a wee way back in the thread, but someone wanted to know who Lewandowsky is connected to. His Facebook friends including Stefan Rahmstorf, Jim Salinger and David Karoly among others
The Skeptical Science Facebook page is moderated by Barbel Winkler, whose Friends list also makes interesting reading and gives you access to John Cook’s Friends list.
Perhaps Josh could do a cartoon along the lines of what you get when you are “Cooking in the Lew”?