(See the update below where SkS compares Climate Skeptics to the Viet Cong along with needing….”a conspiracy to save humanity”.)
LewWorld continues to crumble from within and Skeptical Science has been exposed as conspiracy theory central, according to Dr. Judith Curry, who sums up your failure quite well:
The latest ‘explanation’ for lack of belief in the IPCC consensus ‘truth’ is that these non believers are conspiracy theorists. See Stephan Lewandowsky’s editorial Evidence is overrated if you are a conspiracy theorist. Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey. Bloggers such as Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs). BS detection in action. While I have used the term ‘auditors’ for deep investigations of problems with climate data, BS detection seems much more apt for this particular issue.
Lew, get a clew. I hope this experience with the skeptical bloggers has revealed what they are really all about, as they have revealed YOUR conspiracy by finding a really big pile.
The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum (link). SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers. All this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars. But take a step back, and consider how bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.
Read her post here.
Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre is collecting data on who actually took the survey, if you took the survey in 2010, then please note it in a comment here.
==============================================================
UPDATE: I had pretty much ignored the SkS forum dump when it was happening, thinking that perhaps they were being treated unfairly, but since Cook has gone a bridge too far now with this Lewandowsky mess, I no longer feel the need to hold back on what is going on behind the scenes over there.
Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.
And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.
Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]
So, who are the nutters again?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Once he discovers our secret jungle hideout, perhaps he’ll carpet-bomb us with Agent Orange, to flush us out.
Somebody ought to inform the the poor delusional soul that the type of people most likely to back his campaign (e.g. Ted Turner, who was married to “Hanoi” Jane) have, shall we say, a bit of a soft spot for the Viet Cong.
Nice analogy to Viet Cong. They realize they won, right? Glad by analogy the skeptics are on the winning side by their admission.
Mike Haseler says:
September 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Mike, I remember John Bell’s comments. I’ve done a wonderful music workshop with John Bell and I adore his music, he is gifted, sensitive, original, very special. So is the Iona community he belongs to.
But his comments about climate scientists were rude and ignorant cr*p. I have to separate the two parts of this person. I have to do the same for Prince Charles too.
I intended to email Bell direct but never did. However, I suggest you might like to email both Bell and Lewindowksy direct.
“We need our own … …. Our Monckton’s …”
Monckton? Is that the same Lord Monckton that they constantly try and tell us is just a useless buffoon? The guy who knows no science and is wrong about everything? The guy who is totally irrelevant and not worth debating? etc
This is the funniest bit of the whole set of revelations!!
Lord Monckton really has these people spooked.
Three cheers for Lord Monckton!!!!
= = = = = =
Mike Haseler,
I do not think exposing every aspect of Stephen L’s actively sustained lack of integrity in his attempt to achieve victory for his ’cause’ is a vendetta against him; nor do I think that publicizing his obviously non-scientific behavior done in the very name of science is a vendetta against him . . . it is just that it very important to find the truth about him and tell it widely. Exposure of his case is important to highlight the alarming trend of intolerance of critical (aka skeptical) thinking by the CAGW alarmist advocates (like Stephen L) representing themselves as objective scientists.
We just must be very sure that every detail any of his BS that we find is documented and told to the general public repeatedly. That is all.
The evidence is pointing toward Stephen L. being an shocking example of a scientist who, in the name of science, is trying to use intellectual violence against those skeptical of his biased version science.
John
Monckton is part of the problem, why do you think the ‘concerned’ focus on him so much..
I totally agree with Mike Haseler.
I also hope the mods could take a look at – Temp – comment earlier in the thread. and snip a totally inappropriate sentence. That I utterly detest, and do want to be any part of it.
I will not repeat it, it should be obvious that some of that comment (if not all) is totally inapropriate here, or anywhere.. of course that is my own opinion..
But I might add to Mike Haseler’s comment.
Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action. Not realising if all sceptic blogs (and theor own conspiracy theor fossil fuel funded thinktanks, even Senator Inholf, etc) disapeared tomorrow for a years sabatical.
Nothing would change economically and politically. Kyoto would remain dead, nothing will replace it because the devlping world will not stop growing their ecomonies, which depend on fossil fuels fro growth, and will do for decade. total impasse, and of course solar, wind, renewables are not up to the job to provide our energy requirments.
sceptics are ‘angry’ by ‘scared, irrational, emotive peoples’ comments lashing back is the problem. They ”need’ angry deniers and the too groups shouting each other, less having to confront these real world realities, and reason for political will fading away and they will get angrier, as they get more scared about the lack of action.
That, of course as always, is just my own (albeit strong ) opinion.
Lew Skannen says @ur momisugly September 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm
My thoughts exactly Lew. If Monckton really is the clown the warmists say he is, why do they need ‘a Monckton’.
Finally we know: the superb oratory skill of Lord M has really got the warmists spooked.
Keep it coming my Lord, the warmists are on the run!
Calm down now. Save humanity from what? Who won the Vietnam War? The guerilla force is deserting.
These people have left the reservation. They still think they can win with lies, propaganda and attempts at conspiracies.
Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions
We have to distinguish between the majority who are well meaning and generally civil and the zealots without scruple. Lewandowsky is clearly in the second category and deserves no quarter.
Mike Haseler wrote:
Agreed. But, in a sense that is the problem. A good person wants to save the planet if they think it is in danger. And what cannot be justified to ‘save the planet’? Young people are especially vulnerable to ideologues who can harness that kind of motivation.
Comparisons between the “anti-globalization” mobs that run riot every year and Mao’s Red Guards, for example, are valid.
This is “post-normal” “participatory democracy”. Ozone Action merged with Greenpeace shortly after. John Passacantando, who attended this camp, became Director of Greenpeace.
Mikey, Mike this is Guerrilla warfare. Take no hostages. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He egged sceptics on with his inflammatory paper title so he deserves all he gets. This is not over yet.
PS. The Moon landings DID take place. Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. CAGW is a scam.
Anthony, perhaps you have seen this quote attributed to Richard Feynman in an interview he gave (I can’t verify the accuracy of the quote, as I lifted it from a blog dedicated to an unrelated topic, but where controversy also exists). It seems to fit in your Daily Lew files and seems worth dusting off:
In an interview Feynman gave, he had this to say:
“Because of the success of science there is a kind of a…I think a kind of pseudoscience, social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They don’t do scientific…they follow the forms…you gather data, you do so and so and so forth but they don’t get any laws, they haven’t found anything, they haven’t got anywhere yet, maybe someday they will but it’s not very well developed, but what happens is…even on a more mundane level we get experts on everything. They sound like a sort of scientific experts. They are not scientists. They sit at the typewriter and make up something like, ‘food grown with fertilizer that’s organic is better for you than food that’s grown with fertilizer that’s inorganic.’ Maybe true but it hasn’t been demonstrated one way or the other but they sit there on the typewriter and make up all that stuff as if its science and then become experts on food, organic foods and so on. There is all kind of myths and pseudoscience all over the place. Now, I might be quite wrong, maybe they do know all these things but I don’t think I’m wrong. You see, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something and therefore I can’t…I see how they get their information and I can’t believe that they know it. They haven’t done the work necessary, haven’t done the checks necessary, haven’t done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don’t know that this stuff is…and they are intimidating people by it. I think so. I don’t know the world very well…that’s what I think.”
Mike, you need to wake up and smell the Nescafe. Would you like it roasted or instant?
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
http://www.green-agenda.com
We are dealing with mostly selfish people who only want survival for themselves. Caring about the environment & reducing co2 is just a ruse to reduce the world’s population as much as possible while keeping themselves and their genetic offspring alive. Just ask Prince Phillip who is worried about overpopulation and has 4 kids. Did I mention James Cameron??? Google Mr. Cameron and his lifestyle. 😉
I refer you to my comment above.
I have children and I want to live in a safe world. What makes these green fools think I love my children less than theirs. This is the problem – the Messiah Syndrome – it has killed many people. Just ask that chap with a short mustache who expired at the end of WW2. I vaguely recall that he was a vegetarian green who was passionate about the environment.
Barry Woods says:
September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm
“I also hope the mods could take a look at – Temp – comment earlier in the thread. and snip a totally inappropriate sentence. That I utterly detest, and do want to be any part of it.
I will not repeat it, it should be obvious that some of that comment (if not all) is totally inapropriate here, or anywhere.. of course that is my own opinion..”
Not seeing it… o and the ad hom is a great argument…
“Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action.”
Wow really? You mean like hitler and the jews? Jonestown? Or stalin/mao with capitalists/host of other things… you mean exactly as I had stated above? Who knew?
The “they genuinely believe” BS is just that BS. Your like the chinese farmer who marching along, stopping every few minutes and hearing guns shots. You see some other chinese farmer getting ready to jump the guard and make a run for it. You turn to him and say “Don’t use violence because that means that Mao has won”. Along you march…. until the march ends…
“Sceptics are ‘angry’ by ‘scared, irrational, emotive peoples’ comments lashing back is the problem. They ”need’ angry deniers and the too groups shouting each other, less having to confront these real world realities, and reason for political will fading away and they will get angrier, as they get more scared about the lack of action.”
Skeptics have played the lay down and take it for more then long enough. Unlike you who seems to live in a fantasy land where everything just “works itself out for everyone”. The real world is hardly as nice or forgiving to those or lay down and take it…
Barry Woods says: September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Apart from the fact that I’m not sure how you would have a greater understanding of the “motives of many of the most vocal advocates” than any other skeptic, academics who want their work to have our respect have a responsibility to conduct themselves with a modicum of professionalism – regardless of their personal beliefs (“genuine” or not).
Lewandowsky, Gleick, Mann et al have failed that test abysmally. Considering that those in the mainstream media continue to be remiss in investigating and highlighting such failures, then – as one who recalls that “silence is acquiescence” – I have to ask why should we not shout about their failures, follies and foibles from the rooftops?!
Barry Woods;
Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have it exactly backwards. Those who shout d-nier have a clear and obvious motive, which is to discredit the skeptics without having to discuss the science at all.
Those who discuss the science in support of the CAGW meme have motives that are less clear. They come from a spectrum ranging from those who genuinely believe the science supports their position, to those who simply are misrepresenting if for their own purposes. Except for the most egregious examples of misrepresentation, it is difficult to tell the difference.
But when someone puts a label on their opponent, the purpose can only be to dehumanize and discredit the opponent without regard to the facts and logic of their position. This is history repeating itself. We can only hope that in this case those who dehumanize and discredit their opponents to serve their own purposes will fail to force the rest of us to repear the darkest chapters of human history along with them.
I am becoming confused, the Viet Cong are communist and I thought we were supposed to be NAZI’s.
Barry Woods @ur momisugly 3:39 pm: Their motives shouldn’t enter into it. As stated above, “they” are acting like a doomsday cult. If we don’t agree that the world is going to come to an end then why should we agree to proscriptions upon our wealth and freedoms? The “Heavens Gate” cult wanted you to castrate yourself and commit suicide while covering yourself in a purple cloth. You obviously didn’t do that (in time to catch the Hale-Bopp comet), so you didn’t listen to other well meaning people who only had your best long-term interests in mind (that is, good intentions). Indeed, the “solutions” will likely kill millions with the banning of cheap energy sources and by artificially raising the cost of the goods for the emerging nations that could help lift billions out of poverty. The intentions may be good, but they are dooming billions to lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. The very real deprivations that are caused are much worse, to me, than a change of 2 degrees in the next century.
On a side note, I live in Alberta, Canada. For most of the last 100,000 years, the current location of my home has been under a kilometer of ice. We are in an interglacial. Why on earth do you want the ice back?
= = = = =
Barry Woods,
I suggest that those of us who went to university in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s at very liberal public institutions do understand firsthand the motives of the current climate change advocates. We saw the first appearance of movements that transformed themselves into the modern ideological radical movements that inform the CAGW science research.
I was there as a young engineering student and the weirdness motivated me to make sure I understood.
John
Glenn Tamblyn
>>
Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
>>
Is that like Blackberry Rules or did he mean Queensbury ??
So Glieck’s wire fraud and impersonating a board member was playing fair , Right. And skeptics are playing rough by calling out bogus science and checking the data. The bastards !! How daire they?
>> Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history.
Guerillas ?? Bunch of monkeys more like.
I’m really tempted to laugh at all this but that would be so… so unfair.
This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.
These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.
First, the identities of the reviewers aren’t supposed to be revealed to the corresponding author of the submitted manuscript, and it’s very unlikely that the editor in chief at Psychological Science will tell anyone else who they are. (In a criminal investigation, he might be compelled to do so, but the probability of a criminal investigation of the Lewandowsky et al. paper has to be very low).
Second, we don’t know who the “action editor” was for Lewandowsky et al. At a journal the size of Psychological Science it usually won’t be the editor in chief. Assuming the typical practice of bringing in three reviewers, the action editor can overrule one, two, even all three in deciding whether to accept or reject (just how easily depends on the number overruled, and the journal’s internal culture, including the likelihood of an adverse reaction from the editor in chief). So we cannot be sure, without actually seeing the reviews, whether all three (or however many) overlooked all of the faults in the Lewandowsky paper and waved it through to publication.
Third, reviewers for academic journals are not financially compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.
The most that can be expected out of the existing system is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from emulating his example.
I doubt UWA will investigate him unless there is a retraction and the stated reason for the retraction is outright data faking or misleading data presentation that rises to the level of fraud. If it’s merely for incompetence and unacceptably poor reporting of method and results, with a side helping of political bias, chances are no official action will be taken against him.
I’m assuming that Lewandowsky is a tenured full professor (whatever the Oz equivalent title for this is) and he is almost surely not going to be fired from his position unless he is nailed for fraud.
I’m not saying that all of this is fair—parts of it obviously aren’t—but it is how the system works.
Keep in mind that university administrators prefer to cover up malfeasance by university employees whenever possible— in order to minimize bad publicity for the institution.
Look how difficult it has proven, so far, to nail Michael Mann…
So an academic’s article is shown to be badly flawed and we are the bad guys?
Barry Woods says:
September 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions
It is quite obvious from Glenn Tamblyn’s “pep talk”, that these people are just whipping each other up into a frenzy. So how do you deal with intellectually berserk people who just happen to be in positions of authority. Do you turn the other cheek as Mike Haseler would have us do? The problem is that a collegial style of scientific debate achieves little when dogmatic belief holds sway. Witness the longevity of the execrable Doran/Zimmerman paper. That report was a steaming pile but the resultant 97% meme just keeps on popping up. Should we, by being considerate of Lewandowsky’s alleged humanity, allow Lewandowsky’s skeptics = conspiracy theorists “finding” to gain a toehold? I do not think so. Lewandowsky is a member of Cook’s secret forum and the secret communications show that they consider themselves to be at war with skeptics. When one side declares war, the other side is, de facto, in a state of war.
This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.
These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.
First, the identities of the reviewers aren’t supposed to be revealed to the author of the submitted manuscript, and it’s very unlikely that the editor in chief at Psychological Science will tell anyone else who they are. (In a criminal investigation, he could be compelled to do so, but the probability of a criminal investigation of the Lewandowsky et al. paper has to be very low).
Second, we don’t know who the “action editor” was for Lewandowsky et al. At a journal the size of Psychological Science it usually won’t be the editor in chief. Assuming the typical practice of bringing in three reviewers, the action editor can overrule one, two, even all three reviewers in deciding whether to accept or reject (just how easily depends on the number overruled, the journal’s internal culture, and the likelihood of an adverse reaction from the editor in chief). So we cannot be sure, without actually seeing the reviews, whether all three (or however many) overlooked all of the faults in the Lewandowsky paper and waved it through to publication.
Third, reviewers for academic journals are not compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.
The most that can be expected is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from pulling similar stunts.
I doubt his institution will investigate unless there is a retraction and the stated reason for the retraction is outright data faking or misleading data presentation that rises to the level of fraud. If it’s merely for incompetence and unacceptably poor reporting of method and results, with a heaping helping of political bias, chances are that no official action will be taken against him.
I’m assuming that Lewandowsky is a tenured full professor (or whatever the Oz equivalent title for this is) and he is almost surely not going to be fired from his position unless he is nailed for fraud.
I’m not saying that all of this is fair—parts of it obviously aren’t—but it is how the system works.
Keep in mind that university administrators prefer to cover up malfeasance by university employees whenever possible, in order to minimize bad publicity for the institution.
Look how difficult it has proven, so far, to nail Michael Mann…