(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.
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.
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.
sorepaw says:
September 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm
“These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.”
Sadly i agree the chances of anything happening are small. However it is probably the best piece of meat they’ve thrown us since climategate. If traction can be made and speed build, the house of cards will get knocked over with amazing speed. Its just getting that traction to start is always the hardest part.
Nick says: “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…”
“Because of the success of science there is a kind of a…I think a kind of…
The quote is accurate. Here is the primary source:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/04/19/richard-feynman-the-pleasure-of-finding-things-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timferriss+%28The+Blog+of+Author+Tim+Ferriss%29
The quote starts at ~42:50. Feynman also says: “You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. i thnk it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.”
Sorry for the duplication up above. I couldn’t see any of my posts until several minutes after entering them…
sorepaw, this *is* a moderated forum. have a little patience? 🙂
@sorepaw … oh. and if you didn’t see “this comment is awaiting moderation” you might be using cookie blocking. Should consider whitelisting the site in the future.
(JBowers in #84 is now referring to #89 not yet made, according to the server’s revised numbering scheme)
I’m pretty sure they created a wormhole. They bent the fabric of HTML and time!
Hi, this is only marginally relevant to the topic, but maybe an idea… Has anyone looked at the correlation between supporting AGW and rejecting GMOs ? Now that is a field rife with denial of scientific data and conspiracy theories all on the green side.
TomRude said on September 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm:
Well, we did announce it rather publicly and outside the accepted bounds of (academic) decency, like proclaiming to everyone within earshot that his zipper was down, thus we were rather rude.
Actually we noted it while Lewandowsky was strutting around his campus performing his interpretation of “Paul Reubens enjoys a movie“, which was extremely rude of us.
We didn’t even wait until he published!
Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.. rather than hang around our own sceptics ‘cyber ghettoes’ to find out what they yreally hink, not my own (and other sceptics) pre-conceptions..
someone mentionsd the 97%
Well, I wrote about it hereat WUWT (found the orignal suvey – no one else had)
Someone metioned Peter Glieck, well I talked to him to. A few climate scientsist defended me when he publically labellebed me as sending him ”incredibly offensisve’ tweets and comments
And Lewandowsky, were it not for myself, Geoff Chamber and a few others, nobody would be talking about this much, we have done all the work weeks ago.
Lots of armchair commenters.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: September 16, 2012 at 1:33 am
But Lewandowsky (in a somewhat back to the future moment) claims that he has “published”. For all the Lewgory™ (as opposed to the Algorey™) details, pls see:
The big Lewandowsky … and the 97%
Barry Woods says: September 16, 2012 at 1:49 am
With all due respect to your “trying to talk” – of which you do quite a lot, without any consideration of the comprehension challenges (presumably) presented by your chosen mode of “communication”, perhaps if you’d spent less time “trying to talk” and more time “listening” you would begin to recognize that it’s not all about you and your perceptions of your efforts.
From hro001 on September 16, 2012 at 2:20 am:
He can say he’s published, but we know it’s premature.
Hrooo1
Amazimg. ? You have insight to my privte dialogues, which is a lot more than you see publically
If any of the SS whackaloons wanting assassins are US citizens then someone should drop a dime on them with Homeland Security.
I thought warmunists identified with the Viet Cong. Warmunists can’t read history?
Barry Woods says: September 16, 2012 at 3:39 am
Barry,
What’s “amazing” to me is that you seem to have forgotten that your rather sweeping claim was:
I’m delighted that you’ve had these “private dialogues”. It warms the cockles of my heart almost as much as the questions that Lewandowsky refuses to answer.
But you have not explained how – or why – these “private dialogues” might have given you a greater “understanding” of their “motives”. Btw, what training do you have in determining “genuine” belief solely on the basis of “private dialogues” in which you have engaged?!
I’m also not sure I understand how (or why) your earlier :
has convinced you (or should convince anyone else!) that you have a greater understanding of the “motives of many of the most vocal advocates …”. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me!
Barry Woods:
I fail to understand why being in an “armchair” affects the worth of a person’s comments. Please explain.
Richard
These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophe – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action.
I’m sure this is true—in some cases.
In other cases, they’re genuinely furious that anyone might be obstructing their paths to power, prestige, and greater grant funding.
Barry Woods says:
September 16, 2012 at 1:49 am
“Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.. rather than hang around our own sceptics ‘cyber ghettoes’ to find out what they yreally hink, not my own (and other sceptics) pre-conceptions..{…}Lots of armchair commenters.”
Talk about supreme arrogance…. the only “preconceptions” I see are the huge amount you make about skeptics.
Not only do I understand the doomsday cultists better then you. I understand history better then you. Your ignorance is massive to say the least. You bring to the table some of the worst logical fallacies. You have yet to counter a single point in this thread but you have managed to cry, bully others, whine, claim your better then everyone else, claim your “authoritah” is vastly supreme… and thats just in basically one post. If I reviewed all of your posts just in this thread alone more then likely you have broken the vast majority of logical fallacies.
You are so far devoid of any rational, logical or scientific thought it is frankly scary.
Um, you mean your armchair “Holier than thou” comment? I feel so shamed… NOT!
You use the word “understand” as if it is ‘we’ do not understand the most vocal CAGW advocates. Are we then stupid? Do you really think that everyone who demands to see the scientific proof of man’s causing climate change is completely ignorant of the fatalistic CAGW faithful and their strident screed screechings? It certainly isn’t I or the other critics on science blogs lookng for the real science who should be ashamed.
Leave the poor poor Lewpy man alone, because he is an angry man, poor poor Lewpy. Why? I thank you for any role you’ve played in unmasking Lew’s fraud. But whether you’ve talked to him and Gleick doesn’t change their actions past or present, just made you sensitive. Also based on the angry spoiled green man’s current actions, it sure doesn’t look like his future actions will be different. That is, unless the will of the people comes to the fore and seeks to incarcerate him and his entire cadre of fraud supporting buddies.
Call it an example if you want. Truth be told, it is not an example, but it is justice in action.
If disbelief in AGW is akin to conspiracy theory then those who believed in a cover up of the Hillsborough disaster in the UK were also conspiracy theorists. They have been proved to be correct in their assumptions of a cover up. However I feel that to call a belief in the existence of a major back side protection exercise by those at the top a belief in conspiracy is to both glorify the seedy nature of the exercise and to make those who suggest its existence appear fanciful.
Let us face the fact that if climate change is shown to be a series of blinkered observations, inadequate checking and sloppy data collection followed by inadequate analysis, invalid comparisons and the worst computer modelling the world has ever seen, then some Nobel prize winners are going to look very stupid as are those who awarded the prizes.
No wonder many are going to such lengths to avoid any non climate scientist dominated testing of their work that should have occurred the day they felt the need to call it climate change and not global warming. Selective job offers to AGW believers has occurred for more than two decades now, which was how consensus has been achieved. Hence the need for outside vetting, as by their own admission the science is beyond question in the frat group.
Mike Haseler says:
September 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Splendid idea. I’ll stop angering warmists as soon as all green taxes and carbon credit schemes are repealed, including subsidy schemes for PV and other incompetitive technologies. Including electric cars. Let the free market decide what works best and the economies will recover.
As soon as the warmists fulfill this simple demand, all is forgiven.