Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt
By Steve McIntyre
As CA readers are aware, Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia recently published an article relying on fraudulent responses at stridently anti-skeptic blogs to yield fake results.
In addition, it turns out that Lewandowsky misrepresented explained variances from principal components as explained variances from factor analysis, a very minor peccadillo in comparison. In a recent post, I observed inconsistencies resulting from this misdescription, but was then unable to diagnose precisely what Lewandowsky had done. In today’s post, I’ll establish this point.
Rather than conceding the problems of his reliance on fake/fraudulent data and thanking his critics for enabling him to withdraw the paper, Lewandowsky has instead doubled down by not merely pressing forward with publication of results relying on fake data, but attempting to “manufacture doubt” about the validity of criticisms, including his most recent diatribe – to which I respond today.
In a post several days ago, I temporarily considered other issues in the Lewandowsky article beyond the reliance on fake responses, reporting on my then progress in trying to replicate results – not easy since his article omitted relevant methodological information. Separate from this, Roman Mureika and I (but especially Roman) have made further progress in trying to replicate the SEM steps – more on this later.
I reported a puzzle about explained variance results as reported in Lewandowsky’s article – results that could not be replicated using a standard factor analysis algorithm. Roman Mureika also tried to figure out the discrepancy without success. I pointed out that Lewandowsky’s factor analysis did not seem to have much effect on the downstream results where the real problems lay.
The reason why we were unable to replicate Lewandowsky’s explained variance from factor analysis was that his explained variance results were not from factor analysis, but from the different (though related) technique of principal components, a technique very familiar to CA readers.
The clue to reverse engineering this particular Lewandowsky misrepresentation came from a passim comment in Lewandowsky’s blog in which he stated:
Applied to the five “climate science” items, the first factor had an eigenvalue of 4.3, representing 86% of the variance. The second factor had an eigenvalue of only .30, representing a mere 6% of the variance. Factors are ordered by their eigenvalues, so all further factors represent even less variance.
Eigenvalues are a term that arise from singular value (“eigen”) decomposition SVD. As an experiment, I did a simple SVD of the correlation matrix – the first step in principal components, a technique used in principal components and was immediately able to replicate this and other Lewandowsky results, as detailed below. Lewandowsky’s explained variance did not come from the factors arising from factor analysis, but from the eigenvectors arising from principal components. No wonder that we couldn’t replicate his explained variances.
But instead of conceding these results, Lewandowsky fabricated an issue regarding the number of retained eigenvectors in this analysis, a point that I had not taken issue and which did not affect the criticism, as I’ll detail.
Please read the rest here: Conspiracy-Theorist Lewandowsky Tries to Manufacture Doubt
As a side show note, here’s a window into the mind of Professor Lewandowsky:
One thing really bugs me about this episode. If he had designed his survey properly, analysed the results using appropriate statistical methods, written them up with a full and unambiguous description of the methods used, in a paper with a grown-up title (that’s a lot of ifs, I realise)… it would still have been a staggering waste of Australian taxpayers’ money. Evidently Australian academia is awash with more money than it knows what to sensibly do with. Not that this is something unique to Oz, far from it.
I think you found keith olberman’s twin. }}}Shudder{{{
Given that the corner reflector they left on the moon is pretty easy to detect with a laser pulse (and no natural object could reflect the pulse back the way a corner reflector does), scientists are pretty uniform in believing we were there.
Isn’t Lewandowsky obligated to produce ONE global warming skeptic who denies that we actually went to the moon. And I don’t mean just some random name from the phone book; I mean someone who contributes to the debate. He sent his survey to SCIENTISTS, right?
If he can’t produce even one serious skeptic who doubts we went to the moon, he’s wrong on another level. What the hell was he doing this survey for anyway? The empty set is not a great source of data.
This wasn’t a scientific study; it was a prank. I wonder how many of his “responses” were really spambot ads for Viagra.
Actually, proper implementation of free market economies, i.e., capitalist economies, requires government for protection of rights, particularly, defense of the nation from foreign interests. It is considered an evil, but a necessary one (particularly since individuals cannot defend themselves against foreign countries).
Mark
The guy doesn’t know how to dress,doesn’t know how to balance his specs on his nose,doesn’t know how to speak without sneering and talking out of the side of his mouth,and doesn’t even know to use the sharp side of his razor,and you expect him to save you and the world? Heh.
This is President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, describing the Lewandowskys of the world. Unlike today’s self-anointed AGW prophesiers, Eisenhnower was quite prophetic:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
kcom1 says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
I refuse to listen to anyone who uses the term “climate denier,” so as soon as he said those words I clicked off. It’s an absolutely meaningless term and shows the speaker to be uninterested in truth and only interested in propaganda.
kcom1 I am with you. The term does not make sense, deliberately used. I had to swallow it down to be able to listen to the end. What self serving crap he delivered.
He is an embarrassment for the UWA, and the academics in general. From what I have seen many of the CAGW-heretics come from engineering and science like physics, geology, chemistry who know and understand the scientific method.
Many have landed in the heretic camp driven by such nonsense.
Most climate-zealots like professor Lew seem to have studied arts if any. And he has the impertinence to call us “science-deniers” and conspiracy theorists?
Speak of projections…. Professor Lew is just now busy to raise a new generation of skeptics, I wonder what is the true proportion of skeptics versus warmista in his own university, judging from the appreciations on his youtube video, that Lady in Red posted above, he is really lew there….
Now, I wonder, maybe in the end he should stay there where he is with the UWA…
Wow…watch his eyes.
You only need to watch the first 15 seconds.
He’s looking into the camera all the time, yet at the precise moment he says ‘the earth is warming’….
he momentarily breaks eye contact with the camera….OMG….he doesn’t actually believe it himself!
Beautiful.
Bob Tisdale says:
September 21, 2012 at 8:37 am
“Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.
========================================================================
I’m going to the Lew to get some Lew paper because the dog just Lewed on the carpet.
“Lewandowsky misrepresented explained variances from principal components as explained variances from factor analysis”
PCA is just a special (actually the simplest) case of (the more general) factor analysis.
Mark T says:
September 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“Even the most ardent Libertarian in the U.S. allows for the common defense of this country.”
Actually, proper implementation of free market economies, i.e., capitalist economies, requires government for protection of rights, particularly, defense of the nation from foreign interests. It is considered an evil, but a necessary one (particularly since individuals cannot defend themselves against foreign countries).
=======================================================================
If the birth of the United States was the Constitution then it’s conception was the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
The first Government formed under the rules of The Articles of Confederation was designed to be to weak to usurp those individual rights. But it was also to weak to defend them.
So they started over with the Constitution as the rules the Government must play by. Now they had a Government strong enough to defend those rights, but it was also strong enough to usurp them. Before the Constitution could be approved, they included The Bill Rights. They didn’t lay out more rules of how the Government would function but rather some of it’s boundaries.
Michael Mann wants it to be a crime to disagree with him?
Time to reestablish and reset the boundaries to line up with our original conception.
Stephanie Clague says:
September 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
Exquisitely put.
The kind of chap one would not want to meet in a dark alley.
I can’t get the image out of my head of Reverend Cook, Gleick and Lewandowsky playing the Three Stooges.
Unfortunately Steve McIntyre’s excellent continued deconstruction of Lewandowsky’s paper is somewhat upstaged by the man himself with his disgraceful admission of his own prejudice towards sceptics. Is it not a prerequisite that a researcher should have a dispassionate neutral position when treating a subject? The man is so arrogant that he does not even recognize his own failings in this respect and is more than happy to broadcast his prejudices and thereby devalue his paper even more.
There is however one very positive aspect to this man’s paper which will go down as increasing mans body of knowledge. I think we can all agree that we now know something that none of us previously new. We can now all spell the real name “Lewandowsky,” that is every body except spell checker, which continues to treat his name with disdain.
I couldn’t watch the video more than about a second. As Justthinkin says,
and he launches, effectively, “hi, I’m big me, prof blah from blah. “Most climate deniers seek to avoid scrutiny by side-stepping the peer review process that is fundamental to science…”
whaaaaaaat?
Who said, a lie makes its way halfway round the world before truth has even got its pants on? Seems this corporal with mouth hair has got a knack with words to sway the masses – even if not much else.
Lewandowsky may be pompous and arrogant, but I just can’t get past his eyebrows. They have a life of their own. They go up, they go down, then one rises by itself…
If he ever loses his job there’s probably a gig for him on Saturday Night Live. He could play Professor Lewandowski. ☺
Colin Porter says: “…We can now all spell the real name “Lewandowsky,” that is every body except spell checker, which continues to treat his name with disdain.”
It’s easy to check. If you can rearrange the letters to spell phantasy slewed wonk, you’ve got it right.
“…..the belief that the free market is the solution to all of societies problems”.
It is disturbing that Lew thinks favoring free markets makes someone a wacko. North Korea has no markets (free or otherwise) and they are doing just so well…(/sarc for those who can’t tell)
And who makes a video (multiple ones) badly needing a shave and without combing one’s hair?
I saw that general pattern in Nixon in 1968, when I watched him from a dozen feet during a speech in SF. Very disturbing. Mostly because it made me wonder why reporters weren’t pointing this out, and other observers weren’t writing him off as deranged.
PS, On Steve’s site, someone (Mosher?) referred to him as Dr. Loo. That’ll do.
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 21, 2012 at 4:18 pm
I couldn’t watch the video more than about a second. As Justthinkin says,
doesn’t know how to dress,doesn’t know how to balance his specs on his nose,doesn’t know how to speak without sneering and talking out of the side of his mouth,and doesn’t even know to use the sharp side of his razor…
and he launches, effectively, “hi, I’m big me, prof blah from blah. “Most climate deniers seek to avoid scrutiny by side-stepping the peer review process that is fundamental to science…”
========================================================================
Same here. “Side-stepping the peer review process”. Climategate showed the “process” has been corrupted. All I could think of is how many time a reasoned objection has been dismissed because it didn’t come from a “Climate Scientist”…and they get to define what a “Climate Scientist” is. Stack the deck. Cut the cards. Restack the deck.
PS Is Lewandowsky a “Climate Scientist”?
@Gunga Din: Let;s see, he skews data, misrepresents statistics, tries to bypass peer review (science by press release) and sounds like a raving lunatic when let out in public…sounds like he has climate scienceTM written all over him.
Obvious fishing attempt. I don’t care if someone THINKS the moon landings were faked. I don’t care if they BELIEVE it with all their heart and soul. Can they PROVE it?
If that same person thinks or believes that CAGW is bad science and can prove it then they are correct on that specific item. The fact that they can’t prove the first has nothing to do with the science or lack therof in the climate debate.
Trying to put bad statistics out into the climate debate really makes me question Lew’s judgement. I mean he just had to know that it would be gone over with a fine toothed comb. It isn’t like they don’t know about Steve et al and their penchant for stats.
PS. The hardest part of the moon shots was the first 5 minutes. I’m not trying to minimize the amount of work required to go to the moon and back but you can make adjustments along the way. That first 5 minutes in which 100 tons of rocket fuel was put into low earth orbit was do or die in one and only one try. We know the lift capacity of each of the Saturn V rocket engines, we still have one laying sideways in a museum. If we could do the first 5 minutes I’m pretty sure we did the rest. Unless someone can prove otherwise we made it.
Bob Tisdale said:
““Lewandowsky” will become a noun, an adjective and a verb, and they won’t be a positive ones.”
It already is. The term is apparently Loo, and stands for someone who is entranced by the odor of their personal effluent. The physical manifestation of such would be a Lewie.