You’ve all heard of a religious “grail quest“, I submit what we have here is an ongoing religious “smear quest”.
The cartoonist (John Cook, purveyor of the laughably named “Skeptical Science”) and the psychologist (Stephan Lewandowsky), the two rightmost people in the photo above, are working together again to smear anyone who has doubts about the severity of the global warming. If making up data for a fake correlation (they never polled any skeptics, only friends) to support the idea that climate skeptics deny the moon landing wasn’t enough, now they are going after HIV and AIDS conspiracy theory. Basically, they think because we reject their ability to perform actual statistical science (by polling a representative population of skeptics instead of friends who support their mindset) that we are now engaged in “counterfactual thinking”. I look at it as psychological projection on their part.
Making up data to support your claims is about as counterfactual as one could possibly imagine, but this seems to be just another case of “anything for the cause” I suppose. They must really hate climate skeptics to stoop this low, that’s about the only thing that makes sense, because this surely isn’t about science, but is clearly an emotional issue for them. Meanwhile, rational thinkers stand back and laugh at the show.
Here’s the latest Lewpaper:
===========================================================
Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation
- 1Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
- 2Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia
- 3Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
- 4 Climate Realities Research, Australia
Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.
http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract
==============================================================
For those of you just joining this discussion, and wondering where the claim of “making up data” comes from, it would be instructive to read the WUWT topic section on Lewandowsky to see how truly bad his work really is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/stephan-lewandowsky/
This entry is of particular interest:
McIntyre takes down Lewandowsky’s fabricated statistical claims
Lewandowsky and Cook are engaging in clearly transparent “Punitive psychology”. The technique was widely used in the Soviet Union to incarcerate dissidents in mental institutions. At the University of Western Australia the walls of the prison are not brick or stone, but walls of censorship, confining the dissident to a limbo where no-one will report what they say for fear of being judged mentally deficient themselves.
A good example of this is equating climate skeptics to pedophiles, something else Lewandowsky was involved in (via an ABC radio show, but he didn’t actually make the claim, the announcer did) but note that he’s made the claims about HIV and AIDS here, even before his latest paper was published. Predetermined conclusion anyone?
The man and his apprentice, John Cook, are shameless in their smear quest. But, they are apparently getting paid handsomely; Jo Nova finds that Lewandowsky has received $1.7 million AU in taxpayer dollars since 2007.
One wonders what sort of incident it will actually take before UWA starts to reject this sort of hateful smearing under the guise of “science”. Maybe when the grants dry up they will look at it differently?
But, let’s give Lewandowsky a chance to explain his reasonings in his own words:
This one is also interesting.
UPDATE: Climate Resistance has a pretty good summary of the issue
But self-evidently, it was the opacity of the first paper (LOG12) and its method that led to the bloggers’ speculation. Had Lewandowsky and his researchers been upfront about which blogs they had approached and when and by whom, there would have been no confusion. But on Lewandowsky’s view, speculation about his methodology counts as ‘conspiracy ideation’, which is to say that wondering out loud about whether or not Lewandowsky had done what he had claimed to have done betrays a similar mode of thought that convinces people that the CIA organised the assassination of JFK.
…
Related articles
- The involvement of conspiracist ideation in science denial (psychologytoday.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What I have seen all my life, people making ludicrous claims affecting the lives of other people and at the same time making money from it. WA University should get rid of the likes of that L person. Where are the facts? They operate under illusions.
If there is anyone more despicable and character-free than Lewandowski, it is John Cook. But it’s a close contest.
In the video clips and elsewhere, Lewandowsky’s excessive use of the logical falacies ‘argument from authority’ and ‘strawman argument ‘ are surprising given his claim to be a prof of psychology. If Lewandowsky is representative of the field, then it paints psychology as a somewhat ill disciplined field badly in need of some training in basic logic.
Lewandowsky isn’t really a psychologist. He’s part of an alien plot to destroy the earth by pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from canisters hidden in asteroids.
Lewandowsky with the help of cybernetic organisms, known as Mannions, have been sent to Earth on a dastardly mission to persuade Earthlings that global warming isn’t true by claiming that it is true. They are using ingenious techniques called counterfactual conspiracy-ideation mind control.
The NSA using their Frequency Agile Solar Radiotelescope have intercepted messages proving that Lewandowsky and his cyborg Mannions are receiving secret messages sent from the sun.
The latest alien transmissions have been cunningly encoded in electromagnetic waves bounced off the chromospheric network structure. The messages have been codenamed Alien Region 1667. The NSA are trying to keep it hush hush, but I know that the number 1667 is an apocalyptic power containing the consecutive digits 666, the number of the beast.
The top secret name of this plan has been given the acronym UWA, meaning Unsuccessful Work Attempt. I know this because someone very important told me.
My psychiatrist told me to tell you I’m joking.
what a disgusting and arrogant person is Lewandowsky
The four Stooges, in the frame, are just waiting for your money to arrive in their mailbox.
I am ashamed to admit that I studied at UWA.
John W. Garrett,
One of John Cook’s free cartoon sites: http://www.atimetolaugh.com.au/
Some history behind the sci-fi cartooning (which he tried to make a pay-per-view) begun after receiving his PhD in Astrophysics:
http://www.cartoonebooks.com/author.php?authora=2
The AGW hoax is all but over and most of the weasels with half a brain are trying to find a way out. Yet Cook and Lewandowsky just keep digging their hole deeper. Do they have a super secret exit plan? A Soros payout? Sadly my conspiracy ideation is not up to the task of providing a credible explanation for their continued excavation activities. The only thing I can see is that these two are likely so crazed that they believe the hoax can be reanimated. After September I expect these two to be sporting canvas jackets with extra long sleeves. A little rest at a quiet facility where the nurses and orderlies speak quietly and calmly may be required. “The Eureka prize? But of course you did.”…”Still in press? That’s a shame… any day now I expect”…”Now let’s just get a tissue for the foam on your chin shall we?”
“… Here’s the latest Lewpaper:”
[+emphasis]
May I respectfully suggest an alternate spelling: Loopaper
Like Caz, I too studied at UWA. It used to be a very good university.
A quick look at this new “scientific” paper does not confront the fundamental questions raised about Lewandowsky et al 2012. That is, how can the thesis that “climate
denierssceptics tend to believe in cranky conspiracy theories” be demonstrated when– The sample was biased through only being on pro-AGW blogs?
– There were no conspiracy-type questions that pro-AGW blogs promote, like big oil or tobacco funding of skepticism?
– There was only a highly specialized statistical technique used for correlations, and no summary of the responses to relate those results to data?
– There is a dogmatic rejection of low-level statistical analysis?
There was no attempt in either paper to acknowledge that there might be quite strong, legitimate reasons to reject some or all of the global warming hypothesis. These can be statistical, or scientific, or something more basically human. If you exclude, denigrate or misrepresent views with which you disagree, then people holding those views will not be won over. If you dogmatically state your views as being the only truth possible, or fail to acknowledge error when it is there for all to see, then people will start distrusting every word you say.
John W. Garrett says: “The SkS crowd appears to be singularly dodgy and slippery lot.”
While you’re wasting time responding to their lies, you’re not normally thinking of “dodgy and slippery”.
/sarc on…
He is really an alien lizard overlord disguised as a human being… The alien lizard overlords control everything from a secret bunker on the far side of the moon…I love tin foil hats…
/sarc off…
Lewpaper sounds like the uncouth terminology for toilet paper but I think I’d shy away from that use.
Other than that the whole proposition appears valueless.
@Andrew Pattullo
“does not in any way impact my firm belief, again based on scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS, nor does it blind me to the enormous beneficial impact that understanding has had to those suffering from AIDS through more effective therapies and prevention.”
Anytime I see irrational persecution of a notable figure that wants to investigate areas that are against the consensus, I immediately become deeply interested in what the other side has to say. In your field, at least two of those people would be Dr. Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber. And, to me, they are far more logical than the “consensus” data that appears to be on a par with that of climate alarmists. However I do realize that medical professionals are somewhat in a bind in regard to side stepping approved medicinal procedures even if they were otherwise convinced to do so and, this factor, much like the AGW group, would tend to inhibit recognition of alternative views from sources other than the AMA, NIH, FDA and their ilk. Two historical examples of medical advances that come to mind that were vehemently rejected by the majority opinion, were those of Semmelweis and more recently, Barry Marshall/Robin Warren.
GACK, This is an example of what is now found in Universities?!? GAG….
From now on I am recommending apprenticeships or at most trade schools.
PS. I want all my tax money refunded that was spent on universities or university grants.
Paul Carter says:
February 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm
In the video clips and elsewhere, Lewandowsky’s excessive use of the logical falacies ‘argument from authority’ and ‘strawman argument ‘ are surprising given his claim to be a prof of psychology. If Lewandowsky is representative of the field, then it paints psychology as a somewhat ill disciplined field badly in need of some training in basic logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seems he is in very good company. Given the major black eye that the Stapel fraud has given the field of psychology I am surprised he is deliberately setting out to damage the fields reputation even further.
There is more garbage coming from Lewandowsky. From a comment in the recent paper apparently he has done more work on the “LOG12” (Moon landing) paper. after being exposed as a fraud when it comes to claims about the LOG12 work, seems Lew has expended even more research dollars and polished up the LOG12 turd:
“The authors subsequently obtained a control sample via a professional survey firm in the U.S: This representative sample of 1,000 respondents replicated the results involving conspiracist ideation reported by LOG12 (Lewandowsky et al., 2013) ”
…. and has submitted yet another paper for publication
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. Manuscript submitted for publication.
James Allison says:
February 5, 2013 at 10:34 am
“What the hell does conspiracist ideation mean – in simple words.”
1. Heretics reading from non-Church approved Gospels 2. People who disagree, disagreeing, 3. Day-Glow Orange and Blue Ants with elephant heads crawling all over him, singing the Flying Monkey refrain from The Wizard of OZ.
1.
2.
3.
4. all of the above
Mark your answer here: ________________________
Seriously, “Ideation” is Code for “Doesn’t think properly, as evidenced by disagreement with Me/Us”
I have to first admit to being an Aussie for which I humbly request your forgiveness. As the old joke goes – Let’s send him to [country of your choice] and we will raise the IQ level at both ends. (snip if you feel so inclined]
Loo lost me after claiming that nothing is true unless published in peer reviewed publications but then destroys his own argument by also claiming that the anti-AGW articles that are in peer reviewed publications are incorrect, fraudulent and in through the back door by nefarious editors.
Perhaps the good professor could enlighten us all as to what evidence he would require to change his opinion as he seems willing to discount anything that goes against his current beliefs.
I wonder if Lew believes in the “Big Oil funds climate scepticism” conspiracy?
Cook never received a PhD in anything.
Embarrasing an entire half continent!