Lewandowsky paper 'provisionally removed' due to complaints

Why are any of you wasting time on critiquing complete trash?
Thats not the survey, but the creep that compiled it.
As for the survey….all you need to know is in the term “survey”.

Believing that CO2 has no measurable or statistically demonstrable effect on climate is not saying it has NO effect – only that the effect ia meaningless in practical terms and should not be the basis or justification for dismantling the energy economy. This can only be “paranoia” in the minds of the ultimate paranoiacs, the AGW crowd. THEY are the ones constantly taking about conspiracies, Big Oil, rightwing nuts, etc. THAT is where the paranoia is.
As for the AGW paranoiacs thremselves, I don’t think they all necessarily represent a conspiracy, per se, for the following reason: a pride of lions doesn’t conspire, it just goes 0ut and hunts. When you have a number of like-minded individuals, of a paranoid-criminal-reactionary-leftist (PCRL) mindset, you can figure they’ll act alike, regardless of whether they are in communication with each other – no conspiracy required. Not to say that there isn’t conspiracy going on among the people at the center of AGW – the Climategate emails provide plenty of evidence of that. But as the PCRL news media shows, there are also plenty of others not directly connected to the AGW arguers that are acting in like fashion – also including members of the general public who subscribe to leftist-reactionary political beliefs.

pottereaton says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:54 am
An amusing comment at Bishop Hill that sums up these papers in a very original way:
“….there must be some real skilful academic turd polishing…”
You can’t polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff
Hi Potter.
Actually You can polish a turd or should I say Cow dung. It is was a common practice in Southern Africa for the floors of rondavels. the floors are highly polished with a red wax based polish, beautiful and durable.
(A rondavel (from the Afrikaans word ‘rondawel’) is a westernized version of the African-style hut. The rondavel is usually round or oval in shape) .
But like Lewandosky et al crap. was built on a foundation of BS and crap!
All that glitters is not gold!
Please excuse my foul discretion.

Manfred says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:27 pm
“Frontiers’ (an open access journal) article submission cost Euro770 – Euro1600. ”
Maybe they thought if we publish this our jounal has a negative value so we would be overcharging by giving it away for free.

Wamron says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm
Why are any of you wasting time on critiquing complete trash?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not care about Looney Lew. However I do care that his flagrant lie is being called a scientific paper and then cited in news stories, read by the general public, read by politicians.
Lew is making the diagnosis that ‘Deniers’ are mentally ill. People who have been concerned with some of the issues he connects to us such as believing the government lied about 9/11 have been hauled off to psychiatric wards and locked up against their will. And yes I am talking about the USA.

….The original book, published under the title Mullins On The Federal Reserve, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. Ezra Pound was a political prisoner for thirteen and a half years at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane). His release was accomplished largely through the efforts of Mr. Mullins….
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

The easiest way to silence critics is to label them as being crazy. If that does not work you shut them up in a mental hospital.

I have been working tirelessly in an official capacity as a representative of the Alumni of the University of Adelaide to have the Lewandowsky – without a single response from the University, but I think there must be others also bombarding them with emails as well. They can’t ignore graduated Alumni from a fellow institution without appearing aloof and arrogant.

Not really sure why Tom Curtis is being given credit for his approach.
He came in late to the topic, was wrong with his first comments, tried the Racehorse Haynes/Nick Stokes approach and when that didn’t work he conceded a little. That and he wasted everyone’s time because he wasn’t aware of the events as they happened.

“The easiest way to silence critics is to label them as being crazy. If that does not work you shut them up in a mental hospital.”
They also used to label non conform people for witchcraft and burn them?
Who is really really crazy here?

Re USSR space accidents……………we should remember the huge number of ground-crew killed in Soviet failed launches.Particularly the third attempt to launch the N1.

Why are people so bent out of shape over at Climateaudit and Bishop Hill’s blog whether the Lewandowsky survey was posted at SkS (or tweeted)?
Ric,
Because if you are going to conduct a study of the beliefs and attitudes held by CAGW skeptics, you need to include a reasonable number of such skeptics in your sample.
Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac failed in their effort to get 5 blogs run by skeptics to post a link to their survey. They never even bothered to contact Watts Up with That, which has the biggest readership among skeptical blogs.
The only skeptical blog that did post a link (unsolicited) was Junk Science; to this day, Lewandowsky et al. have never acknowledged that this occurred. They don’t mention Junk Science in the supplemental materials to their publication.
Meanwhile, they claim to have gotten 8 blogs run by CAGW proponents to post links to their survey. Skeptical Science never posted such a link; all Lewandowsky actually got John Cook to do was mention the survey in a tweet, reaching a much smaller audience. Yet they have claimed repeatedly that Skeptical Science posted a link; Skeptical Science is included, as we speak, in their published supplemental materials, as a blog that was “invited and posted a link.”
Further, they try to excuse the low percentage of responses that appeared to come from skeptics (around 15% of their survey responses) by claiming that 20% of Skeptical Science visitors in September 2010 were skeptics, as defined by John Cook.
Independent analyses of blog comments at SkS in September 2010 confirm that around 20% of the commenters were skeptics, if you define that category broadly enough to include anyone who took issue with any part of the house dogma at SkS. But this is completely irrelevant, since Cook never posted a link to the survey at SkS. Lewandowsky left one comment on SkS that entire month—about an unrelated topic.
Psychological Science had multiple grounds for rejecting Lewandowsky et al.’s manuscript. Their survey was badly constructed; they didn’t bother to provide basic descriptive statistics, such as the percentage of responses endorsing the view that NASA faked the moon landing; the analyses they did report did not support their conclusion that “conspiracist ideation” is the main driver of CAGW skepticism (if you accept their data and their analyses at face value, endorsement of an unfettered free market played a much bigger role); the title they put on their article was misleading even if you accept their data presentation; and so on.
But forget the rest of this stuff—Lewandowsky et al. didn’t have a study.
They purported to be studying skeptics, but they didn’t successfully recruit anyone at any of the major sites where skeptics hang out.
They couldn’t even accurately describe how they did recruit participants.
Two and a half years after collecting the data, 8 months after their manuscript was accepted, they still haven’t accurately described how they recruited participants.
To this day, Lewandowsky has refused to provide data on when responses were gathered, or on the blog of origin for each response, to other investigators who have requested them.
(It’s possible that Lewandowsky can’t provide this information—because he never got it or didn’t bother to retain it. But his response has not been to say that he doesn’t have the information. It’s been to refuse to acknowledge requests for it, or to turn over other information and pretend he has provided everything that was requested.)
On top of which, Lewandowsky and coauthors (including John Cook of Skeptical Science, and Michael Hubble-Marriott of a truly nasty little site called Watching the Deniers) rushed out the Frontiers in Psychology article—misquoting some of the blog entries that formed their data set, and trashing pretty much anyone who has asked questions about their methodology or asked for additional information.
So first they conduct a bad study.
Then it gets past the reviewers and the editor and gets published.
Then they run it out to the mass media 8 months before it is officially published (while withholding their not very responsive supplemental information for those 8 months).
They violate assorted norms of professional behavior.
Then they diagnose anyone who criticizes their study or asks questions about the manner in which it was conducted or requests additional data as a walking case of conspiracist ideation.
The mystery isn’t why the folks at Bishop Hill or Climate Audit are hopping mad at these guys.
They should be.
So should anyone who believes that psychological research can be conducted with a modicum of professional competence and integrity.

Lewandowsky et al. Is based on parapsychology?

“Lewandowsky et al. Is based on parapsychology?”
No it is based on a Soviet Job. Moscow Trials “evidence” are a good ballpark.
They just don’t have state power to finish the job. Yet.

ChrisR….You are talking of US ground crew deaths in tens, I was referring to Soviet ground crew deaths in THOUSANDS,possibly even TENS of thousands. The N1 obliterated the entire launch complex including the family apartment complexes where the engineers and their families had lived, until blown away with their homes in that single launch failure.
The USSR didnt give a shit about its own people.
I would agree to leave that, “at that”.

Here is another paper about those wacky conspiracy theorists from none other than Regulatory Czar Emeritus, Cass Sunstein…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Since I am a plain ol, Constitution-believing, not-a-communist democrat, it is easy for me to see what these elitist totalitarians are up to as they strive to pose as regular, American liberals/democrats.
Of all of my friends and family who would also claim to be democrats, most are deceived by these totalitarian. It all began to fall apart, for me, when I took time to look into a few issues, including the global warming issue, several years back. Maybe 8-9 years.
They basically are a cult. They present themselves as the saviours of the world, and the enemy are those who disagree. To sustain a cult, you need to innoculate your members from reason and discourse.
This is where the name-calling and the armchair psychology comes from.
I have gotten into debates abt AGW with liberal friends. I have rad this stuff well, and can hold a pretty good argument beased on actual observations and the principles of science.
If I get into this with a friend, or family member, they resort to the “consensus” argument, and name-calling – I am a fool who has been bought by Big-Oil-funded propaganda. Of course, this is only projection. I know Big Oil is playing both sides of this, so I need to be discerning of any data, and of motives.
For me, the medieval warmingperiod surely seems to have existed, at a fairly global level, and so the hockey stick , however sharp the blade, remains in the range of natural variability on a decent time scale.
This is only logical.
The elitists want to control the planet. I have done extensive reading on this for the past several years. Their ideas don’t change much. The appearance of Darwin helped legitimize the disdain for the poor, who were believed, and are still beleived, to be reproducing too much. This is a theme in elitist literature and reports for a hundred years, solidly.
Tied to this is their idea of over-population. They believe this strongly, and have been on this jag for a hundred years or more. Solidly.
Over-population is supposed to lead to envirinmental catastrophe. This has been a solid plank of the elitist agenda for decades.
In the 1940s, physicist Harrison Brown laid down the model for popular-press appeals of imminent doom, only to be avoided by globallly hading over the keys to a special group of elites.
The Population Bomb of Ehrlich does not look so novel and alarmist if you go read Brown’s works.
However, Brown’s predictions and Ehrlich’s have not been realized. Pollution is bad. Starvation is bad. But their particular view is developed to point to one answer: put us elitists in control of the planet.
Quite a saviour complex – making this a quasi-religion, and about morality and immorality, redeemed and unwashed sinners.
Cults attract by making avg people feel special, and feel that they have a mission, and by painting everyone else as unenlightened, and by placing cognitive kill-switches wherever reason might infiltrate the air-tight cult world.
This is why they need the denier = psychologically deranged meme.
Unfortunately for them, this cannot be shown with normal psychological assessments. Or they would be doing it.
Because skepticism of AGW has a strong reasonable basis, skeptics generally cannot be found to all have the same psychological problem. Therefore, a study that show they do will eventually be found out to have a fatal flaw.
But, the talking point is all that is needed for those cult members who want ot be special, and be redeemers and saviours, versus being headed for doom in sin.

Mr. Cook’s integrity is under fire, as it should be, and Mr. Curtis feels bad for him because he feels Cook was merely really wrong rather than attempting to decieve.
Sorry Tom, there is way too much hide-the-decline “science” in your community and the integrity of the science has been demolished by scientists of dubious character, aided by corrupt politicians and a progressive enemedia. If Mr. Cook was simply wrong, let him apologize profusely, chase the truth, and fight against public policy based on, um, poor science. Has he done so or does he continue to cowardly support BIG GREEN’s BIG LIE induced anti-human, anti-Liberty agenda? Until he sides with fact and truth he’s just another deceitful fraud like Mann, Marcott, Jones, Hansen, Gore, Suzuki and the rest and he deserves every bit of scorn that comes his way.
Free Carbon, jail the Green Frauds

Rick Bradford’s comment (near the top) was fantastic 🙂