This post will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one.
While this issue was covered previously on Climate Audit, I thought this needed the exposure that WUWT could afford.
There’s a famous quote from CRU’s Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes that pretty much sums up the entire issue of climate science, saying essentially that the work is above reproach and there’s no reason to allow it to be questioned by providing access to raw data for replication, especially by climate skeptics, even though it was done on public funds:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
As readers know, a few people have been trying to get access to the poll data from Lewandowsky’s “moon landing hoax” paper (the one where he hid his involvement and the poll was mostly posted on climate alarmist sites, and WUWT wasn’t even asked) and have been stonewalled. This response about data access from Professor Paul Johnson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia takes stonewalling to a whole new level, and is a close second to that famous quote from Phil Jones.
Some foreword might be helpful to understand the context as to why this sort of behavior exhibited by Jones, and now Paul Johnson, is broadly damaging to the reputation of science.
The issue with Lewandowsky is unscientific and unethical behavior by creating an advance conclusion (all climate skeptics are conspiracy nutters) followed by attempts to hide his association with the study to people who were polled, selective distribution of the poll, mainly to websites who are advocates of climate action, then outright mocking of the very people who was supposedly studying, then actually writing in his own conclusions to an ethics investigation that was supposed to be done independently.
One cannot imagine a more egregious abuse of the scientific process as we have witnessed with Lewandowsky’s vilification of climate skeptics using the journal Psychological Science as a bully pulpit.
Dr. Judith Curry’s thoughts about Michael Mann’s behavior seem germane here, simply substitute Mann with Lewandowsky:
For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.
Barry Woods advises me of this gobsmacking response from UWA’s Vice Chancellor, Paul Johnson, and provided all the emails from the timeline to me for inspection. It is important to know that Lewandowsky has left UWA where his paper was originally approved, data gathered, written, and published from, and is now at the University of Bristol.
Barry Woods writes:
I wrote to Lewandowsky last September, & eventually got a response via a Bristol Uni press officer referring any concerns to UWA.
Woods also wrote to the journal editor Eric Eich, asking for access to data so that a comment could be sent to the journal:
I wrote to Maybery (UWA) in early March (and a couple of reminders), then received Paul Johnson’s email.
…
One of the lessons of Climategate was that even most scientists agreed on was ‘data transparency’. I can’t believe the VC of University of Western Australia’s response to me. AND that he would put it in writing! Four and a half years on from Climategate, and we still have universities refusing to share data with critics.
Here is the letter from UWA’s vice-chancellor as a screen-cap. The bolding was done by Johnson Woods:
I have pixelated the email address for Mr. Woods (which is private) so that he doesn’t get attacked/spammed, and the other email participants by cc: are not on display due to them being in Mr. Woods contact list, only their names display. Johnson’s email address is also pixelated for the same reason.
I also verified that the email is genuine, by looking at the email headers within it.
And, it appears that by the UWA’s own published policy they are quite open to data sharing:
In the “Code of Conduct for the Responsible Practice of Research”, it becomes clear that Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson’s statement of “It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests” is a bald faced lie:
Steve McIntyre and others have suggested that some of Lewandowsky’s poll data may have been falsified, and they want to test that assumption. UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson’s response puts him at odds with the 3.4 and 3.8 sections above.
We also have a clear case from UWA’s own records obtained via FOI law that Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”.
So, the “investigation” supposedly done by UWA into the research of Lewandowsky was actually done by Lewandowsky himself.
This episode is turning into quite an ethics quagmire for UWA, I can see why Johnson would purposely violate their own policy by telling Woods that UWA won’t share the data. The data itself must be damning for them to want to protect it this much in violation of their own policy; perhaps with data even showing that some of the responses to the poll that McIntyre wants to examine came from within the University itself, creating another, more culpable conflict of interest and violation of UWA’s own research policy.
When a university administrator decides that “It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests”, because of the perceived ‘attacks on science’, it seems they believe the work of colleagues rather than check the issues being raised. It is clear Johnson is more trusting of a former colleague vs the ‘anti-science forces of denial’, as climate skeptics are often falsely characterized as.
No matter what you think about climate science, or science in general, I would hope that you would embrace the need for transparency of data as the most important issue of science, because it is within the data where truth lives. Without the verification and replication of science that data access allows, science runs the risk of falling victim to the human emotional condition of opinions, agendas, tribalism, and personal vendettas acted out via the process of noble cause corruption.
I believe that is what we see here and it is a sad day for science when administrators in two universities and a journal editor circle the wagons to protect a science paper that may not only be wrong, but is likely based on an emotional response turned into a vendetta by the principal investigator, Lewandowsky, we all lose.
In cases of public malfeasance, it if often the cover-up which gets more attention for prosecution than the original infraction, and this looks to be the making of just such a situation.
Some background to my suggestion above that many of the responses to Moon Hoax were made up (not necessarily by Lew):
In a comment at the Blackboard circa September 2012, someone said that Kwiksurveys had been hacked, lost a lot of data, and went bust. Was that irony? If true, it provides a useful get out for Lew.
My reason for thinking the survey was made up was that there were only about 90 commenters at the linking blogs, and 1300+ supposed responses. Filling in the survey was long boring and thankless. Posting a comment is quick and provides the gratification we all know about.
There obviously was a conspiracy of some sort between Cook and Lew. The FOI material obtained by Simon Turnill is clearly incomplete. Communication between Lew and his blog friends is limited in each case to a simple “Will you link this” “Yes”, except in the case of Cook, where the conversation goes “Will you link this?” “Yes, sometime, when I get round to it”. In September, when Barry Woods and I started airing our doubts about the link at SkS, it should have been clear to Lew that Cook had screwed up, and his paper was threatened. What does Lew do? He hires Cook to be co-author on the Recursive Fury paper!
Note that Cook and Lew exchanged a couple of emails about the accusations of non-linking at SkS in October 2012, as Cook’s data collection was coming to end, calling it a conspiracy theory.
29/10/2012
Cook: ..that batch of emails you sent me where you and I talk about me linking to you from theSkS blog, has that been released to the public yet? Considering the whole conspiracy theory that SkS didn’t link to you, I’m wondering how the denialosphere will chew on that email.
Lewandowsky: It’s been released. But they chew on ethics now. Links are soooo September 2012 now.
Yet it doesn’t appear as a conspiracy theory in the Fury paper. I suggest the five or six fabricated conspiracy theories in Fury are just a smokescreen to hide the non-linking – the one specific error identified in Moon Hoax. Why Lew hired Cook to do the analysis on Fury after he screwed up on Moon Hoax is a mystery. It sounds to me from the above email that Cook is pretending to Lew that he did link, which would explain his hiring.
I think the ethics only apply to science? So when they make up policy based science the ethics no longer apply?
AntonyIndia says:
April 3, 2014 at 8:37 pm
That webpage is up here.
All is explained –
‘The New Century Campaign is an ambitious and far-reaching initiative that will revolutionise how we educate, research and engage with our communities.’
http://www.campaign.uwa.edu.au/our-vision/paul-johnson/
Since the science is settled, I see no need for further funding.
“jimmi_the_dalek says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:15 pm
I wonder if anyone else finds it ironic that, in a paper dealing with conspiracy theory, some people are speculating that he made up the data?”
The real question as I understand it is not about made up data. Not by the researchers at least.
The sites the survey appeared on skewed the results because few genuine skeptics actually participated. The concern is that some of the respondents might have given answers they didn’t actually believe, but completed the survey in such a way to make skeptics look like crazies.
After all, if skeptics actually believed what the survey implies, why the outrage?
Look at the mileage Lewandowsky has gotten from this poll. How it resonated within the echo chamber and into the MSM. The glee with which they took it to the airwaves and said “see, they are all crazy.” It was designed, form, fit and function to give Lew a soapbox.
Simply from looking at the questions and the methodology it is apparent that Lewandowsky set out to prove what he already ‘knew.’
Why not redo the poll, with identical questions and responses, but only allow one per IP and spread the poll across a wider audience with genuine skeptics. See what the results are then. Should be quite interesting I think.
Paul,
Dude, if you don’t want your work criticized, you’re in the WRONG business. We call it science. There is no entitlement. It doesn’t matter how long you worked on it. It doesn’t matter what your title is. It doesn’t matter how much money you spent.
It is entirely PERFORMANCE based. No pass-fail grading. No points for good intentions. If you are WRONG, and every hypothesis eventually proves to be to some degree, you acknowledge the contradictory data and move on. This is how we learn. this is how we progress.
Hiding your data subverts the system and is just plain dinglenuts.
I have emailed the Dr Jenkins (MP) advising him of the situation. Used my academic letters etc.
Doubt much will come of it though, the Liberal Party (that’s sort of the opposite of US liberal) are pretty gutless about this sort of thing. 🙁
I know I stepped once in some Professor Lewandowsky.
I’m beginning to suspect I stepped in some Vice-Chancellor Johnson as well….:o)
Every time I read “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. ” I think, “Gee, too bad you didn’t share the data, maybe someone would have helped out and you wouldn’t be SO WRONG!
Doesn’t matter how you spin it… predictions are all failing. Too bad the universe is skeptical.
LdB says:
April 3, 2014 at 9:57 pm
——————————–
Ah, old memories … Lawrence of Amnesia, minister for memory loss 😉
I am an alumni of UWA. I have to say I am extremely embarrassed by this. I think it undermines the credibility and the reputation of the university, which, in my day at least, was a fantastic place.
My father, also an alumni, has written to prof Barry Marshall. I think it’s worth quoting a small section but the whole letter is very good IMO.
Why am I writing to you in particular? Well, in 1982 my eldest son, then aged 12 was diagnosed as suffering from a stomach ulcer. There is no doubt that he had it – we have a photo taken by endoscopy. In those days everyone knew that stress was the main cause of such a condition. So the whole family – me, my wife and all three sons were sent to a clinical psychologist for counselling. My wife and I were devastated by this affair. How could we not know that our son was suffering stress acute enough to cause an ulcer? Or worse, could we have been the cause of the stress? Well, after two sessions the psychologist said “This is a waste of time. There’s nothing wrong with any of you. There’s no point in further consultation.” So we went away and my son got better.
Then you came along with your research into helicobacter pylori and the ‘stress consensus’ evaporated. Since then and with advancing years and experience (I’m now 70) I have been sceptical of consensus science. And this is where the UWA situation comes in.
He has written in the hope that prof Barry Marshall, himself a victim of consensus science for some time may have a personal perspective and some influence he might be able to bring to bear.
too funny:
3 April: Detroit Free Press: Indiana official draws heat for global warming text
by John Russell, The Indianapolis Star
INDIANAPOLIS — Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming – something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.
After weeks of heavy snow and freezing air, he had had enough. He took to a government message board one day in February, complaining that his normal 45-minute commute had turned into a painful three-hour slog. “Anyone who says global warming is obviously suffering from frostbite,” he wrote.
Baugues would later say he was only joking. But he wasn’t just any government bureaucrat. Baugues is assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the man in charge of cleaning up Indiana’s air…
Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several Environmental Management staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.
“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote…
Another said that Baugues “should not speak on such matters until he is better informed.” Then that person, who was not named, took pains to point out that recent extremes of cold weather were caused by warming global temperatures. That resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.
“The fact that (Baugues) disparages the exact kind of science that disproves his statement only further illustrates how out of touch this administration is with the current environmental crisis facing not only Hoosiers, but the entire world,” the person wrote.
Baugues studied engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute and has spent six years at the Department of Environmental Management and nine years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency…
Baugues wrote to his staff on March 19 trying to tamp down the outcry. But he stuck by his position. “I am a skeptic on global warming,” he declared…
He said if staff members thought they had “important facts about global warming,” he would be willing to discuss it during lunch hours…
But some scientists and environmentalists note that Baugues’ comments are at such odds with overwhelming scientific opinion that they wonder whether he is the right person to lead Indiana’s efforts to regulate air polluters.
Dick Van Frank, a former member of the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board, was momentarily speechless when he heard of Baugues’ comments. “Is he kidding? Is that a joke?”
Although January was unusually cold across much of the United States, it was actually the fourth-warmest January on record worldwide, said Lonnie G. Thompson, an Ohio State University professor of earth sciences who has researched the climate for more than 30 years…
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/7287855
One of the many problems with the politicisation and near-total alarmist bias of the academic climatology community is that no statistician will go anywhere near projects such as Lew’s, even in the unlikely event of being asked. The risk is too great. A proper design and analysis would likely give the “wrong” result, with the consequent smear campaign resulting in impairment of the statistician’s reputation and/or career. Just look at the unspeakable hatchet job done on Wegman, for example, or on a lesser scale, the garbage McShane and Wyner had to put up with.
There is probably some protection for statisticians in that studies which come up with the “wrong” answer are either quietly dropped, or fail pal-review. Still, no sane, neutral statistician will want to have anything to do with climate “science”, and who can blame them? Which leaves the field open for drivel like Lew’s to become part of the peer-reviewed literature, with the climate community acquiescent in their silence.
3 April: Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Global-warming musical is scored by taxpayers
This song-and-dance “science” costs taxpayers $7.3 billion a year
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/3/editorial-global-warming-the-musical/
Some time ago I advised Steve McIntyre not to waist his time on Lew’s research. He has all the rights to check his data, of course, but I think that he will not find easily elements in this kind of research, warranting retraction. The problem is well articulated by the Dutch committee in their report after discovery of fraud by social psychologist Diederik Stapel. They wrote in the introduction to the fifth chapter
‘Another set of explanatory factors for the extent and duration of the fraud, alongside those set out in Chapter 4, reside in the general manner in which the research was performed both within and outside Mr Stapel’s working environment. It involved a more general failure of scientific criticism in the peer community and a research culture that was excessively oriented to uncritical confirmation of one’s own ideas and to finding appealing but theoretically superficial ad hoc results. This picture emerged, among other things, from the interviews with the Committees. These ‘sloppy science methods’ were found on a large scale in the work of Mr Stapel and his co-workers’.
https://www.commissielevelt.nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2013/01/finalreportLevelt1.pdf
@Mindert Eiting – waste – the waist you used is where you put your belt. But it did give me a chuckle.
(2 pages) 4 April: Harvard Crimson: Harvard Should Change
By Kelsey D. Wirth and Timothy E. Wirth
Early last month, Harvard President Drew Faust wrote an open letter to the Harvard community about proposals that Harvard divest from fossil fuel companies. In a decision with which we strongly disagree, President Faust wrote that she and the members of Harvard’s governing board “do not believe that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise.”
We will discuss why the opposite conclusion would be both “warranted and wise,” but first we will lament the absolutism of the President’s statement and policy, which left no room for even gradual progress towards divestment…
President Faust would do well to reopen discussions with students and alumni regarding divestment, explore common ground, and make Harvard a leader in developing responsible investment policies that are consistent with meeting the challenges of climate change, the greatest moral threat of our time.
Timothy E. Wirth ’61, former Harvard Overseer and U.S. Senator from Colorado, is President of the United Nations Foundation. Kelsey D. Wirth ’91 is the founder of Align Technology and founder and co-director of Mothers Out Front: Mobilizing for a Livable Climate.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/4/4/President-Faust-Divestment/
4 April: Yale Daily News: Fossil Free Yale’s mistake
By Alexandra Barlowe
When I returned from Washington, D.C., after having been arrested for tying myself to the White House fence in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline, people were shocked…
While Yale has maintained some semblance of activism on campus for the past few decades, students seem less willing to make sacrifices for causes larger than themselves than previous generations…
Today we have cause to be furious. We now face the increasingly harsh reality of global climate change, a problem that we have brought upon ourselves. It threatens our existence as a species on this planet; the situation has never been more urgent. An IPCC report from this week reaffirms that the planet is warming at an alarming rate with dangerous implications…
That’s why I joined Fossil Free Yale (FFY) as soon as I got to Yale. Thus far, FFY has drawn up a convincing policy proposal for Yale’s Corporate Committee on Investor Responsibility and has invested much time and energy into securing private, exclusive meetings with corporation members. Although FFY has made a great deal of progress with the administration by gaining influential allies, this seems to be the extent of the tactics FFY is willing to take.
Unfortunately, its conservative approach is holding us back…
We should respectfully negotiate with the administration, but we cannot hesitate to antagonize the Corporation members if we want them to make decisions they are uncomfortable with. We also need a sizeable and strong coalition of determined students to be respectful and even formal in certain settings, but also to prove our willingness to make real sacrifices to get what we want — and ultimately, what we need to have a future on this planet.
Finally, our varied approach must include more radical strategies. FFY’s lack of bold action only reflects what has become the student body’s general attitude…
Tuesday’s action demanding divestment is a great start. The risks of climate change are scarily real, so we must start taking risks of our own. If civil disobedience in front of the White House seemed risky for your future, it’s nothing compared to what lies ahead.
Alexandra Barlowe is a freshman in Branford College. Contact her at alexandra.barlowe@yale.edu .
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/04/04/barlowe-fossil-free-yales-mistake/
Even the locals didn’t think the ‘deniers’ would fall for such a transparent survey…
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/#comment-44097
“Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids?
”Also, here are two words that, when put together, ought to make anyone critical of this research: “online” and “survey”.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/#comment-44061
“You missed the long series of questions about various conspiracy theories. Those were fun!”
Actual links to the original survey articles below, read the comments, lots of these people thought the survey design rubbish, and it’s intent obvious (especially at Deltoid/Tamino)
these were the links I found in July 2012:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/survey-says/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/29/survey-on-attitudes-towards-cl/
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/08/counting-your-attitudes/
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/opinion-survey-regarding-climate-change/
http://hot-topic.co.nz/questionnaire/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/take-a-survey/
some comments from Deltoid: (August 2010)
“Eh, it was pretty easy to figure out what they were looking at. Perceived SES vs. support of “free market” ideology vs. subscription to conspiracy theories vs. acceptance of well formed scientific consensus.”
“I agree with Tony; at first, I thought the survey was bogus. Of course, I haven’t seen the thinking behind the survey so I cannot comment with much authority, but some of the questioned seem rather ill-posed. And why no 5-point Likert scale? The whole online survey format is also methodologically suspect.”
“On the other hand, I think the “conspiracy theory” section is too heavy-handed to be useful. There’s no chance that people won’t figure out what the survey is looking for here, and everyone knows that “conspiracy theory!!” is pejorative.”
It is a seriously weird questionnaire. I stopped doing it when I realized that the UWA logo directed one to the kwiksurveys site rather than UWA. Is it some sort of attempt to spish? Quite apart from the inept conspiracy questions that don’t allow “no idea” as an answer, and the two-part questions where you might have different response to the two parts.
BTW – they say the experimenter is Charles Hanich, not Stephan Lewandowsky as you put Tim….
“a “don t know” button might have been a good idea, but isn t really necessary.
the good thing about conspiracy theories is, that you will recognise it, even without ever heard about it! i am looking forward to the results of this one. but i fear very few denialists will take it.”
“The survey is a tedious and transparent piece of agit-prop, designed, no doubt, at a UWA struggle meeting.”
“On the other hand, I think the “conspiracy theory” section is too heavy-handed to be useful. There’s no chance that people won’t figure out what the survey is looking for here, and everyone knows that “conspiracy theory!!” is pejorative. ”
“I would have thought that inviting Deltoid readers to participate in a questionnaire of this sort is likely to produce statistically skewed results since it likely to encounter a preponderance of respondents who are “pro-science” rather than “skeptical of science”.
——————————————————-
NASA faked the Moon landing therefore (climate) sicence is a hoax,
An Anatomy of the motivated Rejection of Science – Lewandowsky et al – Psychological Science
is a paper with a title designed to grab newspaper headlines and soundbite (which it did, as is still doing, with the obligatory ‘moon photo’ in the banner of the articles.
out of over a 1000 respondents, 4 results ‘rejected climate science strongly, and ‘believed’ in the moon conspiracy. of the ~200 anonymous people catergorised as sceptics, 95% rejected the moon conspiracy. 2 of these 4, strongly ‘rejected climate science and strongly ticked every single conspiracy going..
Just maybe 1 or 2 or 4 of those people were anonymously having a little fun with the survey?
Take a look at the comments below 6 of the blogs that took the survey above, these blogs all hate sceptics… Lewandowsky’s involvement is revealed on some of them. All of these blog owners have contributed to Skeptical Science in one way or another (ie authors, including Lewandowsky of course) – so it basically as the FOI shows, just sent out to Cook’s mates, and they sent out survey to ‘sceptic’ blogs afterwards for some reason or other?
Yet we have a headline based solely on a few anonymous participants, from blogs that hate sceptics !
! Lewandowsky, Marriott and Cook got the research period for Recursive Fury wrong !
They should have started 2 years earlier, at the sceptic hating blogs that took the survey!!!
look at all that ‘conspiracy ideation’ at Deltoid/Tamino’s, etc about how bad the survey was 😉 LOL
One word………disgusting!
The attraction for sending your son or daughter east for a degree will increase after this piece of unbelievable philistinism.
That a Vice-Chancellor would perpetrate such peasant bog-ignorance is beyond all comprehension. Instead of expecting him to be right onto Lewendowsky’s behaviour and by so doing protect the reputation of the UWA, we now have the unedifying spectacle of the barbarian within doing its damnest to tear the place apart.
There are one or two Royal Commissions in operation in Australia at the moment.
Surely this matter could be subject to such an investigation and have the players, especially including Johnson, hauled up to explain themselves.
Patrick says:
April 3, 2014 at 7:42 pm
There is one thing you can rely on here in Australia. It’s called the GAF (Give A F%$k) attitude.
I do believe you mean, DILLIGAF (Do I Look Like I Give A…….fire truck)
No data = Fiction. End.
“BruceC says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:38 am”
Maaaate, as you and I know, everything is truncated here. Five extra initials (Is that the right word?) for words cuts in to beer drinking time…
I am not a scientist but know the mechanisms of politics pretty well.I would arrange for a question to be raised in Parliamentary question time to the Federal Minister for Science Dr Jennings,who by the way is a scientist. (this should come from a local Federal MP ).The question would go something like this:
Is the Minister for Science aware that contrary to its own guidelines and ARC Funding Guidelines that the University of WA has refused to share scientific research data with other scientists? I refer specifically to the case of (…) and the response provided by the VC (fill the gaps). Does the MInister believe that tax payers’ funds should continue to be directed to academic institutions that operate contrary to agreed Australian and international standards and and if not can the Minister advise what steps will be taken to rectify this situation? A good MP and I am sure the Minister for Science will love to address this one. A pity it wasn’t raised last week prior to Senate elections tho.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
18 June 2014 12:30 – 13:30
BS1 4QA Bristol | View map
BIG Green Week Festival talk by Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology at Bristol University, in partnership with Bristol…
http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/big-green-week-festival-3387614462
http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/nasa-faked-the-moon-landing-therefore-climate-science-is-a-hoax-tickets-10738026727?aff=eorg