No smear psychological categorization mission is too offbeat for Lew. Now he’s on about “leakage”. Try to stifle the images that conjures up while thinking about your choice of preventative antiemetics.
s mac says: in WUWT Tips and Notes:
Anthony, there is a YouTube video (link below) of Lewandowsky giving a talk at the AGU Chapman conference, and its very revealing and your readers would enjoy, he’s equal parts clown, bully, and circus performer.
He’s desperately trying to find a footprint for what he does – categorize the pigeonhole people and surmise their intentions, motivations — and find a place for it (and himself) in the “save the world” ethos of climate change activists. Video follows:
From the video description:
============================================================
AGU Chapman Conference on Communicating Climate Science: A Historic Look to the Future
Abstract Title: Scientific Uncertainty in Public Discourse: The Case for Leakage Into the Scientific Community
Uncertainty is an unavoidable part of science. In the case of climate science, any uncertainty should give particular cause for concern because greater uncertainty usually implies greater risk. However, appeals to uncertainty have been used in public debate to forestall mitigative action. Uncertainty has been highlighted in many situations during the last 50 years in which vested interests and political groups sought to forestall action on problems long after the scientific case had become robust.
We suggest that the prolonged appeal to uncertainty in the public arena has “leaked” into the scientific community and has distorted scientists’ characterization and self-perception of their own work. Although scientists are well trained in dealing with uncertainty and in understanding it, we argue that the scientific community has become unduly focused on uncertainty, at the expense of downplaying solid knowledge about the climate system. We review some of the historical and empirical evidence for the notion of “leakage”, and we identify the psychological and cognitive factors that could support this intrusion of ill-informed public discourse into the scientific community.
To illustrate with an example, the well-known “third-person effect” refers to the fact that people generally think that others (i.e., third persons) are affected more by a persuasive message than they are themselves, even though this is not necessarily the case. Scientists may therefore think that they are impervious to “skeptic” messages in the media, but in fact they are likely to be affected by the constant drumbeat of propaganda. We review possible solutions to the undue leakage of biased public discourse into the scientific arena.
==============================================================
There you go folks, proof positive that we are having an effect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Try to stifle the images that conjures up”
You say that like it’s an easy thing…
The more uncertainty the greater the (potential) risk. Also the greater the (potential) benefit or at least potential for being completely harmless. What a maroon!
Bill_W says:
April 17, 2014 at 4:08 am
The more uncertainty the greater the (potential) risk. Also the greater the (potential) benefit or at least potential for being completely harmless. What a maroon!
*******************************************************************************************************************8
I think you meant moron
Steve B,
In some old Bugs Bunny cartoons and other places as well, it is a kind if joke
to pronounce it that way. Bugs Bunny himself says it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
So, when I visit that apocryphal crowded theatre, the less sure I am that there is a fire the more inclined I should be to shout: “Fire!”
Have I got that straight?
Is Lew a front man put up as a distraction to lure our attention away from focusing upon the Science or lack thereof ? This twerp has had far too much attention in the media and blogosphere of late with his sermons to the converted.
“Uncertainty has been highlighted in many situations during the last 50 years in which vested interests and political groups sought to forestall action on problems long after the scientific case had become robust.”
There are numerous case histories listed in a book called ‘Scared to Death’ which show the precise opposite. In pretty much every case the uncertainties are played down even though the scientific case was anything but robust. Governments have then taken decisive action which later turned out was completely unneccesary and caused numerous problems as well. Climate change alarmism seems to be following the same script as all of these earlier scares but on a far far grander scale.
Curiouser and curiouser. Down the rabbit hole he goes: ” . .we argue that the scientific community has become unduly focused on uncertainty . .” A surpassingly strange speculation.
Fellow Propagandists! To the barricades! Tomorrow is ours!
Confirmation, if it was needed, that we do need some sort of ‘plain pages’ platform to protect teenage and young adult researchers from taking the wrong path. See our infographic here: http://livefromgolgafrincham.org/2014/04/05/plain-pages/
You know whats really sad about this guy, he probably spends his whole day trying justify his existence, trying to justify that he is a good guy, that the world is against him. Hard to feel sorry for someone who just keeps digging their own hole.
Hey Lew, it’s what you know about yourself inside that has you most concerned. And I’ll bet you can’t stand it.
I have noticed that when someone is about to be confronted by an accusation, it pays to use it first in a preemptive surprise attack. Preventative retaliation is a favourite of those who are about to lose an argument. Hence the accusations of ‘vested interests’ and ‘intrusion of ill-informed public discourse’
It is a characteristic of a group which is failing to convince ‘converts’.
What was it Gandhi said? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
So, skeptics are being accused of taking a leak on Lew?
Uh, not going there. Wouldn’t be prudent.
🙂
Lew should worry that his retracted paper will have the leakage effect and find himself in court trying to defend the indefensible libel .
OMG
The SHIFT (by the “scientific” community) in ALARMISM to being LESS ALARMED is because skeptics have pointed out past FAILURES IN ALARMISM and NOT because of FAILURES IN ALARMISM???!!! THAT sounds like denial.
Is THAT the take away?
Bristol, we have a problem!
He is a Cultist. Think of it as a Cult Elder would see it. He must protect the Cult members from hearing anything that would put into question their beliefs. Lacking the ability to silence those questioning the cult’s beliefs he must denigrate either the facts or the speaker. Arguing with such a person is a distraction from presenting more facts to the cult members. Remember that there have been cases of loving family members having to kidnap cult members and subject them to harsh de-programming to get them to come to realize that they had been programmed. It is all about mind control. Eventually these duped scientists will realize that they have been duped. Some will freak and propose lynching the Cult Elders, some will wander off into obscurity. None will ever be the same. Pity them for they have lost their will to be skeptical, the core trait of a scientist.
The scary part here is not that he is a demonstrable sociopathic nutcase, it’s that his colleagues and fellow inmates don’t recognize him as such. He is hell-bent to destroy any vestige of intelligent cred for the field of psychology.. Single-handedly, he’s knocking all of the science out of the term “soft-sciences”..If this is what psychology has come to, what’s left for its country cousin, sociology?
He’s definitely a cult.
yay!
take a leak on lew – call it peer revue. him and his psychological olestra too.
He doesn’t even listen to his own advice. If it’s possible that sceptic ideas are seeping into the scientific community is it not more than possible that the wash of catastrophism and anti oil, anti industry, anti west propaganda has warped scientific thinking even more?
I love the way he brings up the MMR scandal. The Wakefield paper was peer reviewed in a prestigious journal and only retracted over a decade after publication on the persistence of a journalist who unearthed the abysmal data the paper was based on and the dodgy behaviour of the scientist. He only got his hands on the data when Wakefield tried to sue the journalist and had to give it up during discovery. Very apt.
He is doing more damage to the Psychological profession than any 100 skeptics of the profession ever could. ALl you have to do is point to his unethical, immoral and incompetent actions to taint the entire profession. Because none of the other idiots are speaking out against him!
And that is the problem with CAGW as well. It is not that some rational voices are not getting their message out. It is that actions speak louder than those words. So when John Q. Public hears a Phil Jones, they see that Phil is not speaking out about the idiocy of Algore or 10:10. Silence is consent, and so the louder, hysterical voices are the ones the Public hears and associates with the “cause”. And they ignore it. And those not taking a stand against the “death trains” rantings of the less stable advocates.
Back in July, 2013 Gavin posted at Real Climate: “A couple of weeks ago, there was a small conference on Climate Science communication run by the AGU. …It was very notable that it wasn’t just scientists attending – there were also entertainers, psychologists, film-makers and historians. There were a lot of quite diverse perspectives and many discussions about the what’s, why’s and how’s of climate science communication. There were a couple of notable features: the conference had a lively twitter hashtag (#climatechapman), and almost the entire proceedings were webcast live (schedule).”
All BS and no science. AGU conferences have become a complete waste of money and time.
Its like watching a warm up act for a touring band visiting some hick town and the local comedian/clown/protest song singer is all fired up convinced he is now on the world stage. As CN says above “a cult”, a one man cult who only drinks the cult kool aid. I must admit the scadenfreude is starting to wear off and his videos are not nearly so awfully mesmerising. He is a pretty crappy act, lets face it. I think I am just moving on which is good cos he really is a waste of time and space.
“Scientists may therefore think that they are impervious to “skeptic” messages in the media, but in fact they are likely to be affected by the constant drumbeat of propaganda.”
So they are essentially saying the scientists are not capable of being objective in their research?
If a skeptic asserted the opposite, that all the alarmist media leads scientists to question non-alarmist results, would it be received in the same way?