Social psychologist Jose Duarte pulls no punches in describing Lewandowsky’s failures of science in the “Moon Hoax” paper and the later retracted “Fury” paper. And then goes on to describe failure in Cook’s 97% consensus paper. Excerpts follow.
in their abstract they say:
“Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”
This is all false, and the paper should be retracted. It should’ve been retracted by the authors already.
…
Surprisingly, climate skeptics got mad about this paper, perhaps because > 97.8% of those who think climate science is a hoax reject the moon hoax idea in Lewandowsky’s own data, placing them squarely in the mainstream of humanity. So, Lewandowsky, Cook, Oberauer, and Marriott (2013) wrote a follow-up hit piece that was all about their critics. They wrote a paper that was about the critics of the first paper, the one we’ve just debunked. It wasn’t enough to lie about people and smear them as believing things they definitely do not believe. He needed to take another swipe. The journal, Frontiers in Psychology, wisely ended up retracting that paper, which is exactly what should happen to this fraud here.
…
This was an awful thing to do. It was damaging to innocent participants. It is unethical to do this to your participants. It is wildly unethical to invite people to participate in a study, and then do this to them. They are helping us. They are volunteering to participate in scientific research. They’ve take time out of their lives to help us out. And in return, we slander them? We tell the world that they believe things that they do not believe? What Lewandowsky and colleagues did here was despicable and fraudulent. Why would anyone participate in a social psychology study if this is what we do to them? Why would anyone participate in research if our goal is to marginalize them in public life, to lie about them, to say that they think the moon landing was a hoax, to say they don’t think HIV causes AIDS, to say they don’t believe smoking causes lung cancer – when none of those things are true. Do we hate our participants?
Read the whole thing here: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud (h/t Bishop Hill)
In another article, Duarte goes on to describe the failures of Cook and his “independent raters” in Cook’s 97% paper.
In social science, it’s common to use trained human raters to subjectively rate or score some variable — it can be children’s behavior on a playground, interviews of all kinds, and often written material, like participants’ accounts of a past emotional experience. And we have a number of analytical and statistical tools that go with such rating studies. But we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings. That’s completely nuts. It’s so egregious that I don’t think it even occurs to us as something to look out for. It never happens. At least I’ve never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.
But it’s happening in climate science. Sort of. These junk studies are being published in climate science journals, which are probably not well-equipped to evaluate what are ultimately social science studies (in method). And I assume the journals weren’t aware that these studies used political activists as raters.
Examples of the unbelievable bias and transparent motives of the raters’ in Cook, et al (2013) below. These are excerpts from an online forum where the raters collaborated with each other in their ratings: –
See more at: http://www.joseduarte.com/#sthash.gfz7am3K.dpuf
Thank you Jose Duarte.
It is heartening to see somebody outside of climate science finally call these spades a spade. Now if we can just instill some sense of moral responsibility to people in climate science who really should be speaking out about using science as a smear tactic, we’ll be gettin somewhere.
Friends:
I write to refute the idiotic twaddle about “the left” which is polluting this thread.
Can none of the participants in this distorted political campaign recognise the irony?
This thread is about maligning of climate sceptics. It is being hijacked by people maligning “socialists” and “the Left” with nonsense which is not only untrue but is also irrelevant to the subject of the thread.
Perhaps the clearest example of this execrable and inexcusable behaviour is provided by gbaikie at August 6, 2014 at 12:49 pm. He writes
According to that ludicrous twaddle a “lefty” cannot accept the existence of “objective truth” and believes “moral and ethical behavior” is not possible. These untrue smears are despicable.
Such ludicrous twaddle excludes people of the left from being climate sceptics. Indeed, the most logical explanation of such twaddle is that it is intended to reduce opposition to the climate-scare by excluding people from the political left from involvement in opposition to the climate scare.
And the scattering of such nonsense throughout the thread is certainly intended to distract from the subject of the thread.
Richard
The manipulation of science to ghettoize those who talk about free markets is the topic, here:
“in their abstract they say: “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.””
Key subject: free market advocates are also anti-science. The last I checked, the “left” does not endorse free markets, unless they are of course forcing the purchase of some worthless product, or directing companies and their production through back door legislation, international treaties, and litigation. That is about as much free market as the “left” endorses.
“Such ludicrous twaddle excludes people of the left from being climate sceptics.”
No I’d say the justifiable criticism here is about the hard left who have deliberately hijacked the Green movement and engaged in a Long March through our educational institutions after their ideology was in tatters with the fall of the Berlin Wall. They’ve been quite successful at that and their meteoric rise to the commanding heights came with CAGW meme that finally struck a raw nerve with a Generation that was imbued with the notion of Spaceship Earth way back in 1969 with the moon landing.
Peculiarly enough the oil doomsayers and Club of Rome never managed to gain such traction but at last the hard left had their hands on the reins again, but as Walter Russell Mead noted, it’s all very well being noisy alarm clocks, but you need to turn the alarm off and get stuck in productively to a hard day at the office to achieve anything useful. Copenhagen said it all for these pretenders and with their subsequent failure to achieve anything useful, it’s been all downhill for them since.
There’s an old adage about how you get rid of such hard left central planning types. The answer is to vote them in and wait.
richardscourtney, I’m with observa on this one.
No, the average deluded left leaner is not in any way malevolent or evil and truly wants peace for all humanity and prosperity and no hunger or war and no climate change and sweetness and light and unicorns and rainbows. Really, they do. And you gotta give ’em a hug sometimes, because they’re always running into the obstinate grumpy, grouchy naysaying right, who insist that it’s ridiculous to expect sufficient energy density in hydrogen fuel tanks, or that the monstrosities being erected to generate electricity from wind are nothing useful, mere eyesores, wasteful and expensive, a bigger blight on the landscape than any sane person would ever build, and destined to be removed in only a few more years, if they aren’t all just allowed to decay into giant broken hulks.
No, the “Left” that are being decried here are the smarter ones, the ringleaders, the ones who know FULL WELL that they are wishing a horrible kind of failure and defeat upon the entire first world with this inane and ridiculous claim that we’re “ruining the planet”, that we need to abandon ALL fossil fuel use, that we should decivilize to give third world countries a chance. These are the insidious architects of the downfall of our entire civilization, the ones who not only don’t notice the barbarians at the gate, but invited them and are eagerly opening the gate for them.
Social Science my ass.
The entire field is down the tubes because Progressives are in charge.
I believe this is the same field of study that forced the crazy murdering jihadist US Army Major Hasan at Ft. Hood to stay in the army and to top it off they made sure he had access to a gun.
The man went through psychological testing, had written evidence of his hatred of American policies but, Progressives say you cannot discriminate.
Gun Free Zones is more of the Social Science of the Progressives.
Trust the European socialist left to direct world policies.
They’ve proven so transparent, honest and good./sarc
cn
Gotta say, I like this guy, Duarte. He’s thoughtful and fair. I don’t know whether not having a forum for reader comments is a good idea or not, but I must say that I don’t get off track into other people’s thoughts when reading his stuff. And his stuff is that good. This might be one of the best paragraphs regarding climate science ever composed :
>>>
“It’s clear that some climate scientists bring their politics into this. They leap to policy prescriptions and seem unaware of their ideological assumptions. Scientists are surprisingly not well-trained in separating ideological assumptions from descriptive facts, and don’t seem to run bias-correction algorithms on themselves. Climate science displays many of the classic signs of groupthink, and the tenor of the debate is disturbingly hostile and malicious as a result. ”
>>>
Jose Duarte wrote in ‘Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts’ – See more at: http://www.joseduarte.com/#sthash.gfz7am3K.UyaE4nzD.dpuf
And
Jose Duarte wrote in ‘Climate science is biased, but right’ http://www.joseduarte.com/#sthash.E3gGgmUZ.dpuf :
= = = = = = = =
I have a new favorite bookmark now, Jose Duarte’s site.
Although I agree with the main thrust of what Jose Duarte is saying in his above quotes, his use of the term left-wing in a political context is illogically fuzzy terminology. Better to use collectivism which conveys the more accurate distinction from ‘individualism’ than the term left-wing does.
Thanks WUWT for carrying the article by Jose Duarte.
John
CodeTech:
Substitute the word ‘right’ for each use of the word ‘left’ in your post at August 7, 2014 at 5:55 am and your post remains equally true.
The smearing in this thread is despicable, and it is compounded by the fact that the subject of this thread is a complaint about different smearing.
Richard
richardscourtney, just, NO. You are curiously incorrect here.
And I used to have some respect for you, too.
It’s amazing how some people simply refuse to accept that they’re supporting the wrong side.
On Jose Duarte’s site you will find also an article severely critical of the AAAS’s ‘consensus’ report that mirrors a lot of his severe criticism of the Cook et al (2013) ‘consensus’ paper. NOTE: I thank commenter Clovis Marcus (@ur momisugly August 6, 2014 at 8:29 am) for bringing the other Jose Duarte article to my attention.
Jose Duarte wrote in ‘Climate science is biased, but right’
http://www.joseduarte.com/#sthash.E3gGgmUZ.dpuf :
{all bold emphasis mine – JMW}
= = = = = = =
Indeed, very bad epistemology by the AAAS in their consensus report and also by the ERL editorial board (who published Cook et al (2013)).
I suggest that where you find false epistemology you will almost always find irrationally false metaphysics that leads to and complements the false epistemology.
Kant’s dual reality metaphysics is most often the basis of post-modern philosophy’s fundamental view of science. I think the AAAS’ and ERL’s false metaphysics justifying publication of the ‘consensus’ studies is the Kantian conception of a dual reality. Although the source of the dual reality metaphysics found in post-modern philosophy of science is largely Kant’s, his ideas were passed down through Hegel and it was Hegel’s metaphysical ideas that were the essential ones used by Marx and Engels as a basis of their widely known political theory which they called ‘socialism’. Therefore, I do not think it is a coincidence that dual reality metaphysics is a basis of the faulty science in these consensus papers (AAAS’ & Cook’s (in ERL)) as well as being the basis of modern political socialism (which some people fuzzily refer to as the ‘left’ but is more precisely referred to as the collectivist approach as opposed to the individualist approach).
John
Well thank you Jose Duarte, but is he the only psychologist who is aware of this work and who thinks what Lew did was wrong? A geology paper that unabashedly reworked data to fit a clearly biased conclusion that served some outside motive would be panned by thousands of geologists, if indeed it got miraculously published in the first place.
And what about climate scientists!! Not a peep. This paper did have an unexpected very valuable result: it showed CAGW climate scientists to be accepting of the worst crap possible if it supports their scenario. It says that it is okay to totally fabricate and lie in ‘science. The silence on this paper is a huge indictment of the CAGW clan who have caused trillions of dollars in economic loss and waste for an ideol_ol-ogy. When you allow such felons to intrude into your discipline in this way, says much about the diligence you employ in your own work. Shame, shame. There will be other papers on the real psychology of this disgraceful period. How Lysen_ko is remembered will be somewhat better than that to be enjoyed by the Team. The use-ful id-iots are fine, of course. They are always there waiting to be ab_used.
CodeTech:
At August 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm you write saying in total
Defending myself and all other smeared left-wingers is NOT “curiously incorrect”.
And I don’t care if some anonymous internet popup has or has not “respect” for me.
You are supporting the very, very wrong side “side” of division, hatred and demonisation. It is not amazing that people who support such evils refuse to accept that they’re supporting the wrong side.
I am defending the “side” of honesty and truth which – whatever you may assert – is the correct side.
Richard
norah4you on August 6, 2014 at 1:57 pm
It’s more like AGW’ers produces the same as dogs sometimes leave behind …
TheLastDemocrat says “Psychology explores the natural world of human experience and behavior, strives to understand its rules or patterns, and take the findings and put them to some use.”
That it does. Its complexity stems from a nearly hopeless mixing of causes and effects and the researcher’s own biases in this area — starting with why he chose this profession in the first place. I believe some people (actually, some that I know personally) learn these theories with the specific aim in mind of manipulating others — I believe that is why John Cook enlisted the assistence of Dr. Lewandowsky.
Certainly it is the case that advertisers place great stock in psychology. I read an interesting small book called “Buyology” about using functional magnetic resonance imaging to discover what actually motivates a person, a byproduct of which was exploring how much and how often a person deceives even himself.
I have found considerably utility in the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator. It is good for what it is good for — predicting suitability for certain kinds of work and uncovering “poseurs”.
It would be useless (and obvious) if merely observations; any poet does that much. Its utility is prediction and prescription.
The sinister aspect is that politicians can abuse psychology just as they can abuse any other “ology” and label their enemies with any of dozens or hundreds of social diseases.
“Psychiatry possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine. The diagnosis of mental disease allows the state to hold persons against their will and insist upon therapy in their interest and in the broader interests of society.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
“Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.”
Hi all, Joe Duarte here. We do have a journal article, now in press at the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences: http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf
I takes a broad look at issues related to what Lewandowsky did, and how invalid and unscientific papers can be published in normally excellent journals like Psychological Science.
It is true that a graduate student will usually have less impact and power compared to a famous tenured professor. But my arguments are very simple and I think indisputable – I don’t go after marginal cases. If we have 10 moon hoaxists in a sample of 1145, and only 3 of them also endorse a climate science hoax, then yeah, we can’t link those two things in the very title of our paper. 10 is zero. 3 is zero (and is a *minority* of the 10, which is zero anyway.) This is supposed to be science, not literature.
(And I’m only a graduate student for a few more weeks.)
Congratulations soon-to-be Dr. Duarte! And thank you for starting your career with integrity and courage! May you continue to speak out against those who think their degrees can hide or excuse their own erratic behavior and flawed thinking. We need more of you!
richardscourtney, of COURSE you think that.
But I, also, am supporting the “side” of honesty and truth. Unfortunately, we have a difference of opinion on what that means.
My observation has always been that a certain group of people believe that they have a monopoly on honesty and truth. And yet, those people wouldn’t know honesty and/or truth if it kicked them between the eyes. Those are the idealists and fascists that cling to the left side.
And the main problem with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.
– – – – – – – –
Joe Duarte,
Thanks for the info.
Appreciate your insight on your website into both the Cook et al (2013) ‘consensus’ paper and the AAAS ‘consensus’ report.
John
Code Tech,
As I read Richard’s words, I give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that what he’s trying to say is that it’s insulting and lazy thinking to treat all people under any given label as if they are ALL identical. My experience is that fools come in every flavor imaginable- left, right, conservative, liberal, young, old etc. I resent being told what I supposedly think or feel or believe by total strangers once they’ve classified me under some title or another. It’s arrogant and irrational to do such a thing. Which is why I try to never do it to anyone else. Perhaps Richard is trying to get you to think outside your own biases…?
Aphan:
re your post at August 8, 2014 at 10:04 am.
Yes. Thankyou.
And some of those “biases” are both offensive and ridiculous; e.g fascism is left-wing.
Richard
Richard,
Originally, fascism was anti-communist, anti-conservative, and anti-liberalism. It borrowed from both sides and the middle. Today, fascism means something different to everyone it seems….no one defines it in exactly the same way.
For example, Jonathan Alter, a left wing columnist, just wrote an article in the Daily Beast calling for American Corporations to have to take “loyalty oaths” and promoting rabid nationalism. Both are typically viewed as fascist practices, but Alter isn’t a right winger.
That’s another reason why trying to stereotype people as one thing or another is foolish…if the people you are accusing of a certain behavior/mentality actually DON’T believe/think that way…it makes you a liar and a bigot in the end.
To say that in the US global warming enthusiast/alarmists political affinities fall overwhelmingly to the Left is True. Period.
To say all people with Leftist affinity are Global Warming enthusiast/alarmists is false. Richardscourtney personifies a Socialist Sceptic. And a large and vital input to WUWT.
Aphan:
Many thanks for your thought-provoking post at August 8, 2014 at 12:10 pm. Clearly, there is room for debate about it, but such a debate would be very off-topic in this thread.
I fully agree with your concluding paragraph which provides a clear and succinct summary of what I was trying to say in my earlier posts. You conclude and I applaud
Richard
Aphan, I totally understand what is going on here, I suspect it is richard that doesn’t.
Absolutely there are whack jobs on both sides, in any debate, in any issue. It would be wrong to try to say that “all leftists are idiots” or “only idiots lean to the left”. I’m not saying that. However, RobRoy points out the obvious: ALL of the “we need to do something”, running around, arm waving, panicking, socialist climate mitigation and reparation schemes are coming from the left side.
It’s really not that difficult. I wouldn’t be offended if I was involved in a discussion where someone pointed out that a lot on the right are, for example, creationists. I’m not, but I know there are a lot who are. I would accept that observation and move on.
(fascism is currently EMBRACED by the left wing)
CodeTech:
Your post at August 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm is both disingenuous and offensive.
Of course I “understand what is going on here” and I am objecting to it. For example, your post includes this untrue smear
That may possibly be true in the US but it is complete nonsense everywhere else.
Indeed, I suspect the smear is presented as a method to divide opposition to climate mitigation and reparation schemes (incidentally which are not “socialist”).
It is disgraceful that a thread about untrue smears is being hijacked by people making untrue smears.
Richard
Okay whatever.
Go ahead, be wrong.