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 It should’ve been retracted by the authors already.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your posts throughout this entire thread are exactly what you are accusing mine of being: disingenuous and offensive.
I was trying to be nice, but there’s no point. Leftists simply don’t understand nice, they seem to mistake it for a form of weakness.
You’re wrong, richard. Wrong with a capital W. I wonder how much more damage the left will do to science, culture, and our entire civilization before apologists and fellow travellers like yourself realize how toxic and damaging they are. How much?
Code Tech,
You say you understand what is going on here, but then you provide an example that makes me wonder if you truly do:
“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.”
Apparently it IS difficult for you to grasp what I’m pointing out. Whether or not YOU would be offended is totally irrelevant to whether or not someone ELSE might or might not be. I might be fine with being linked to creationists, but not fascists. I might be more sensitive about your opinion on my religious beliefs than I am on your opinion on my political ones. That YOU would accept an “observation and move on”, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone else can, or should!
You’re doing the same thing that Alec Rawls pointed out so clearly above- you’re assuming that everyone thinks the way YOU think….or you believe that they SHOULD think the way you do….and respond the way you do….etc.
And then, as if you are literally trying to prove my point, you posted:
“(fascism is currently EMBRACED by the left wing)”
How can you NOT SEE that you are miles away from “pointing out that a lot of people on the left are, for example, fascists”?
The way you make your statement automatically implies that “the left wing” (all of it…not some of it, or parts of it) “LOVES (EMBRACES)…welcomes with open arms, accepts readily, holds close to” fascism!
If you cannot see the difference between those two examples, then YOU have the problem here. If you CAN see the difference, but you CHOSE to phrase your words in an insulting manner, rather than an observational one, then I, and others, will indeed continue to have a problem with you.
Aphan:
Quoting from richard:
This is a typical error made in political discourse. Fascism is neither left nor right. It’s a tactic, used to control populations and minds. Currently, the left are using fascist tactics to shut down conversation and belittle the right. Yes, they are. Tell me the mind control techniques being used RIGHT NOW are not the left: specifically the overwhelming takeover of education, media, and entertainment industries. This was a conscious effort undertaken in the 60s.
So people don’t like being associated with fascist techniques and tendencies. The obvious solution would be to distance yourself from the ideology that is using such techniques, and stop whining and getting faux outraged when someone points it out.
No, I don’t think everyone thinks like I do, in fact very few people do. But I’m NOT going to get someone lecture against people pointing out the obvious: The Left Is Driving The Climate Change Bus.
Code Tech,
If you want us to view you as credible in any fashion, and your chances of that are slipping away quickly, then YOU need to learn to represent other people ACCURATELY.
RobRoy posted at 11:17-
“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.”
In other words- if you took ALL of the global warming enthusiasts/alarmists in the US and examined them, you’d find that the overwhelming majority of them fall to the political LEFT. And he clarifies that he is NOT saying that “all people on the left are global warming enthusiasts/alarmists.” I agree with both of his statements.
Three hours later, YOU said:
“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.”
Now, either you have a reading comprehension problem, OR you deliberately misrepresented RobRoy because his CLARIFIED his viewpoint three hours before your post and he did NOT say what you are saying.
I fall on the political right. And I find YOUR behavior today to be both disingenuous and offensive. I think YOUR behavior, and statements to be far more damaging to and toxic than ANYTHING Richard has ever said or posted here. Let me clarify-YOU do not represent me, or “the right”, or anyone else I affiliate with in any way, and if your opinions and statements are that foreign to me, then I can only imagine how much more idiotic you appear from the other side of the fence.
Obviously Richard can defend himself perfectly well. He is a highly intelligent, articulate man who is well respected in this forum and others.
I’m not attempting to speak for HIM or his viewpoints Code Tech. I am speaking for MYSELF, and how I view his comments in comparison to yours.
“Fascism is neither left nor right.”
Correct.
“It’s a tactic, used to control populations and minds. ”
Wrong. Fascism is an IDEOLOGY, a belief system, a political movement. The “tactics” YOU describe-describe-mind control, shutting down the conversation, belittling the opposition etc. are adoptable by anyone, on ANY side of any issue, for any reason. They are not mutually exclusive to “fascism”. Your own “tactics” here are just as offensive and irrational. What ideology shall I ascribe them to on your behalf?
Perhaps you should educate yourself on how ill used the word “fascism” is before you go accusing people of being fascists. George Orwell tried to explain it in 1944. Maybe you’ll understand him-
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
What a breathtaking display of arrogance and intolerance, masquerading behind being offended by arrogance and intolerance.
You should be ashamed. But you’re not.
Brilliant misrepresentation. But not even worth replying. Have the life you deserve.
@Joe Kirklin Duarte 8/7 at 7:41 pm
Good to hear from you. Please don’t be a stranger.
There is so much dirty laundry to take in if you are receptive to the ugly, conflict of interest, self-serving, dishonest statistics and data manipulation that passes for main stream climate science. They go so far as to hide data in plain sight.
Yes, it is so egregious that most people don’t look for it.
I would think that the air’s really thin up there,
Where you sit, looking down, from your lofty chair.
When the clouds block your view, and the Sun’s too hot,
Just remember, you fought for the throne you’ve got.
And how IS life under that bridge, aphan?
My only disagrement with Duarte’s stance is that he gives too much credit to this whole affair as being about science. It doubt it was.