A disturbance in the farce: Another hateful and pointless paper from Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes

Lewpaper, version 3.0, now with even more rhetoric. One wonders if the University of Bristol has any shame. Barry Woods has an excellent comment that follows, pointing out how this is as much about their fear of ‘the pause’, as it is the hatred of opinion that is contrary to their viewpoint. As is typical in Lew-world, the press release is more important than the paper itself, as the paper is not yet available according to the great man himself:

Temporary note: the publication date was set by the journal to be 7 May 2015 but as of 10am GMT the doi has not gone live. Until the link is live, copies of the corrected proofs can be obtained by emailing me.

The press release:


How climate science denial affects the scientific community

Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty and is also affecting how they themselves speak – and perhaps even think – about their own research, a new study from the University of Bristol, UK argues.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from Bristol’s School of Experimental Psychology and the Cabot Institute, and colleagues from Harvard University and three institutions in Australia show how the language used by people who oppose the scientific consensus on climate change has seeped into scientists’ discussion of the alleged recent ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ in global warming, and has thereby unwittingly reinforced a misleading message.

The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated, which implies that talk of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ is misleading. Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend, but this fluctuation differs little from past fluctuations in warming rate, including past periods of more rapid than average warming. Crucially, on previous occasions when decadal warming was particularly rapid, the scientific community did not give short-term climate variability the attention it has now received, when decadal warming was slower. During earlier rapid warming there was no additional research effort directed at explaining ‘catastrophic’ warming. By contrast, the recent modest decrease in the rate of warming has elicited numerous articles and special issues of leading journals.

This asymmetry in response to fluctuations in the decadal warming trend likely reflects what the study’s authors call the ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work.

Professor Lewandowsky said: “It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models, even though all of them permit – indeed, expect – changes in the rate of warming over any arbitrarily chosen period.”

So why might scientists be affected by contrarian public discourse? The study argues that three recognised psychological mechanisms are at work: ‘stereotype threat’, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ and the ‘third-person effect’.

‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.

‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.

Research shows that people generally believe that persuasive communications exert a stronger effect on others than on themselves: this is known as the ‘third-person effect’. However, in actual fact, people tend to be more affected by persuasive messages than they think. This suggests the scientific community may be susceptible to arguments against climate change even when they know them to be false.

Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists have a unique and crucial role in public policy: to communicate clearly and accurately the entire range of risks that we know about. The public has a right to be informed about risks, even if they are alarming.

“Climate scientists have done a great job pursuing their science under great political pressure and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work. However, sometimes scientists have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to frame the language of their scientific thinking, leading us to overstate uncertainty and under-communicate knowledge.

“Knowing about one’s own susceptibility to outside pressure is half the battle: our research may therefore enable scientists to recognise the potential for this seepage of contrarian arguments into their own language and thinking.”

The study is published today in Global Environmental Change.

###

Paper

‘Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community’ by Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell and Michael Smithson in Global Environmental Change

NOTE: The paper will be here if they ever get their act together: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013


Barry Woods writes in an email to me:

Oreskes/Lew are basically saying scientists are doing it wrong, ie Tamsin, Doug and Ed, Richard ….
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall – Nature Climate Change
The recent slowdown (or ‘pause’) in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public.
We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that ‘many-to-many’ communication offers a key opportunity to directly engage with the public.
I’m reminded of Doug Mcneall (Met Office) withering response to Oreskes when she said scientists should NOT use the word ‘pause’
She said she was writing a paper (with Lewandowsky, we now find out) about what words to use…
Doug’s reply was priceless (see below)
ClimateCentral ‏@ClimateCentral  Sep 24
Stocker: “Majority of warming is in the ocean. During warming pause, the ocean has been…absorbing all that heat:” pic.twitter.com/fRyEn45iV8
Naomi Oreskes ‏@NaomiOreskes  Sep 24
@ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell  Good work but why are you using the “pause” meme? Please rethink. I realize this is a quotation but…
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall  Sep 24
@NaomiOreskes @ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell Because pause, hiatus, slowdown etc. are in common use in the climate science community?
Naomi Oreskes
‏@NaomiOreskes
@dougmcneall @ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell
Slowdown is correct, if you need to say something. I’m working on paper on this.
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall  Sep 24
@NaomiOreskes Tell you what, until you’ve written that paper, and it’s findings are generally accepted, we’ll choose our own venacular.
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall  Sep 24
@NaomiOreskes I mean “its” not “it’s” of course. Terrible oversight.
Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts  Sep 24
@NaomiOreskes Met Office Hadley Centre say ‘pause’ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
@dougmcneall @ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell
Naomi Oreskes  @NaomiOreskes
@dougmcneall @ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell understood but there’s no pause. We should not repeated false clams.  Even from scientists.
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall  Sep 24
@NaomiOreskes Ignoring it won’t make it go away. @ClimateCentral @NNUS @jeffgoodell
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall
*brief pause while @NaomiOreskes googles me*
Jacquelyn Gill ‏@JacquelynGill  Sep 24
@dougmcneall Is that necessary? She’s also a respected scholar, with valid points. @NaomiOreskes
Doug McNeall ‏@dougmcneall  Sep 24
@JacquelynGill @NaomiOreskes Oh, sorry for being short. I get fed up with climate scientists being told what to say, how to communicate.
John Kennedy (Met Office) tweeted , not taking Naomi too seriously  (que loads of other climate jokes)
John Kennedy @micefearboggis
Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…
bitter”
Barman: “Why the long pause?”
Climate Scientist: <sobs>
And:
John Kennedy‏@micefearboggis Sep 24
I say Hi-ah-tus, you say Hi-ay-tus. Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Let’s call the whole thing off
I imagine Doug was a bit irritated because he and Tamsin and Ed authors had published recently in Nature about sci comms, love the title
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall
And Tamsin had done a Cern TedX that same week, talking about pause and uncertainty!
Tamsin  – Cern TedX
The first problem uncertainty brings is the extra difficulty for the expert in explaining their results, and the non-expert in understanding them. For example, over the past 17 years or so there has been a slowdown, even a pause, in the rate of warming of the atmosphere. We’re confident the climate is still changing, because the ocean is still warming, the land losing ice, sea level rising, and we predict the atmosphere will start to warm again after this temporary blip
I hope this list will grow, and start conversations that help us deal better with uncertainty in climate science – perhaps even with the messy business of science itself. So if you’re confused about climate … puzzled about the pause … surprised about sea level … or just uncertain about uncertainty … please come and find us. We’d love to talk.
look out Doug/Tamsin/Ed/Richard the Climate Word police are out to admonish you…. peer review says so..
Barry
various links to above:
Doug – because pause slowdown
Oreskes -if you need to say something.
Doug – tell you what
Doug – Brief pause
John Kennedy
Curry – Hiatus
Betts Pause
Pause for thought
Oreskes- ‘but theres no pause’
Advertisements

198 thoughts on “A disturbance in the farce: Another hateful and pointless paper from Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes

  1. It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models…

    Gods forbid! We can’t have scientists of all people re-examining their own theory, data and models! Next thing you know they’ll be doing actual science!

    • Not only re-examining their own theory, data, and models, but being influenced by persuasive arguments! The horror!

    • It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models…

      So…they object to the “revelation” that Man’s CO2 causing global warming is debunked because as CO2 has risen the temps have not? “The Pause” is becoming a plausible debunker in (even consenus) scientific circles that Man-caused CO2 is not a cause of what has not happened?
      (I know. An awkward sentence to follow. But, hey, so are the CAGWer’s rationalizations!)

    • There are scientists and there are politicians… and then there are political scientists who have achieved the level of BS.

  2. There are always useful idiots in the turning of the tide by demonstrating their excess to others.

      • Count me in, too. Lewandowski as “We scientists…” is beyond farce. It hit me immediately. Likewise Oreskes.

      • Lewandowski is not a scientist and he knows it. Or, rather, to the extend he understands what science actually is, he is aware he does not practice it. It is not for nothing that he flunks Methodology 101 every single time, consequently rendering the “results” of his “studies” impossible to reproduce.

        The core issue, imo, is the naive admission that he himself considers warm-mongering climate scientists not be scientists at all. That consideration must be insultingly shocking to the scientists involved. One thing is to be conducting scientific research that, somehow, is unproductive or leading nowhere or based on assumptions later shown to be inappropriate. An entire different issue is to be considered akin to a quack.

    • Since the overwhelming majority of “climate scientists” are most likely NOT psychology experts, the very title of his paper is HILARIOUS!

      “Seepage-noun: the slow escape of a liquid or gas through porous material or small holes.”

      Kind of like letting the air out of a balloon. Or out of an atmosphere. Or an idiotic theory….especially the slow release of a whole lot of hot air…

      I find it utterly fascinating that John Cook and Lew so often blatantly engage in the exact same “psychological mechanisms” that they feel the public needs to be warned about, while being completely oblivious to it! Or refuse to apply their crazy assumptions to ALL SIDES EQUALLY. For example-from the above press release:

      “‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.”

      So, when scientists are stereotyped as “deniers” or “skeptics”, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming “denialish” or “skeptical” by “upplaying” the degree of threat. Right Lew?

      And this:

      “‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.”

      Wow Lew. Really? Here’s how “pluralistic ignorance” is defined by other social psychologists-

      “In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it. This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes.”

      “Pluralistic ignorance posits that in certain circumstances most people will falsely believe that others conform to certain ideas or standards, and will uphold them, too, while privately disagreeing with them.”

      Meaning…that in order to be logical and unbiased, Lew must admit that it’s just as possible that the majority of climate scientists actually reject AGW theory, while incorrectly assuming/believing that most of their peers accept it, and therefore they go along with it. Because they think their opinion (that AGW is not a credible theory or threat to the planet) puts them in the minority, they therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.

      Every time this man opens his mouth or types words, he makes his own biases and irrationality even more obvious to the average person. Which is why I always encourage John and Lew to talk as much as possible!

      • While true that these two are science clowns…
        They’re making a pretty good living, and I’m one of the guys paying their salary.
        Not real happy about that.

      • So, is it that we all privately believe the opposite of what we think we really believe, but not to look foolish, we say we believe what we believe everyone else believes? But we don’t really. Personally, I find that a bit hard to believe.

        Eamon.

      • “Seepage” is the newest verb. It can be used for all types of slow motion of mindful material, like for example – money. Guess how much seepage there will be into the pocket of this Lewandowsky clown.

      • Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from Bristol’s School of Experimental Psychology,
        The scariest description of a “scientist” ever. That description of this guy scares the hell out of me, I picture a white coated bushy eyed guy saying
        ” Ve Hvafe vays to make yoo talk”

      • So, when scientists are stereotyped as “deniers” or “skeptics”, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming “denialish” or “skeptical” by “upplaying” the degree of threat. Right Lew?

        But then there is BIG OIL’s never ending money to keep them in their denialism, in Lew’s logic I guess xDDD

    • ‘Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists..’

      He isn’t a scientist. He’s a psychologist. I studied several units of psychology when I was an undergraduate. In those days they knew it wasn’t a science but they were trying to make it one. It still isn’t one, but I don’t know whether they are still trying or just declaring that it is.

    • From the press release of one of his other “scientific” papers

      The scientists used an ordinal approach — a range of mathematical methods that address the question: ‘What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?’

      ƒ(µ)kt=iƒ(1,k)∩0ω maybe?

  3. You know for entertainment we could get a trolling party together, get on tweeter and every time a new reason to explain the pause is announced. Take this paper and shove it down the announcers throats and call them deniers. Abusing them with their own propaganda is the fastest way to get them to denounce it.

    The best way to use propaganda like this is against the “attempting to stay above the debate” group of propagandists aka your gavins, manns, hansens etc.

    • I like it, you are correct. This is the way to get them to denounce their own propaganda.
      Your idea, unfortunately, has much to recommend it.

    • “This asymmetry in response to fluctuations in the decadal warming trend likely reflects what the study’s authors call the ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work.”

      I guess that decadal stuff was so well known that these guys warned us well ahead of time that we’ll see 18 years plus of stability and that it would end on dd/mm/yyyy as predicted by their models. isn’t it like that Lew? Lew?… LOL

  4. Maybe this pause is just like the pause that occurred from around 1945-1975. Maybe global warming, er, climate change really is real. But maybe, just maybe, it’s neither catastrophic nor majorly driven by human emissions. Maybe it’s just a natural outcome of post-glaciation. Nah.

    • Maybe this entire interglacial should be better evaluated.
      What actually happens during interglacials should be compared to what’s happening today.
      Forget about two decades or six decades or even 15 decades.
      The only valid starting point should be our exit from the last glacial period.
      Let’s use honest science this time.
      They won’t because they know there is no CO2/Temperature control knob.

    • This time it’s different… except when it’s not.

      “Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend, but this fluctuation differs little from past fluctuations in warming rate, including past periods of more rapid than average warming.”

  5. Aren’t these the same guys who declared that scientists have to hide any uncertainty that they may feel because the cause was so important?

    • Hard to believe English has no word for this..oh, wait, how about “stopped”? Or the eminently descriptive “atmospheric temperatures have leveled”. Precision in language is something I harp on with students, but it typically falls on deaf ears. Too much desire for shorthand (and sensationalism).

    • On prediction –

      We know that the climate doesn’t remain steady state for long, so it will either warm or cool.
      We know that we are 12,000 years into a 10,000 year interglacial.

      Therefore, when the pause ends, we must hope that it resumes the upward trend.

      • Mike

        Let me correct you there Mike…..we are ~ 15 K years in to an Interglacial that is period considered as to be ~15K year long period.
        The Interglacial started ~7.5K years before the very top of the interglacial optimum was reached…….and we are now ~7.5K years after that very top happened.

        Tip…….a conjunction with Mayan calendar suggest a long shot possibility of the Interglacial end to be as per December 2012.
        According to Mayans, as per my understanding, the period after is considered the Era of the Dark Sun (a very cool indeed period or era).

        Cheers

      • whiten

        Tip…….a conjunction with Mayan calendar suggest a long shot possibility of the Interglacial end to be as per December 2012.
        According to Mayans, as per my understanding, the period after is considered the Era of the Dark Sun (a very cool indeed period or era).

        Mayan calendar “problem” is simply that they stopped carving symbols in stone at the second Venusian eclipse in 2012 – very much like our printed calendars today “stop” at the end of December. Then begin at the top of the next page.

      • RACookPE1978
        May 8, 2015 at 3:42 am

        Hello RACook.

        Thank you very much for the reply.
        Sorry for such a late reply to you, apologies, …..but no much free time these days.

        first I ma glad that at least your reply seems to suggest that you do not disagree with the first part of my reply to Mike above.
        When it comes to the “Tip”, the Mayan calendar implied connection or conjuncture…..if I understand your point right….I am unable do dismiss their science simply on the grounds of coincidence.

        I am not saying that your point is not valid to me, but from where I stand, even with a superficial observation, to me is very difficult to consider the Mayan science as a coincidence.

        If it helps I will say this, the Mayan calendar in question (the ~5K years long one) is to me what we may call a predictive tool…….but there is not only it……there is another calendar that this one in question belongs to, a longer one calendar, which can be considered as an estimating tool. That one depicts a ~20K year period. not as thoroughly and finely and to such a resolution, but never the less it is there.

        Maybe I am imagining here but I think that a simple search could just spark some thought about this one point.

        To me, the Mayan knew better than us about what we today call climate and climate change.
        I know that sounds silly…yes. :-)

        cheers

  6. “The Goat Effect”

    Basically when you finally cant milk any more out of the latest fashionable cause go and milk the nearest Goat to death.

  7. The idea that Barry Sanders is no longer playing in the NFL, just because he is no longer playing in the NFL is absurd. Blogs that claim that Barry Sanders is no longer playing in the NFL simply do not understand the science of being Barry Sanders.

    Or maybe there’s just no scientific explanation for Barry Sanders …

    • Come on now, that’s ridiculous.

      But then your comment made me think, there has been no global warming since Barry Sanders retired. Barry Sanders being un-retired correlates perfectly with global warming!

  8. “Oreskes- ‘but theres no pause’”

    Isn’t this the lunatic who’s argued that when it comes to “climate change” we don’t have the luxury of open-mindedness? How pathetic, coming from an academic Either way, this last tweet seems to sum it all up, and not in the way Ms. Oreskes imagines.

    She can stick her fingers in her ears and go sing LAH, LAH, LAH all she wants. The pause doesn’t care.

    18 years + and counting.

    LAH, LAH, LAH

    • Wouldn’t it be rich if someone did a survey and found that a majority of climate scientists agree that warming has paused? That would mean Oreskes denies the scientific consensus when she states that there is no pause.

    • They’ll change the paradigm by saying something like “As predicted, heightened public awareness of the coming Armageddon has dalayed its arrival; but we are not out of the woods yet. Thus the urgent need for increased funding.”

    • “What phrase or word will they use when the pause turns into the expected cooldown?”

      easy, Climate Change. Yep, CO2 can do that too…

      • When the pause first started all of them, particularly Gavin if I remember correctly, were saying that when it starts rising again, it’ll be much steeper this time (to catch up with where it should have been).

        So far the miniscule amount of natural variation (their words) has had so much influence that it’s completely blotted out the ever rising temperature.

        If and when the temperatures start to fall, and I believe they will, they’ll all have to retire early.

    • That too will be further proof that the planet has a fever.

      In their make-believe world, there is no negative feedback, no reversion to the mean, no cyclical forces at work. It’s a one-way ticket to planetary doom, where CO2 is the control knob that turns every other physical and biological force into a co-conspirator of the existential threat.

    • Why do you think they are all in full panic mode? They believed that it would be MUCH easier to send society into a panic and deconstruct our evil, fossil fuel driven infrastructure than it has been. Had it gone as they had hoped it would, we’d be living in a wind powered green world when the cool down started, and thus they would have been able to take full credit for saving the world! Temperatures are NOT rising as they were before, and they are running out of time.

  9. ‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised.

    So Dr Lewandowsky, I have a question.

    How is it that the climate science community can steadfastly claim that 97% of their colleagues agree with them, yet also have the perception that their opinion is marginalized? Please pick one, they cannot both be true.

  10. Looking forward to the full paper then I can check the Abbreviations Used section and find out what “climate change denial” is.

  11. CLIMATe CHANGE IS PAUSED?

    Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million, according to scientists.

    ‘The milestone was announced by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). They said it was the first month that the entire globe broke 400ppm, reaching levels that haven’t been seen for about TWO MILLION YEARS.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32625429

    [TYPo? .mod]

    • Help Wanted ad seen in several obscure but significant newspapers for about 5 years now (no qualified applicants, yet…):

      “HELP! WANTED! Out with the old, in with the new. Happy Camps, formerly, AGW, Corp., needs a new threat. If you are a go-getter, not fussy about working conditions (or fine details), and have proven experience in public performance … this could be your dream job! Required: must be able to seem really, really, {we mean it} REALLY, SCARY</b. Able to lift heavy loads of our product all day (and some nights). Please, no witches. You must be a DRIVEN ACHIEVER, who wants to be part of a TEAM dedicated to our progressive, earth-friendly, goal: frighten people so badly (for their own good) they will pay to live in our safety camps.

      Also needed: windmill repair techs, maggot tenders, and dentists skilled in natural dentistry (i.e., no anesthetics).

      e mail us TODAY! happycamps@controllers.com {Note: if this is a real address…. (eye roll)}
      **************************************************
      #(:))

      Clowns.

    • blackadderthe4th
      May 7, 2015 at 10:53 am
      “CLIMATe CHANGE IS PAUSED?
      Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million, according to scientists.”

      The name WARMunist comes from WARMING. And IT STOPPED WARMING.

      • lol (great punctuation, Dirk). #(:))

        Somehow… I don’t think it’s problem of needing reading glasses… .

  12. Since we are doing jokes:

    A cop pulls over a guy who went through a red light.

    “But I slowed down”, says the scofflaw.

    “The law says stop”

    “I went REALLY slowly, though”.

    “You need to stop”

    “What the hell is the difference”.

    Cop pulls out billy club and womps the guy on the head.

    “Now, do you want me to stop, or do you want me to slow down?”

    BTW, isn’t climate “science” a bit of a smorgasbord now, without adding something called a discipline called “Experimental Psychology” being added to the mix?

    Oh, sorry, we aren’t really talking about science anymore, just politics. Silly me.

    • There is no discipline of Experimental Psychology, the field is a mish-mosh of people doing small scale treatment-measurement exercises on human subjects and then reporting effects, that are slightly greater than chance, as if they are an important contribution to a theory or theories that are equivocal at best or completely idiotic at worst. The field has not advanced our understanding of human behavior one bit in the last 50 years. The only thing useful about a degree in the field is that it requires a solid grasp of ANOVA and an appreciation of the difference between a measurement model and a structural model. After that anyone that pursues an academic career in the area will spend a lifetime grasping at straws. Maybe that’s why Lew is so desperate, this is the only straw he can grasp.

      But it’s a most excellent joke!

  13. Lewandowsky says:

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated…

    That might even be justified, if the right time frame was picked. We know that since the LIA, global T has naturally risen. But that isn’t what Lew is implying. He’s trying to convince people that global warming has not stopped, or ‘paused’ for the past 12 – 18+ years (depending on which data set is used). But even the UN/IPCC acknowledges that there has been no recent global warming.

    I will give Lew one thing: he has a knack for coming up with memorable phrases, like: ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work. And: Pluralistic Ignorance, Recursive Fury, Counterfactual Thinking, Conspiracist Ideation, etc.

    But Lewandowsky is a thoroughly despicable character, and it should be remembered that his Recursive Fury paper was forced into retraction. And of course, his completely false claim that “97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming” has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s become a joke among all but diehard climate alarmists.

    Finally, I recall reading what one of his Australian students wrote about Lewandowsky:

    Have a bath, grub. LOL!

    • Yes, the new Lew paper attempts to clean up the seepage.

      Thank you. I’ll be here all week, folks.

  14. There has been a great disturbance in the farce known as “the consensus”, forcing “scientists” to grudgingly admit to shortcomings in their “science”. Suddenly, Lew and Co. start flinging wet noodles in a vicious counter-attack.
    The Climatist Empire strikes back.

  15. So here is someone objecting to the phrase ‘the pause’ in climate discussions yet uses the term ‘Climate change denialists’ in the opening of his press release. Wow!

  16. “I think we only have hours to stop global death due to climate change.”
    “That’s nice. How long have you thought this?”
    “Oh, for years now.”
    “Impressive. Have you received your MENSA invitation yet?”

  17. And so it begins….

    “The Pause” is really starting to freak out the left.

    The “rapid and unprecedented” (not true) rise of global temps trends from 1980~1998 is now the same duration as the pause from 1996~2015….

    The alarmists accuse skeptics of “cherry-picking”, while ignoring that their entire CAGW hypothesis depends entirely on the warming from 1980~1998, for without it, CAGW hysteria never would have been possible to indoctrinate the aggressively ignorant masses…

    The truth is that NONE of CAGW’s dire predictions are coming close to reflecting reality…. Rather than accepting this, rabid alarmists pout and call skeptics names…

    CAGW is dead; skeptics and the world won, and the CAGW alarmists lost.

    Game, set and match….

    • I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Many world leaders seem to be drinking the cool-aid. They can cause a lot of real world damage to societies, nations and the world through the laws they pass and enforce. I wouldn’t count CAGW defeated until I see the cold dead body buried.

      • “… until I see the cold dead body buried.”

        You’re right – cremation is NOT an option!

      • The controllers will always be out there, with a new-improved monster from time to time, to frighten people into letting them (in the name of the Holy Precautionary Fallacy) take over to “save the world.”

        Truth wins.

        Then, another battle begins in the perennial War for Truth.

        AGW is dead.

        The Kofi Annans of the world, the Hustlers {coined by Charlie}, just keep it full of formaldehyde (or whatever) and prop it up… until they can find another way to hustle (gotta keep those windmill and solar subsidies coming for a few more years…) … and to save face
        so that the public will believe them next time, too.

        Lenin’s Body on Display in Moscow

      • Great girl. “It was a bit scary but he’s dead, he can’t attack us like in the past”

      • Politicians always try to get on the bus after it has left the station. Something to do with inertia I reckon. Like trying to reverse a battleship 3 metres from the pier by going from full ahead to full astern …

    • Yes, Dirk, I enjoyed that little girl’s comments, too. And the young man, not all that much older than she who says it’s time to bury him. Heh, guess they need ol’ Kruschev to come back and do it for them.

  18. “Climate scientists have done a great job pursuing their science under great political pressure”
    Does he mean pressure to put out alarming papers, or pressure against?
    And what does Lew know about Climate.

  19. Oreskes comes off here as something of a Soviet Political Officer here.

    “Comrade, here is a reminder of words we do not use…”

    Did you notice that *the second* someone speculated that “the heat must have gone into the ocean,” it became “settled science” in the rhetoric of the field?

    I know the “prove it” ethic is dead and buried, but it’s still embarrassing to see.

  20. “The study argues that three recognised psychological mechanisms are at work: ‘stereotype threat’, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ and the ‘third-person effect’.”

    They just blindly make up sh*t. These aren’t real things. Psychology what a crock.

      • As a semi-professional photographer, I’m often at a loss when asked for an “artist’s statement”.

        Luckily, there are online generators such as http://www.artybollocks.com/ that supply me with pretentious twaddle.

        Get the idea that this is what this lewlew starts with?

      • CaligulaJones,

        That … is … awesome.

        Oh my God, often what I enjoy most at art galleries or shows or openings is busting a gut reading the artists’ statements. ‘Artists’ have no shame.

        To me, they always subtract, never add.

        As a painter, I have vowed to never participate in that nonsense. The most you are going to get out of me is, “I slop pigment on cellulose.”

        I know another painter who astutely calls artists’ statements ‘personal mayonnaise,’ to be slathered over their work so hopefully you can choke it down.

        Thank you. You’ve made my day :-)

    • “They just blindly make up sh*t. ”

      Maybe they’re probing the peer review process for weaknesses?

      “These aren’t real things.”

      Yet they’re published. Feel free to cite them, helps them metastasize into fact.

      • It’s an entire field made up of small-sample treatment-measurement protocols, if you have a few thousand idiots doing 4 or 5 experiments the chance that something will be statistically significant is pretty good. Then they learn to manipulate the treatment to push the same results out over and over. The internal validity of many of their measurements is crap, or worse yet they depend on “expert coders,” (e.g., grad students), to analyze text drivel from student subjects and put them into preordained buckets. It really is one of those fields that most universities should just shut down.

  21. Who are the deniers?
    Those who claim all recent warming is anthropogenic seem to be denying that the climate should be changing at all.

    • They are indeed the real deniers. Denying that anything is amiss with their predictions of imminent doom
      Denying the lack of warming, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature, denying that there is any significant natural variation, denying the MWP, RWM, and that we ought to be warming after the LIA, denying that sea level change is stable, denying that Antarctic ice increase disproves everything they say about Arctic ice loss, denying that global cooling would be the real disaster, denying that nuclear is really about the only practical and sensible non-carbon dioxide emitting way to generate large amounts of reliable power… and in fact denying just about every single thing one can think of about the modern world: People are living longer, and are healthier in old age, the air is clean and quite breathable, world food production is increasing, both in absolute terms and per capita, and the freakin’ sky ain’t falling!

  22. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.

    Yeah, the UN never exaggerated the threat of climate change. Remember the disappearing climate refugee poster of 2005?

    • Interesting that Australia gets hurricanes now from Global Warming. We used to call them cyclones and they used to rotate counterclockwise.

  23. I remember reading an essay written by Dr Naomi Oreskes back in 2002 in a collected work of essays called “The Earth Around Us: Maintaining a Liveable Planet”, and her essay was called “Why believe a computer? Models, Measures and Meaning in the Natural World”. It was about the use of computer models for predicting the climate in the future and it was actually very well written – objective, balanced and a very fair assessment of the validity of the models, the uncertainty associated with them and their limitations. I have to say, having seen her more recent output, I am unsure of what sort of journey she has been on in the last 13 years, but she appears to have completely gone off the deep end somewhere along the way, particularly as there has been no warming in the surface temperature record in that period of time to warrant such a journey into extremism (I define extremists as people who only talk about the risks associated with the most extreme outcomes predicted by the IPCC, as they never seem to talk about the range of outcomes, some of which are benign).

    And I should say I commend the scientists at the Met Office here in the UK (Dr McNeil and Dr Betts) in politely telling Dr Oreskes that there is actually a pause in the temperature record as recognised by scientists.

    I do wonder if the likes of Dr. Lewandowsky and Dr Oreskes have asked the question that the issues they believe exist, exist because of the activities they engage in and papers they write. i.e. they (and their colleagues) are the (or one of the) causes of the language used on twitter by red states and blue state people are just a reflection of Lewandowsky’s and Oreskes’ extreme denial to accept the empirical evidence.

    • I’m starting to wonder if some of these psychologists like Oreskes and Lewandowsky may not be suffering from climate hysteria? Why don’t we chip in and give them an all expenses paid 3 month stay in a Tibetan monastery? It’s going to renew them and turn them back into normal people.

  24. The problem is that lay publications of all sorts write as if global warming is a fact. One brief example of a headline in the local newspaper a little while back stated (by memory): “Global temperature highest since Roman times.” Now, if I were the reporter I’d write: “Don’t Panic! It was just as hot in ancient Rome as it is now.”

    • It can’t be as hot. MWP was colder than Roman Warm Period, and during the MWP pomegranates grew in Germany. Probably only the forgeries of GISS etc can awaken the impression that it is.

  25. There I was, thinking that climatologists are getting all excited about the pause because finding an explanation for a surprising observation is what makes an academic career.

    I was wrong. Climatologists are all excited about the pause because they expect a check in the post from the Koch Brother, a check at least as fat as mine.

  26. “Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated…” Sorry, who’s in denial at this point? Have I missed something?

      • I miss Bob, that was great theater. The part about meeting the American Forces at the airport and driving them back into the desert, as split screen video showed an M1 tank driving past the Imperial Palace, was absolute genius. I mean, how do you do something like that with a straight face?

    • Yes, but “global warming”, just like “climate change”, means whatever they mean it means at the time that they say it. They are wonderful, nebulous terms that magically transform into whatever is needed in order to further the agenda.

    • ““Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated…”
      unabated
      [ ˌənəˈbātid ]
      ADJECTIVE
      without any reduction in intensity or strength:
      “the storm was raging unabated”

      No matter what you think might happen in the future, or about heat hiding in the oceans, or whether one ascribes more credibility to the satellite or the surface data, this statement is completely and demonstrably false. Unless words have no particular meaning, this is proof positive that no lie is too big for a person such as Lewandowsky.
      Utter nonsense and ridiculous tripe, this comes from what is intended to be a serious paper, written by two people who consider themselves to be of a particularly enlightened cadre?

  27. ABC “I have to say, having seen her more recent output, I am unsure of what sort of journey she has been on in the last 13 years…”.
    Possibly she reflected on current and future income?

    • There is an old saying in the securities industry, “Yield to Broker”. I imagine FV=PV*(1+r)^n may figure prominently in the latest models.

  28. Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists…”

    FFS!! Lew is a psycho logist and Oreskes is an historian! From a psycho pov it’s not unlike the “I’m Spartacus” ideation.

  29. The point is Santer said 17 years with no warming invalidates the models.

    The second point is the models did not predict the temperature plateau, so we don’t trust them going forward.

    As for heat going to the deep oceans, the oceans do appear to be heating a few thousandths of a degree per year, but the models also did not predict the heat would go into the oceans instead of heating the atmosphere.

    Without models there is no basis for the alarmism.

    • Water vapor positive feedback is a bit of a problem for heat that’s gone into the ocean too.

      Are these people retarded ?

  30. Since the overwhelming majority of “climate scientists” are most likely NOT psychology experts, the very title of his paper is HILARIOUS! Seepage is a GREAT word!

    “Seepage-noun: the slow escape of a liquid or gas through porous material or small holes.”

    Kind of like letting the air out of a balloon. Or out of an atmosphere. Or an idiotic theory…especially the slow release of a whole lot of hot air…

    I find it utterly fascinating that John Cook and Lew so often blatantly engage in the exact same “psychological mechanisms” that they feel the public needs to be warned about, while being completely oblivious to it! Or refuse to apply their crazy assumptions to ALL SIDES EQUALLY. For example-from the above press release:

    “‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.”

    So, when scientists are stereotyped as “deniers” or “skeptics”, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming “denialish” or “skeptical” by “upplaying” the degree of threat. Right Lew?

    And this:

    “‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.”

    Wow Lew. Really? Here’s how “pluralistic ignorance” is defined by other social psychologists-

    “In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it. This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes.”

    “Pluralistic ignorance posits that in certain circumstances most people will falsely believe that others conform to certain ideas or standards, and will uphold them, too, while privately disagreeing with them.”

    Meaning…that in order to be logical and unbiased, Lew must admit that it’s just as possible that the majority of climate scientists actually reject AGW theory, while incorrectly assuming/believing that most of their peers accept it, and therefore they go along with it. Because they think their opinion (that AGW is not a credible theory or threat to the planet) puts them in the minority, they therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.

    Every time this man opens his mouth or types words, he makes his own biases and irrationality even more obvious to the average person. Which is why I always encourage John and Lew to talk as much as possible!

  31. Unabated (adjective): without any reduction in intensity or strength.

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated

    This in English means it hasn’t slowed or lessened, it still going as strong as ever.

    ”Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend”

    This in English means warming has been abated recently.

    So, GW continues unabated and abatement of GW is ….. blah, blah, blah.

    • Whoa now. You’re trying to inject some logic into a propaganda communication?
      I believe it was Don Henley who sang something along the lines of “I just to look good, I don’t have to be clear”… or something like that. (apologies if I got the quote wrong)

      • Re: your apropos quote (out of context, but a good parallel in many ways), SMC:

        “Well I coulda’ been an actor {scientist}, but I wound up here. I just have to look good, I don’t have to be clear. Come and whisper in my ear, give {me} dirty {data}.”

        {Link to youtube vid, here (with last two chars separated by a space to prevent the control window from appearing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNC4FHR4XL A }

      • Heh. Does “Lew” even “look good?” I have no idea. Well, if he is rather homely, consider that to be in the “we scientist” way of looking good, lol.

    • I made an observation of this before seeing you had already made the point.
      Props to Mr. West.

  32. This could only be valid if the consensus was broken and the breakdown acknowledged . . Otherwise it’s rubbish or, perhaps, at best, attempted inoculation of those who might stray from the party line . . . . Honest scientists surely say what they think, right, wrong or whatever. Let them all speak freely . . And what a different world that would be . . I notice that they didn’t discuss the pressures from within the “consensus” to conform to a particular meme . .

  33. “Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated …”

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means. ‘Pause’, ‘hiatus’, ‘slowdown’. None of these qualifies as ‘unabated’. Call it what you what you want, just don’t pretend the climate is behaving exactly as expected. Claiming that it is, is just a bold-faced lie.

    • Whoops, didn’t end tag properly I guess. Preview functionality would be nice.

      [Fixed. ~mod.]

  34. One more observation-

    Sociologist W. Phillips Davison, who first articulated the third-person effect hypothesis in 1983 said: (my words in parenthesis)

    “people (alarmists) will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others. More specifically, individuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication (whether or not this communication is intended to be persuasive) will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves. And whether or not these individuals are among the ostensible audience for the message, the impact that they expect this communication to have on other may lead them to take some action. (like writing hysterical papers, developing Hiroshima Bomb graphics, and pretending to be able to read minds via peer reviewed abstract review) Any effect that the communication achieves may thus be due not to the reaction of the ostensible audience but rather to the behavior of those who anticipate, or think they perceive, some reaction on the part of others”

    The effect that Lew and Cook and Nuttycelli’s BEHAVIOR has on the general public is that it drives normal, rational people directly and completely into the skeptical camp because their insanity, arrogance, and flawed logic is so disturbing!

    • Unfortunately, I tend to meet third persons who turn out to be even more gullible than I thought possible, in the face of utterly transparent propaganda. It doesn’t even have to do with age or experience, I even meet OLD gullible idiots. While they inevitable think of themselves as critical thinkers, rational and whatnot, it always turns out that the COORDINATE RANGE of their thinking has been MADE for them, political correctness and censored media being the key tool. They are SLAVES. Given a tiny space to ruminate in.

      • Some people prefer to be slaves in tiny spaces. They’d rather be told what to think, feel, believe and do than put forth the mental energy and moral strength required to free themselves from the groupthink. I’d rather have them freely exposing who they are than pretend they don’t exist.

  35. Professor Lewandowsky said: “It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models, even though all of them permit – indeed, expect – changes in the rate of warming over any arbitrarily chosen period.”

    Professor Lew then goes on to give three psychobabble reasons why…

    He forgot the most likely reason … when enough people shout that the “King has no clothes”, the King will eventually begin to question himself.

    Lewandowsky is one of the Kings paid lackeys and is still patting the naked king on the ass and telling him that he looks great.

  36. Professor Lewandowsky said: “… even though all of them permit – indeed, expect – changes in the rate of warming over any arbitrarily chosen period.”

    I also expect changes in the rate of warming over any time period. But I acknowledge that over most “time periods” it is not measurable or significant. At this immediate point in time I believe that the rate of warming is best characterized as negative & miniscule.

    Give me another time period and I’ll provide another answer. Give me enough grant money and I will prove it.

  37. The Ptolemaic model of the universe was at one time the scientific consensus. So if being the scientific consensus makes a theory, scientific fact, then the Ptolemaic model should still be scientific fact and anyone who believes differently is an anti science heretic. Science is a religion and that is why we should believe in AGW. It has nothing what so ever to do with the facts. If Nature is not abiding by the AGW models then it is Nature that must be wrong. Nature should be taken to court and made to pay damages.

    • I believe Nature would respond to any litigation against Her with overwhelming arguments that would demolish the case of any litigants that managed to bring Her to court. I don’t think She would care about the damages either… This assumes she would even take notice of any court or law of man.

  38. Another Lew (loo?) paper. That’s good because I have been running out of the stuff in my bathroom.

    Once again we are shown how individuals Drs. Lewandowsky and Oreskes don’t seem to have the common sense to understand one thing that I have been preaching for some time now: Electricity generation and energy generation in general are technological and engineering issues, not activist ones involving fear mongering and scientifically faulty climate scare stories. History has taught us (among other things) that it is technological change and improvement that ushers in new eras in human history (the printing press, the internal combustion engine, rocket engines, etc.) In this case of course, we’re talking about a post-fossil fuels era of which nuclear (preferably fourth generation) must play a large part. I see no evidence that the campaign that these two and others are engaged in is capable of ushering in any such era.

    It is both sad and frustrating to see individuals that have the fancy PhD letters after their names are unable to demonstrate an ability to accept and understand this lesson from history and let it sink home between their ears.

    If I were an inventor, I guess it would be time for me or someone to invent a CCS mask to fit over the human face to capture those horrible, evil CO2 gases while exhaling. And while I was at it, maybe one for the buttocks as well to capture the greenhouse gases that contribute to CAGW when one….um, well, you know what. I could make a fortune if I managed to convince the feds of the need for it. Just don’t let them outlaw baked beans and beer and….

  39. This obsession that some climate scientists have with “deniers,” or as some put it, “denialists,” is worthy of a peer reviewed scientific paper in and of itself.

  40. as of 4PM EST, the “paper” is still not available

    questions –
    1) aside from us whacking this, does anyone really pay any attention to –
    Global Environmental Change journal or whatever it is?
    2) as this is no more than an op-ed piece on psycho twisting and belieforama, why couldn’t anyone just gin up something using the jargon? aside from pal review issues

  41. Have seen one too many socialist and/or plain stupid TED talk. The brand is in the tank, TED should just call it a day. Or maybe sell out to stupid warmunists entirely and exploit stupid Californian dotcom 2.0 wannabes with huge entrance fees for the rest of their lives.

  42. An indication of how vindictive Oreskes can be toward anyone who disputes the alarmist agenda is a 2008 paper that accused the late William Nierenberg of “Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge” for not demanding climate action back in 1983. Bill Nierenberg wasn’t around to defend himself, but his son took up the task of debunking Oreskes’s misrepresentations. For those committed to the cause of destroying capitalism, however, Nierenberg is still a “merchant of doubt.”

    • Nutso fasst

      Your 2nd link doesn’t work for me.

      By the way, the Oreskes paper was actually pretty good. She presented what seemed to be a fair summary of Nierenberg’s views, and in fact I was quite convinced that he was RIGHT (particularly in his emphasizing that only global co-operation would suffice for this global problem, and that this indeed would be unlikely–a question that alarmists would prefer not to discuss).

      • Hmm, not sure what happened, and a search doesn’t bring up the page I was trying to link to.
        However, Nicolas Nierenberg’s home page has links to his blog, his peer reviewed refutation, the 1983 report, and William Connolley’s critique of Oreske.

        No doubt Oreske can speak and write convincingly, or she wouldn’t have the position she does. “Seems to be a fair summary” seems to indicate you did no searching for criticism of the paper.

  43. I am puzzled how these poor climate scientists become exposed to so much “contrarian” propaganda. The public media do not disseminate it, with the exception of a few notable journalists such as Delingpole and Booker, so they are unlikely to stumble across it by accident. So they going out seeking it, visiting blogs like this.
    I’d like to hear what Lewanowsky and his co-conspirators would have to say about scientists who actively seek sceptical views.

  44. It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models“.

    That’s how sciences supposed to work.

    • Scientists better hurry up getting a grip. I’d already like to shut down all government science, it’s not worth the funding as they all seem to be a little too keen on feeding at the taxpayer’s trough and keep their little mouths shut in the face of blatant crackpottery. Well most of them anyway.

      • Thanks a LOT Aphan.
        I hope to be able to stop laughing long enough to eat my dinner at some point.
        :-)

  45. University of Bristol, enough said. Like the University of East Anglia, it’s a place to go to when your grades aren’t good enough to be accepted on Oxford, Cambridge or countless other more desirable Universities.

  46. The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Is he actually trying to say that somehow the “idea” of a pause has migrated from contrarian blogs to scientific literature and that even the venerable IPCC is repeating this ‘contrarian myth’? How does this guy keep getting published? Vanity press? And how in Gaia’s name can his school stand behind this sort of claptrap? And yet, somehow, we’re the ones portrayed as the kooks!

  47. According to NASA/GISS data released this year…

    Global temperature trends
    1901-1950: +0.17°F per decade
    1951-2000: +0.19°F per decade
    2001-2014: +0.15°F per decade

    CONUS temperature trends
    1901-1950: +0.19°F per decade
    1951-2000: +0.19°F per decade
    2001-2014: −0.34°F per decade

    • Alaska temperature trends according to NCDC
      1901-1950: −0.2°F per decade
      1951-2000: +0.5°F per decade
      2001-2014: −1.2°F per decade

  48. So much for skepticism. It has led to the unfortunate situation where Australian scientists have had to admit the radio waves they discovered from outer space, around the time they were putting in their research proposals for big grants to further investigate the matter, were actually created by their micro wave cooker during lunch hour. Apparently every time the door of the cooker opened, signals from outer space arrived.

    In announcing the contact with outer space, an excited Australian climate scientist told reporters that this proved the validity of the science predicting catastrophic global warming!

  49. How can they get this junk published. It perfectly fits the definition of pseudoscience as articulated by Karl Popper and others. It is based on nothing but assumptions and speculation regarding psychological mechanisms which cannot be accurately assessed and which could be explained better by other mechanisms. For example, maybe some climate scientists are waking up to the fact that there are many findings that contradict the CAGW narrative and they are beginning to act like scientists again instead of advocates. One reason that the pause matters is the CAGW champion Trenberth published a paper indicating that 17 years without warming would indicate problems with the models and our understanding of the climate system. Even the terms pause and hiatus are unscientific. We cannot know what the climate will do next. It speaks volumes that climate scientists vigorously, even angrily, defend data that is less and less convincing with regard to CAGW. Real scientists are skeptical about their own work and seek reasons why their interpretations may be wrong. Some climate scientists do this, but they are afraid to publish or submit grant applications in opposition to the CAGW narrative; just ask Judith Curry. She was able to withstand the onslaught because of her long and distinguished career in climate science, but younger non-tenured researchers are clearly reluctant to express doubts that many of them have. The point is doubting CAGW is rational and based on data. Explaining this does not require psychological explanations.

    • Steve May,

      Prof. Irving Langmuir wrote and spoke in the 1950’s about “Pathological Science”. ‘Dangerous man-made global warming’ fits his definition perfectly. MMGW may exist, but if so it is too minuscule to measure, and thus it is no different than the Allison Effect, or ‘N-Rays’, or ESP, or many other supposed scientific effects that collapsed upon close scrutiny. If an effect cannot be measured, it must be disregarded by scientists; data is everything in science, and measurements are data. MMGW has never been quantified by any measurements.

      You can read Dr. Langmuir’s dissertations on pathological science here.

      Langmuir’s symptoms of pathological science include:

      1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent [think: CO2] of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause [CO2=CAGW]

      2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability [no MMGW measurements/data]; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results [18+ years and counting…]

      3. Claims of great accuracy [claims confounded by the ‘pause’]

      4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience [runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, caused by a tiny trace gas that has been 20X higher in the past without causing the predicted effects]

      5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment [this describes the alarmists’ excuses to all of their predictions failing]

      6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion [the public is now turning on the alarmists. Once the public stops believing, they will never again listen to cries of “Wolf!!”]

      There is nothing new under the sun. Prof. Langmuir would know exactly what’s happening today with the “carbon” scare.

    • Steve, it is not pseudo science, it is political propaganda, a la Lysenko.

  50. I really resent that because I am a “skeptic”, Lewandowsky implies that I believe the moon landings were staged. I accuse Lewandowsky of being a 9/11 truther. So there.

  51. If a person invited Lewandowsky and Oreskes to a dinner party, …

    … how long would it be before the rest of guests excused themselves with a flimsy excuse but in reality because they feared for their life with these two nutbars so close to them.

    5 minutes tops.

    I’m out-a-there in less than that.

    • Bill-if a friend of mine invited Lewandowsky and Oreskes to the same dinner party they invited me to, I’d have a sudden opening in the friend department. :)

  52. 6 May: Vice: Writers, Scientists, and Climate Experts Discuss How to Save the World from Climate Change
    #1: HAVE FEWER KIDS
    by Alan Weisman, writer
    …Overpopulation isn’t just another environmental problem: It’s the one that underlies all others. Without so many humans using so much more stuff with each new generation, expelling waste and CO2 that don’t go away, there wouldn’t even be environmental problems—nor an Anthropocene.
    Fortunately, it’s the easiest (and cheapest) problem to solve, both technically and socially—and without resorting to anything so drastic as China’s reviled one-child policy. And doing so will bring unexpected economic dividends, ease injustice, and counter climate change faster than anything else we know…
    (Alan Weisman is the author of The World Without Us and Countdown)
    #3 MAKE PEOPLE BETTER
    Ken Caldeira, climate scientist
    #4 FREE THE ENERGY MARKET
    Naomi Oreskes, climate historian
    Instating a carbon tax, eliminating subsidies, and eliminating environmental exemptions: These measures alone would go a long way toward creating a true free market that would enable renewables to compete on more equal footing.
    #5 EMBRACE GEOENGINEERING
    David Keith, climate-policy expert.
    David Keith is a professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard…
    ETC
    http://www.vice.com/read/sos-0000653-v22n5

  53. “The public has a right to be informed about risks, even if they are alarming.”

    And when have they ever informed the public about climate-change risks that were not alarming?

  54. Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists ”

    Ha! SInce when did he do science rather than propaganda? When did Lewandowsky do science?

  55. “Jacquelyn Gill ‏@JacquelynGill Sep 24 @dougmcneall Is that necessary? She’s also a respected scholar, with valid points.”

    Scholar? Of what?

    Respected? By whom?

    Valid points? Oh, give me a break.

    Just another political hack regurgitating PR and spin.

  56. In related news – Ed Davey given the boot in the UK election. I bet the idiot can’t even be trained to flip burgers.

  57. Friends

    It is reported that Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes say

    The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated, which implies that talk of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ is misleading.

    OK. I ‘get’ that. Lewandowsky and Oreskes are saying
    “Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated” but papers in “the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” discuss the fact that global warming has stopped because that fact has been reported by “contrarian blogs and media articles”.

    It is a bummer when belief is trumped by inconvenient facts being reported, isn’t it?

    Richard

  58. May I suggest that Lewandowsky “research” (and Lew-like stuff) shall become the subject of a field of academic studies, in the psychological, sociological, and pseudo-epistemological aspects of academentia?

  59. Frankly along with Mann we should encourage Stephan Lewandowsky and Naomi Oreskes to be has loud and proud in public has possible .
    Their extremism is nothing but counter productive for their own ’cause’ , for as is so often the case it badly underestimates the public’s ability to see BS and over estimates public’s ability to out up with those selling it.
    Meanwhile in private , I bet there a few within climate ‘science’ who wished they STFU and have grown a little tired with being lectured too by people who can get out of depth on wet pavement .

    So I say more Mann. Lew and Oreskes and the madder the better.

    • knr – Spot on! Whilst they have their feet in their mouths us mere mortals shouldn’t interrupt.

  60. I wonder if the good “doctor’ would explain why ‘denialists’ are not subject to the very same issues that ‘climate scientists’ seem to be (according to him).

  61. Oh boy, Lew is back! He’s so much fun. “Climate Scientology” on display!

    If you want to truly waste a few minutes of your life, watch these two videos and see if you don’t see some similarities in level of hubris, self-righteousness, self-certainty, condescension, smugness, sense of moral superiority and being better than one’s ‘inferiors.’ Tom Cruise knows his inferiors as SPs (Suppressive Persons) and Lewandowsky knows his inferiors as “climate change deniers.”

    This Tom Cruise video was actually produced by Scientology and meant for an all Scientologist audience at one of their many Hollywood award galas, which are really sales motivation events to promote and expand the meme to new hosts.
    http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

    Lewandowsky being interviewed about his lunar landing lunacy paper and the now-withdrawn Recursive Fury paper (note how he refers to withdrawal, but doesn’t specifically talk about his ethical wrong doing ) :

    • Of course the flaw in his arguments is that he didn’t consider, religion, natural medicine, politics etc so his whole study is flawed from the outset because it had a preconcieved element to the study.

  62. If the climate warms and glaciers start to melt and then warming stops, the glaciers will continue to melt. Thus, melting is not evidence of warming. And melting will also continue with cooling until it reaches a temperature that promotes freezing over melting.

    The exact same thing is true with sea level rise. Sea level rise is NOT evidence of warming, just that it is warmer than a certain threshold level between ice growth and ice melting.

  63. 185 mostly angry comments about a news release for a paper that isn’t online yet…

    Are commenters here rushing in to provide new source material for Lewandowsky’s studies on purpose?

  64. ‘scientists have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to frame the language of their scientific thinking, leading us to overstate uncertainty and under-communicate knowledge.’

    hyperventilates:

    we sell armageddon. What’s that rush on that boredom facts sites. Can’t believe.

    Hans

Comments are closed.