Lewandowsky and Cook – back from the dead with another smear paper

Having had their first paper “Recursive Fury” retracted by the journal that originally published it, these clowns are back with a reboot that has the same sad message: “people who question the veracity of global warming/climate change are nutters”.

What’s funny is that Lew et al don’t seem to realize they are talking about a large percentage of the population who have these questions:

PI_2015-07-01_science-and-politics_2-01[1]But, that doesn’t stop them from essentially labeling everyone who does not agree with “climate change” as having “conspiracy ideation” mental issues. Cook_lew-ethicsThe paper was published in a B list journal called the “Journal of Social and Political Psychology” which advertises open access. What is interesting is that the recycled Lew paper was not published in the original journal that retracted it, even though the journal made this statement:

In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.

Yes, they stand by it, but given where the reboot was published “just don’t publish in our journal again” is the real message.

If Lew et al. were looking for nutters, it seems just a look at the Table of Contents from the Journal they published in would be a prime source. Just look at some of the paper titles:

lew-journal-tocHere’s the Lew Paper:


Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial

Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, Scott Brophy, Elisabeth A. Lloyd, Michael Marriott

Abstract

A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS. That article stimulated considerable discursive activity in the climate blogosphere—i.e., the numerous blogs dedicated to climate “skepticism”—that was critical of the study. The blogosphere discourse was ideally suited for analysis because its focus was clearly circumscribed, it had a well-defined onset, and it largely discontinued after several months. We identify and classify the hypotheses that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions using well-established criteria for conspiracist ideation. In two behavioral studies involving naive participants we show that those criteria and classifications were reconstructed in a blind test. Our findings extend a growing body of literature that has examined the important, but not always constructive, role of the blogosphere in public and scientific discourse.

Keywords

rejection of science; conspiracist discourse; climate denial; Internet blogs


If anyone wants to bother to read it, here are links to the paper.
Full Text: PDF HTML

UPDATE: Barry Woods, who was instrumental in the original retraction of the first Lew paper, adds this in comments:

The complainant were vindicated on a key ethics concern.

Fury, named and labelled real identifiable people. with pathologivcal psychological traits.

Recursive Fury Mark 2, does not.. (nobody is identifiable, so the complaints were right)

I added this comment to Prof Lewandowsky’s blog

Hmmm – table three now has anonymous ID’s… (instead of names)

(thus at least one ethics concern HAS been accepted and addressed)

but as Recursive Fury was the most downloaded paper (Stephan’s own words), which had table 3, with the people actually named…

It isn’t really that anonymous now even now…

Perhaps, now this is published, you should take down the original from here:

http://www.cogsciwa.com/

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf

I was amused by this though (from the new paper):

“Conversely, a peer-reviewed critique of LOG12 and LGO13 has recently appeared in print (Dixon & Jones, 2015) (accompanied by a rejoinder; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, 2015),which exhibited none of the features of conspiratorial ideation that we report in this article and which involved authors that were not part of the blogosphere examined here. Crucially, such academic discourse, however critical,does not involve the attempt to silence inconvenient voices, which has become an increasingly clearly stated goal of elements of the climate “skeptic” blogosphere.”

ref: “and which involved authors that were not part of the blogosphere examined here”

Jones and Dixon were very much involved in the blogosphere with respect to this paper and are well know climate sceptics (Jones FOI’d the Climate Research Unit,( and eventually won) when they refused to supply data, he did this on basic scientific principle, when Climate Audit was refused CRU’s data. And from the climateate emails, showed how the scientist were discussing how to deal with J Jones and Don Keiller, (having words with their university’s)

Prof J Jones even gets quoted in Mark Steyn’s book, criticizing Michael Mann, Ruth Dixon has a well respected blog, and Jonathan Jones has comments in the blogosphere about LOG12 quite often during the period (Climate Audit and Bishop Hill)

an example recently being this (at Climate Audit)

Prof J Jones:

“From one point of view there are only four things wrong with the original LOG13-blogs paper. Unfortunately those four things are the design of the experiment, the implementation of the data collection, the analysis of the data, and the reporting of the results. As a consequence of this interlinked network of ineptitude it is very difficult to disentangle all the errors from each other.

The LGO13-panel paper, by comparison, is much better. The design is relatively standard: no worse than many papers in the field. The implementation is still very poor (see for example the discussion at our post on satisficing), but it’s not so bad as to render the data completely useless. The analysis is still incorrect, but this time it is possible to tease out how and why it is incorrect, rather than just noting that it’s all a horrible mess. The reporting is still poor, but that doesn’t matter for a reanalysis.

So the original point of our comment was to see what we could say about the analysis of the data from LGO13-panel. Somewhat to our surprise we found that, once we knew what to look for, the same analysis also worked for LOG13-blogs, albeit not so clearly because of the appalling skew in that dataset. We don’t say much about other issues, not because we don’t believe they are important, but simply because it’s best in a comment to pick one important issue, where the argument can be made very clearly, and then run with it.” – Prof Jonathan Jones

http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/27/jones-and-dixon-refute-conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky/#comment-755932

Prof Henry Markram (co founder of Frontiers) explains why he retracted recursive Fury)

“The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed.

For Frontiers, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent. With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal. While the subjects and their statements were public, they did not give their consent to a public psychological diagnosis in a scientific study. Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.” – Markram

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

Advertisements

229 thoughts on “Lewandowsky and Cook – back from the dead with another smear paper

  1. The complainant were vindicated on a key ethics concern.
    Fury, named and labelled real identifiable people. with pathologivcal psychological traits.
    Recursive Fury Mark 2, does not.. (nobody is identifiable, so the complaints were right)
    I added this comment to Prof Lewandowsky’s blog
    Hmmm – table three now has anonymous ID’s… (instead of names)
    (thus at least one ethics concern HAS been accepted and addressed)
    but as Recursive Fury was the most downloaded paper (Stephan’s own words), which had table 3, with the people actually named…
    It isn’t really that anonymous now even now…
    Perhaps, now this is published, you should take down the original from here:
    http://www.cogsciwa.com/
    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf
    I was amused by this though (from the new paper):
    “Conversely, a peer-reviewed critique of LOG12 and LGO13 has recently appeared in print (Dixon & Jones, 2015) (accompanied by a rejoinder; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, 2015),which exhibited none of the features of conspiratorial ideation that we report in this article and which involved authors that were not part of the blogosphere examined here. Crucially, such academic discourse, however critical,does not involve the attempt to silence inconvenient voices, which has become an increasingly clearly stated goal of elements of the climate “skeptic” blogosphere.”
    ref: “and which involved authors that were not part of the blogosphere examined here”
    Jones and Dixon were very much involved in the blogosphere with respect to this paper and are well know climate sceptics (Jones FOI’d the Climate Research Unit,( and eventually won) when they refused to supply data, he did this on basic scientific principle, when Climate Audit was refused CRU’s data. And from the climateate emails, showed how the scientist were discussing how to deal with J Jones and Don Keiller, (having words with their university’s)
    Prof J Jones even gets quoted in Mark Steyn’s book, criticizing Michael Mann, Ruth Dixon has a well respected blog, and Jonathan Jones has comments in the blogosphere about LOG12 quite often during the period (Climate Audit and Bishop Hill)
    an example recently being this (at Climate Audit)
    Prof J Jones:
    “From one point of view there are only four things wrong with the original LOG13-blogs paper. Unfortunately those four things are the design of the experiment, the implementation of the data collection, the analysis of the data, and the reporting of the results. As a consequence of this interlinked network of ineptitude it is very difficult to disentangle all the errors from each other.
    The LGO13-panel paper, by comparison, is much better. The design is relatively standard: no worse than many papers in the field. The implementation is still very poor (see for example the discussion at our post on satisficing), but it’s not so bad as to render the data completely useless. The analysis is still incorrect, but this time it is possible to tease out how and why it is incorrect, rather than just noting that it’s all a horrible mess. The reporting is still poor, but that doesn’t matter for a reanalysis.
    So the original point of our comment was to see what we could say about the analysis of the data from LGO13-panel. Somewhat to our surprise we found that, once we knew what to look for, the same analysis also worked for LOG13-blogs, albeit not so clearly because of the appalling skew in that dataset. We don’t say much about other issues, not because we don’t believe they are important, but simply because it’s best in a comment to pick one important issue, where the argument can be made very clearly, and then run with it.” – Prof Jonathan Jones
    http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/27/jones-and-dixon-refute-conspiracy-theorist-lewandowsky/#comment-755932
    Prof Henry Markram (co founder of Frontiers) explains why he retracted recursive Fury)
    “The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed.
    For Frontiers, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent. With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal. While the subjects and their statements were public, they did not give their consent to a public psychological diagnosis in a scientific study. Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.” – Markram
    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
    ———-

      • The science is sound – it soundly refutes the theory:
        1) Predicts hotspot: No hotspot.
        2) Predicts more H2O: less H2O.
        3) Predicts less radiation to space: more radiation to space.
        3 predictions, all concerned with the core process hypothesised by the theory for the mechanism by which it operates, all refuted: the theory is wrong.

    • Starting with “A growing body of evidence . . . .” If they had evidence, they wouldn’t need a “growing body.”

      • Quite right, Gamecock: it’s either evidence or it’s not. If there’s anything growing on the body of it it’s the mould (OK – mold) of a sceptic penicillin that should eventually kill it off.

  2. According to Norman Davies’ Five Basic Rules of Propaganda, in “Europe, a History,” Oxford University Press, 1996, pp 500-501:
    Theorists of propaganda have identified five basic rules:
    1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
    2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
    3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
    4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it is the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; including drawing doubting individuals into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, social pressure and by ‘psychological contagion, aka psy-ops.
    5. The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same message; in different variations and combinations.”
    Res ispa loquitur

    • 2.1 (attested by 33 AD ) : crucify two known thieves together with the one you want to smear
      [thief 1 :] link between lung cancer and smoking, and [thief 2 :] between HIV and AIDS
      checked

      • Hey I am an engineer. I can’t spell English much less Latin… Yeah, the left hand got ahead of the right hand there…

    • B list journal called the “Journal of Social and Political Psychology”
      Political Psychology – sort of related to Psychological operations (psych-ops or psy-ops)
      Which refer to the planned use of psychological knowledge to influence the behavior of groups, organizations or populations. Although associated with guerilla warfare, rebellion and subversion; many marketing and political strategies include psych-ops techniques … including office politics and social engineering.
      Peacetime applications of psych-ops are perhaps most evident in political election campaigns. Common techniques used to influence public attitude and opinion are:
      – using radio and television to distort events
      – manufacturing “news” in staged events
      – recruiting and using opinion leaders and media figures
      – adjusting appeals to group interests (e.g. trade unions)
      Large commercial interests, such as steel, oil, logging and railroad companies initiate extensive psych-ops to develop public support for legislation favorable to their interests. Similarly, civil rights and other movements may use low-budget psychological operations – for example protest marches, assemblies, picketing and sit-ins – often with much less expertise.
      Psychological operations have maximum effect with people who:
      – have little education
      – accept information uncritically
      – benefit from the proposed change
      – want to believe the propaganda
      – do not wish to understand their own motivations
      Psychological operations are also used by anti-nuclear groups, women’s rights activists, pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups, gun-control lobbies, supporters of capital punishment, senior citizen groups, and small political organizations. Recent advances of electronic media (e.g. internet and cell phones) greatly expand the influence of psych-ops efforts.
      Propaganda
      Create effective propaganda that changes attitudes This is achieved if people identify with a new or changed mission. Propaganda is used to extend this identification to increase popular support for a mission and provide points of convergence for transformative action.

      The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was created in 1937 to alert the public to political propaganda. The IPA identified seven basic propaganda tricks: Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Transfers, Testimonials, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to Combs and Nimmo (1993), “these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles and textbooks ever since that they have become … synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda.”

      Propaganda Teams
      Form Propaganda Teams by selecting and training persuasive, motivated people, who move within an organization and encourage people to support the organizational mission. Trained Propaganda Teams can provide a multi-stage persuasion program that integrates strategic planning with organizational attitudes. Propaganda Teams can also provide feedback about rumors and attitude changes. This role is fulfilled by secret police in authoritarian societies.

      http://www.systemiccoaching.com/psych-ops.htm
      I still think Lewandowsky and Cook must be vampires, because they sure cannot see themselves in the mirror.

    • I’m impressed that they missed out the most important one. Nest your subject among basically accepted other scientific/public policy subjects to make it seem more foregone. For example, by putting CAGW (renamed innocuous climate change) in among broadly accepted scientific issues – smoking causes cancer, HIV causes Aids and vaccinations are largely good for you. All were contentious to be sure, but smoking/cancer and HIV/Aids, at least reduced opposition to the nut fringe few percent after COMPILATION OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE. The vaccination one jumped up relatively recently as some people came to believe it can cause autism, etc and it did go awry with the recent swine flu (H1N1) vaccination side effects. No one disputes that it wiped out smallpox and other deadly diseases and if there is in fact a cost, its pretty much worth it.
      Climate science is very far from providing much in the way of convincing, unequivocal evidence that rising CO2 leads to thermageddon. Adding 50+ other horrors in the offing if CO2 ’emissions’ aren’t stopped is evidence that they have no convincing evidence. CO2 climate is not in the company of the other established science they refer to. To me, the greatest evidence that the dangerous warming proponents are likely wrong are:
      1) Proponents accept the crap put out by such as Lewandowski and Cook and anyone else that supports the meme with witless pap without critiquing it or at least distancing themselves from it. Anthony Watts clipped off the anti warming nut cases who produce such pap (to wit: CO2 has zero effect, its all multiplanet pull on the sun, its all just gravity of the atmosphere, and other fringy ideas).
      2) The science is settled silliness and the baricentric position of goofs like Al Gore in the campaign.
      3) The refusal of big PhDs to debate the mean, anti-science, little guys who criticize and argue against them. That those who have objections to the theory are so formidable that the highly funded, hugely supported brotherhood of big climate science so fears them. Gee, minds are easily made up (closed), but the science is being vigorously challenged by the biggest opposition of the all – nature itself. This they are forced to deal with. This has put a number of prominent proponents on the psychiatrist’s couch and basically ended their careers. The desperate challenge to adjust the data out of where it points is pretty much the whole task of this side of the ‘science’ that still has a stomach for its mission.
      I’m going to make predictions that Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of CRU (both 63 yrs old) will show their skeptic side after retirement. K. Trenberth NCAR, who is already over 70 has shown some skepticism in the climategate emails, but he knuckled under afterwards and went hunting for the missing heat. Nevertheless, he may rehabilitate himself after he retires – he can point back to his concern about the missing heat, unlike Hansen who just can’t come back now from his extreme, all-in position (presentations, protests, books) no matter what he believes now. Mann, too is, all-in in his science and is only 50, so he’s likely to be caught up in the worst of the debacle as it unfolds. He unwittingly has locked himself in to his fate with the mistake he made by suing the dangerous and bold Mark Steyn who locked the back door on him with a balsy counter suit. Mann’s the one who will be most remembered. Even his Wiki won’t be emendable by the great gatekeepeer Stoat Connolley who single-handedly rendered Wiki much less usable.

      • ’im going to make predictions that Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of CRU (both 63 yrs old) will show their skeptic side after retirement. K. Trenberth NCAR, who is already over 70′
        Sorry no chance the best we can hope for it they live long enough to see their work held up has how not to do science and publicly acknowledge has a ‘joke’ is a somewhat sick one and that time it cannot soon enough.

    • I noticed the dreadful word “conspiracist.” I also noticed that the latter half of the word is “racist.” Any conclusions to be drawn from that coincidence? (The word is used more than once, however. Remember the true saying: “Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; thrice is enemy action.” To which point has this writing taken us?

    • An ideation is a notion about the formation of ideas.
      An idiotion is a notion about the formers of those ideas.

      • An idiothon is a marathon-like effort at helping idiots idiotioning idiotic notions.
        example :
        “Lewandowsky and Cook are running an idiothon on behalf of IPCC”.

  3. I see that Prof Lewandowsky had Dana (SkS) Nucittelli ready to go……
    Guardian – Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study – Dana Nuccitelli
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/08/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study
    A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.
    – Lewandowsky writes here:
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf2015.html
    but don’t ever expect any response from Prof Lewandowsky…
    “Engagement of so-called skeptics is ill-advised,” Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom told me recently. “It is a hopeless task to try to talk to them and change their minds.”
    http://www.kxlh.com/story/29493096/we-cant-ignore-climate-change-skeptics-even-if-we-really-really-want-to

    • That is rich, coming from people who routinely grouse about the “vast denial machine” funded by “Big Oil and other polluters”. I still haven’t gotten my check.

    • Well the Guardian has affectively handed itself over the Graham Institute and it paid BS sellers , so no real surprise there.
      But it is only ‘new’ in the sense he has had to make the changes which he said did not need doing in the first place to get it published . As I said paid BS seller.

    • Barry: The Guardian say it’s a “new study” – before we know it they’ll be saying it’s a World exclusive! Ta-daa!

    • Re: “It is a hopeless task to try to talk to them and change their minds.” So the only purpose of talking is to “change their minds”? Whatever happened to science as pursuing the truth and the best models to predict from objective data? Lewandowsky exemplifies “noble cause corruption”, ad hominem “genetic fallacy” attacks among issues wrong with “climate science”.

    • Why do I get the idea that the basic massage of this paper might be summarized as “If your mind is not closed up tight on the subject of global warming, you are almost completely insane”?
      I think that this paper says more about the mental state of the authors than anything else.

    • In Canada, I expect the CBC, the Reuters media and Postmedia will take this at face value…

    • I see that Prof Lewandowsky had Dana (SkS) Nucittelli ready to go……

      He thumps Nucitelli’s head which then bounces up and down on a spring. It’s bobble head day at the Graun.

  4. There are literally tens of thousands of “scientific” journals, most catering to small, specialized communities of scholars. As a result, insular communities of like minded individuals form self sustaining belief systems in which they publish papers reinforcing the group’s cherished opinions. No outsiders need apply, no one dares to question the tenants of faith, and apostasy it the worst imaginable crime. Academic tenure was intended to protect descent from orthodoxy; in reality it has allowed delusional splinter groups to fester and spread nonsense.

    • “Academic tenure was intended to protect descent from orthodoxy; in reality it has allowed delusional splinter groups to fester and spread nonsense.”
      Like all systems, it had its weaknesses. 50-100 years ago no one could have foreseen the rise of Political Correctness and the invasion of the universities by Pod People. Among other things, this is another lesson in how ingenious organisms are in adapting to a given situation and then exploiting it.

      • Thank god you were here, Jeff. No one else would have figured that out. Thank you for your contribution.

  5. Hey boys, hide the decline!
    It never ceases to amaze me that professional students like these two refuse to examine the complete body of evidence surrounding climate “science”. The fact that they can willfully dismiss the CRU emails, for example, speaks volumes about their intellectual curiosity. This climate change subject is at best an adolescent group think for people who want to be part of the cool crowd and at worst, a pagan religious experience complete with demons and gods.

    • It’s a fascinating case of dissociation. As well as how adroit people are in taking any kind of knowledge or discourse, such as the psychology of attitudes and beliefs, and fashioning it to serve their own ends.

    • But, but, but… everyone knows the Climategate e-mails were simply harmless banter between scientists which were taken out of context by deniers…

      • “everyone knows…” which is an appeal to the masses, or an appeal to ignorance, a very big assumption of correct belief, and a failure of the author to understand the argument.
        Not picking on you DaveS, I know you’re being facetious. I’m picking on those who state these things as a defence.

  6. Well, I guess Lew would call me a “nutter” then.
    I have looked at this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from all angles since the 1980s. I can not find any honest, raw data that supports the theory that CO2 (and other gasses like H2O) warm the surface of the planet. In fact, the so-called greenhouse gases are very important in cooling the planet.
    But even if CO2 did, in fact, do what the alarmists say and CO2 warmed the surface some —- the data says that the CO2 does damn little warming. CO2 sensitivity must be close to zero weather it is a plus number or a negative number. (snark: I wonder if it is an imaginary number)
    So, as long as I look at the laws of thermodynamics and the raw data — I am a “nutter” according to Lew. All I can say to that is: I have a lot of company here. 🙂

    • Markstoval says “I can not find any honest, raw data that supports the theory that CO2 (and other gasses like H2O) warm the surface of the planet.”
      Data, such as temperature observations, is an amalgam of a very large number of influences. Because of that problem it is easier and probably more reliable to approach it from the other end — develop a theoretical and experimental foundation of each factor.
      In the case of carbon dioxide, various experiments can be made. An example is a carbon dioxide laser whose operation depends upon the very phenomenon in question.
      It is more precise to say carbon dioxide has a delaying effect to the transmission of infrared radiation. If you delay the removal of heat from a source, the source will warm up, provided the source is relatively constant as to heat energy being sourced.
      The reality is that the ultimate source (mostly the sun) varies slightly, the absorption of solar energy by surfaces varies somewhat, how much of that reaches the ground varies quite a lot (clouds vs clear sky) and that very same CO2 that delays escape of infrared to space also delays the arrival of infrared from the sun.
      It is a non-trivial problem.

      • You left out any mention of convection, and how heat transfer from the surface of the Earth to space is not limited to how quickly radiation alone can affect such.

      • “It is more precise to say carbon dioxide has a delaying effect to the transmission of infrared radiation.:

        That theory has not been proven at all, nor has it been observed. The lower atmosphere is ruled by conduction, convection, advection, and the water cycle to name some of the forces of nature — and CO2 is a bit player in the lower atmosphere. Many here (Dr. Brown one time) have pointed out that the CO2 molecule will “bump” into a non-CO2 molecule and give up energy well before it has a chance to radiate the energy. That means it is just participating in the convection cycle and dong not much else in the lower atmosphere. —- ah, but once above the troposphere then CO2 helps radiate heat out into space. It cools.
        Now I know that most of the luke warmers here are dead set on the delusion theory that CO2 warms the surface by back-radiation. The surface warms itself more than the sun does. This too shall pass in the fullness of time. 🙂

      • “It is more precise to say carbon dioxide has a delaying effect to the transmission of infrared radiation. If you delay the removal of heat from a source, the source will warm up, provided the source is relatively constant as to heat energy being sourced.”
        More precisely, carbon dioxide has a delaying effect to the transmission of SOME bands of longwave, infrared radiation. Not all of the heat radiated back into the atmosphere by the surface gets delayed, and water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect, and methane,nitrous oxide and others also contribute besides CO2.
        “… and that very same CO2 that delays escape of infrared to space also delays the arrival of infrared from the sun.”
        No. The very same CO2 does not “delay the arrival of infrared radiation from the sun”. The ozone layer and the outer atmosphere, particulates and clouds delay the arrival of the Sun’s energy, and the radiation from the sun is mostly ultra violet, shortwave, and visible. CO2 does not absorb the shortwave radiation from the Sun.
        🙂

  7. These guys are like a patch of nasty weeds, it’s the same old same old. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any posts here denying “climate change”. We all acknowledge the climate changes, in ways both subtle and gross. The real question is not “climate change”, but catastrophic, man-made damage to the climate system that is both distinguishable from natural variations and reliably predictable, and the proposed solutions are safe, effective and beneficial. The HIV/AIDS/Tobacco/Cancer/Anti-vax conspiracy angles are irrelevant distractions. What they seem to fear is the sometimes rough and tumble discussion that is encroaching their preferred (controlled?) system of discourse.

  8. Thanks, but no thanks, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, at al., I’ll get my psychiatric help from a real psychiatrist, if needed. From your ilk, I only expect more deception.
    My skepticism came together with my scientific training, they are indivisible.
    Thanks, Carl Sagan.

  9. A skeptic is one who doubts alarmist claims and prefers to examine the scientific evidence.

  10. They try so hard to stay on that Gravy Train. Publish anything and you’ll get your money.

  11. “A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking”
    That’s always a good one to get people to think skeptics completely reject everything connected with climate science, even us that believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has contributed towards the modest BENEFICIAL warming.
    CO2 is a beneficial gas, at least according to life on this planet.
    Regarding the rejection of the lung cancer and smoking link (intentionally used to create a false representation of skeptics views), Is there a CAGW skeptic on the planet, that thinks that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day causes humans to grow 25% healthier?
    Sunshine +H2O +CO2 + Minerals = O2 + Sugars(food)

    • I have never seen a skeptic doubt anything about smoke and cancer except to question if second hand smoke was as destructive as claimed.

      • 2nd hand smoke is terrible for your health. Even if 55 years ago Heartland paid $17 to someone to find holes in an obviously faked paper on it.
        I have scientifically tested this.

  12. Sometimes conspiracies do exist. But they are usually small tight-knit groups sharing a small objective. Human differences tend to keep conspiracies small. They must know this from their studies. Right? I would hope they took the time to study the legal definitions and realities of proofs for conspiracy. Very difficult. Racketeering in the other hand. I would gladly let them use that term. The RICO law had to be created to cover what we are talking about here. Racketeering can encompass a large group of people with only a remote common objective.
    The level-headed folks here, ( I admit some commenters sound like they would believe the actual conspiracy of a backroom cabal) do not talk about or express belief in some over-arching conspiracy of the kind this paper seems to want to paint for the skeptics. No, it is the racket we see. And a racket does not require some long range planning where a group gets together to agree. No, rackets can exist with many players hardly knowing what role they play. A racket in this sense would be to control legitimate science across, and up and down its many parts by controlling who has access to that science, who is allowed to speak for that science, and who gets funded, and who gets “protected”. Strong arm tactics are the realm of rackets, not absolute control and agreement in a conspiracy sense.
    So, even the use of “conspiracy” rather than “racketeering” by these authors is either intentional or evidence of the myopia of associated belief among “scientists” who are part of the wide “crime family” that is currently in power.

    • Replying to myself as an addendum.
      Breaking a conspiracy requires getting one of the conspirators to turn on the others. This could happen in climate science when a person turns on former associates to disclose a nefarious intent. We don’t generally see this in those who turn from CAGW; no, they rather appear more like whistle-blowers. Again, to differentiate between racketeering and conspiracy. Whereas a conspiracy is defeated by turning one of the conspirators, racketeering can only be defeated by individual integrity at multiple points to both uncover the racket and dismantle it. I am sure that their study and report can point to many instances of “conspiracy ideation” (I think a good English teacher would take exception at this use) in skeptical and even neutral blogs–if they allow for such a thing as a neutral blog, but I imagine that they could turn that same light on CAGW favorable websites and arrive at the same conclusion.
      The scientific response to the paper should be “So?”

      • We saw it in the CRU emails. Some of Mann’s co-authors even denounced the results, but only “privately”.

  13. “Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. ” – That’s what Ayn Rand used to call a ‘package deal’. Lump the thing you want to vilify in with other things that are obviously odious to your audience. Then let lazy human nature make the connections for you when you have no real logic or reason to back up your claims.

  14. Lewandowsky is not a pioneer of this technique. It has been known for some time:
    “They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.”
    Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor’s New Clothes

    • I don’t think it is either. I think it was oversold from the beginning, the momentum it got was surprising, and there’s no easy way for those entrenched with it to dial it back without looking like fools.

      • Well one thing for sure, Anthony, is that time will tell, as more and more comprehensive data becomes available. My guess is that 30 years from now the conversation will be quite different.

      • more and more comprehensive data becomes available
        Time will certainly tell, but the integrity of new observational data needs to be maintained – free from adjustments that could be overly influenced by confirmation bias.

      • Anthony,
        I agree with your statement, but only up until a certain point in time, and for a certain group of people.
        But there are some things that cannot be innocently explained away, either as overenthusiasm, honest mistakes, or anything other than a deliberate effort to deceive, or to exaggerate wildly, or to grab power and transfer wealth.
        One such thing is the IPCC itself. I am not a learned scholar on the history of this organization but, to me at least, it sure seems that from the beginning, this group was making very one sided claims that were on very shaky ground scientifically. Certainly there are some who go much further. The organization seems to have been founded with a predetermined conclusion already in hand, along with a plan for a transfer of wealth and a grab for power.
        This is a big organization. What is the distinction between a large organization which meets to make plans and objectives, and devise means to carry them out, and a conspiracy? Is it merely whether such plans and objectives are completely legal? I do not know. Does it matter? I do not know that either. Conspiracy is a word which has come be associated with far fetched ideas of nefarious deeds being planned by impossibly powerful forces. Collusion and collaboration are synonyms, and have no such overtones of impossibility.
        I can imagine that there will be future historians who will make a successful career of shining light on the saga of the IPCC.
        Another thing which is hard to explain innocently away is the incredibly one sided “adjustments” to the historical climate data. No need to say much more on this. One person did not think of doing it, do it, and make it stick. It was done all over the world. If more than one person was involved, and it was not on the level, what is that called?
        A third such item of dubious irreproachability is regarding the many outlandish and clearly exaggerated claims of impending disaster and doom, and the utter failure of much vaunted and highly esteemed peer review process to rein in such claims, call them into question, or really do anything other than tacitly approving of them by failing to do any of the above.
        If one is to look in any dictionary for the definition of exactly what a hoax is, one would be hard pressed to say that CAGW has not strayed into being able to be characterized as such.
        From Merriam-Webster-
        HOAX:
        transitive verb
        : to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
        Synonyms:
        bamboozle, beguile, bluff, buffalo, burn, catch, con, cozen, delude, dupe, fake out, fool, gaff, gammon, gull, have, have on [chiefly British], deceive, hoodwink, hornswoggle, humbug, juggle, misguide, misinform, mislead, snooker, snow, spoof, string along, sucker, suck in, take in, trick
        IMO, it may not have started as one, but it sure has become one.

      • Moderators, wondering if my comment here and below have gone astray of some rule or another?

      • I started to write a paper on what it really was. Let’s say it was a bandwagon that could have been correct, that was most convenient for far too many people to jump on, for all the wrong reasons.
        In short its protagonists didn’t know if it were true or not, and didn’t actually care. It was a Most Convenient Lie.
        Having jumped on it, it was a very difficult bandwagon to jump off, for far far too many people.
        It hasn’t hurt Big Oil at all. It has benefited it by removing coal from the ‘acceptable mix’ of energy generators.
        Big Oil has plenty of good engineers, and knew that no matter how many solar panels and windmills were installed, renewable energy would never work. That didn’t stop them pretending to go into it big time of course, – a few million on ‘green research’ made them, more acceptable.
        Governments of the Left persuasion loved it. A Cause, a Moral Crusade, that gave them carte blanche rights to tax and interfere with the biggest market in the world – energy.
        Science loved it, because it made the third rate scientists feel important, and got them career long funding.
        The Greens loved it, for the same reasons.
        The media loved it, because it was a never ending source of scare stories that helped sell papers and advertising space.
        Only the average Joe suffered, from spoliation of his environment with bird choppers, and higher prices on everything.
        And science suffered immensely. It became the tool of political propagandists.

      • Leo Smith, that was a very good summary!
        And I agree, it promoted/rewarded all the wrong types for all the wrong reasons. And punished ordinary, honest and decent people and those caused most of them with integrity to turn away ..

    • Global warming is a fact. So is global cooling. Every shred of scientific evidence we have supports the statement that the only constant on planet Earth is change.

    • David, many of us commenters think that the notion of CAGW is a result of groupthink that was led by a relatively new scientific field that, culturally, allowed shortcuts to be taken because of the perceived dangers associated with CO2 emissions. Early on this relatively new scientific field was populated by people that believed in CAGW, and prevented the publication of papers that provided evidence against the notion. This meant that only believers became climate-scientists with peer reviewed papers. Since peer review of future papers were all performed by published climate-scientists, skeptical papers were rejected out of hand based purely on their conclusions. The idea was that a paper must be wrong if it concludes something that all published climate-scientists know is true. This allowed them to claim that the majority of climate-science papers supported the notion of CAGW.
      Scientists from other fields simply accepted the body of claims coming from the new field of climate science without looking at the dynamics occurring within the field. They also saw an opportunity to apply for grants studying the catastrophic effects GW, taken as a given, was having on their field. There wasn’t any reason for them to be skeptical. They could profit from the issue and could always claim that they were merely trusting this newly created group of scientists. Many politicians, unable to perform any scientific scrutiny on their own, also embraced the notion of CAGW in order to advance their political careers.

      • “… culturally, allowed shortcuts to be taken because of the perceived dangers associated with CO2 emissions.”

        You describe Noble Cause corruption (NCC).
        NCC arises from a mindset that allows for an “End Justifies the Means employed” (EJM) rationalization of actions contrary to one’s assumed profession.
        EJM rationalizations are common in the Progressive mind (really in anyone who ascribes to radical ideology, be it far Left or Far right), and we find many scientists who are politcally “left progressives” who then fall into the EJM –> NCC mindset.

    • I believe most sceptics believe man’s activities have been responsible for at least some of the circa 0.7 degrees C witnessed over the past century, some of this being from the increase in CO2 levels and some from the effects of agriculture, irrigation and city growth.
      In other words, the concept of global warming is a mildly interesting phenomenon, while that of imminent Thermageddon is on par with Lew and Cook’s publications, I.e. Complete BS.
      At the end of the day, are the feedback highly positive as promoted by the IPCC, or are they neutral to mildly negative as indicated by the geological record? As a geologist, my vote is for the latter.

      • Given the poor quality of the historical record, it’s almost impossible to know just how much the earth has warmed. That it has warmed is quite probable given the retreat of some glaciers and the rising of the oceans.
        The error bars on the data are an order of magnitude or more greater than the signal they claim to have found.

    • ” … don’t agree with the notion that global warming is a scam or a hoax.”
      Well, that all depends on what we are talking about. Define your terms and all that.
      Honest people can believe that the planet is warming and has been [since]sense the Little Ice Age. Honest people can believe that the climate of the planet has been cooling for most of the Holocene with various major warming periods each being cooler than the one preceding it right up to the modern warming. I even suppose that honest people can take either side on what CO2 can theoretically do as far as warming the surface. Honest people can differ on how much impact various activities of mankind has had on the global climate vs. the local climate. Honest people can even argue over the cost-benefit ratio of a few degrees of global warming. I have even seen honest people argue that the laws of thermodynamics should be done away with since they interfere with the theory of a radiant atmospheric effect.
      But the United Nations IPCC was founded with a mandate to look at catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming. Now that is pretty one-sided and fits my definition of a scam — especially with all the money and power involved. I have also seen e-mails from the Team saying that they use the peer review process against honest scientists who differ with their stance on this issue. I have also seen reports that government funding agencies will punish those who do not tow the line on global warming.
      In essence, there is a scam going on. That does not mean everyone involved is in on the scam.

      • “I have even seen honest people argue that the laws of thermodynamics should be done away with since they interfere with the theory of a radiant atmospheric effect. ”
        Yeah, what up wit’ dat?

    • David S.,
      Regarding the words “scam” & “hoax”:
      Words often have a conventional meaning, for example: “couple”
      Say I ask the driver of an auto I am in to stop for a couple of seconds while I go into a store to buy a couple of bottles of beer, and I ask the couple in the back seat if they will excuse this imposition.
      The first use of the word “couple” is understood not to equal 2.
      The second use may mean 2 or something else.
      The third use of the word means 2.
      Likewise, scam & hoax are both used with meanings that are often not clear.
      Also, I object to just using the phrase “global warming” (as you have done) insofar as the issue is “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” – CAGW.
      My current favorite phrase: Grumpy Climate

      • “David S.,
        Regarding the words “scam” & “hoax”:
        Words often have a conventional meaning, for example: “couple”
        Say I ask the driver of an auto I am in to stop for a couple of seconds while I go into a store to buy a couple of bottles of beer, and I ask the couple in the back seat if they will excuse this imposition.
        The first use of the word “couple” is understood not to equal 2.
        The second use may mean 2 or something else.
        The third use of the word means 2.
        Likewise, scam & hoax are both used with meanings that are often not clear.
        Also, I object to just using the phrase “global warming” (as you have done) insofar as the issue is “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” – CAGW.”
        Ditto!

    • David Sanger:
      You say

      There must be lots of WUWT columnists and commenters who don’t agree with the notion that global warming is a scam or a hoax.

      Yes, very many because CAGW is a bandwagon.
      People don’t need to conspire to promote a bandwagon that is going in a direction they all want to go. They each climb on-board and stay there so long as the bandwagon keeps moving towards their objectives whether or not they really agree with the bandwagon.
      A coincidence of interests is usually more powerful than any group of conspirators.
      Richard

      • “A coincidence of interests is usually more powerful than any group of conspirators.”
        – I am going to appropriate that quote, if you don’t mind. Excellently stated.

      • Mickey Reno:
        You say

        All WUWT commenters should avoid logical fallacies, one of the more popular being the false dichotomy. This is not an all or nothing issue. But there are hoax-ish and scam-ish things being peddled as objective scientific truth…

        All WUWT commenters should avoid falsehoods.
        Something is or is not a hoax.
        Saying something is “hoax-ish” and/or “scam-ish” is like saying someone is “pregnant-ish”: they are or they are not.
        Promote truth and the AGW-scare will be refuted. But it will never be refuted by assertions that it is “hoax-ish and scam-ish” because the assertions cannot be substantiated.
        Richard

    • All WUWT commenters should avoid logical fallacies, one of the more popular being the false dichotomy. This is not an all or nothing issue. But there are hoax-ish and scam-ish things being peddled as objective scientific truth, and there is certainty that is NOT proved by any stretch of the imagination being peddled as certain enough at least to disrupt the economies of the world without any evidence to show that those drastic measures will have a measurable effect on global temperatures. Then consider that most of the people peddling this alarm have a self-interest and are paid by government directly or through research grants, or have an interest in sensationalism as a form of media self-promotion. Does that rise to the level of deserving the title “hoax” or “scam.” I don’t personally call it that, but as an opinion, it’s defensible.

  15. Regardless of one’s beliefs in climate change, you need to wonder about the caliber of university that is allowing him to publish such garbage. It’s fine for climate scientists to turn a blind eye on Lewandowsky. They aren’t responsible for the nonsense he publishes, and it helps the propaganda war. But how much longer is Lewandowsky’s employer able to endure the stain it puts on them?

    • As long as the government keeps increasing the massive debts built up by students to pay for this garbage.
      I don’t think the university cares as long as the money is rolling in and Lewandowsky et al. contribute to the propaganda war to make carbon the new money.

  16. Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial
    I object to the phrase ‘Climate Denial’, which paints skeptics as non-believers in climate (uses purposeful wordsmithing as a deceitful tool). I would only accept Global Warming or Global Warming Climate Change.

    • Even that is wrong, because the hypothesis that is rejected by the peer reviewed world documenting observations is CAGW, not AGW. When data rejects the C n CAGW no conspiracy is needed. Hell, even the GW is now failing to manifest. All that is left is ADM. “Anthropogenic data manipulation”.

  17. It is too bad that House Rules here forbid Ad-Hom attacks and general bad behavior.
    I am Soooo tempted. *sigh*

  18. My sense is that everyone around here that rejects mainstream science assumes that the participating scientists are deliberately publishing erroneous research to facilitate the liberal agenda in order to implement more taxes.
    E.g., thousands of scientists are working together in a manner contrary to their stated mission. Isn’t that a conspiracy? Tim Ball and Sir Monckton are frequently invoking the fears of a one world government and agenda 21. There’s a lot of conspiracy talk around here.

    • Just because you keep calling it mainstream science, doesn’t make it so.
      The mythical 97% consensus has been busted so many times that only the terminally clueless still spout it.
      As to using CAGW to justify more taxes, just look at those who are at the forefront of the movement are calling for. They are almost unanimous in their desire to use taxation to decrease the use of fossil fuels.
      As to the one world govt stuff, that’s proven by once again actually reading the words of the leaders in this movement.

    • Lewandowsky and Cook aren’t mainstream. They aren’t even climate scientists! AND, according to their own work (Cook et al 2013) more than 66% of publishing “climate experts” for the past 20+ years have not taken a position on global warming at all!
      Thousands of scientists don’t actually work together. That’s the problem. If you think the geologists are networking with the physicists, and the marine biologists, and the vulcanologists, and the meteorologists and they are all up to snuff on anything outside of their own fields…you’re making a hilarious assumption Bill 2.

    • Bill 2
      My sense is that everyone around here that rejects mainstream science assumes that the participating scientists are deliberately publishing erroneous research to facilitate the liberal agenda in order to implement more taxes.

      Not everyone, but to your assumption, many have noticed funding for many studies, often based on non-verified computer models, comes from liberal government sources who are pushing control and tax options. I think most of these scientists are just doing what they are being paid to do.
      By the way, how many of the list are effecting your beliefs?
      Psychological operations have maximum effect with people who:
      – have little education
      – accept information uncritically
      – benefit from the proposed change
      – want to believe the propaganda
      – do not wish to understand their own motivations

    • The case being made is that there are billions to trillions of dollars owed in climate justice debt to international bodies such as the UN.
      Hope that input helps.

      • If by “helps” you mean “emphatically underlines the scope and breathtaking inanity of CAGW alarmism”, then yes, it does.
        Thanks.

    • Tim Ball and Sir Monckton are frequently invoking the fears of a one world government and agenda 21. There’s a lot of conspiracy talk around here.

      True.
      It’s why this smear is so attractive.
      Some people do believe that their political opponents are out to get them. Some at the Guardian think Big Oil is bribing everyone who disagrees with them.
      The smear always has a few hits – on every side.
      But that doesn’t effect a change in global temperature. That change happens anyway. Or, in the case of the Pause, it doesn’t.
      So many of us are sceptical based on the evidence.
      As well, as the poor integrity of climate scientists who refuse to release their data and have hidden the decline and Tiljander, etc.
      Climate science is not of a high standard. They even tried to reverse the null hypothesis. It barely counts as science at the moment.

    • Hey Bill 2,
      Care to offer up a wild guess as to how much of the $29 billion that the US Federal government spent last year alone, went to fund grant for skeptical individuals seeking to poke holes in the CAGW conclusion?
      *hint* It is a very round number. The roundest of all numbers. Is this a conspiracy? Is it a conspiracy to notice this fact?
      Got anything to say about anything scientific? Or even anything specific?

    • Bill 2 writes

      E.g., thousands of scientists are working together in a manner contrary to their stated mission. Isn’t that a conspiracy?

      No. The issue hinges on the word “together”. Its not like they’re huddled off in a corner discussing their gameplan…well not unless they’re part of SkepticalScience where thats exactly what they do….
      But if by “together” you mean that they have a common goal driven by group think because thats where the funding is and therefore where they individually benefit, then yes it might look on the surface like a ridiculous and highly unlikely conspiracy.

  19. A recent study exposed the fact that “scientists” on certain climate blogs, CONSPIRED behind the scenes on how to adjust and then market the results of an “analysis” study they had not even conducted yet.
    Several of these same “scientists” have openly, and repeatedly declared that they believe there is an active, well funded CONSPIRACY out there trying to suppress evidence and mislead the public.
    Is there a word for people who see conspiracies where there are none, while being in complete denial about their participation in a most visible, embarrassing one? (Besides terms like idiot, moron, buffoon, clown?)
    I apologize to clowns….

  20. Climate Denyer? Hah. I deny the atmosphere, No wait. I deny the Earth and all who exist there. Yeah, Now taht’s denyal for you.

  21. I would really like to see someone do a better version of this survey. I have a hunch that a real survey like this would turn out quite different results

  22. The interesting thing that seems to escape their expert knowledge of all things conspiratorial is that they don’t seem to realize that their papers are based upon there being a conspiracy of half the population against them.
    Real theories are hopefully founded in science. Yet half of the population is not on the climate change train (most-likely more if the questions of how much and how bad are added) even after all this time.
    These are supposedly studies of “conspiracy ideation” but they are performed by conspiracy theorists themselves who have a bone to pick.
    From their point of view, “conspiracy ideation” is just anything that doesn’t agree with their views.

  23. So, the people who think that climate changes because of human activity. Do they think that climate did not change before, say, 1750? Or they think climate changed because of natural forces before 1750 but now those do not count any more?

    • They are just having a little scientific paradigm shift so the past will no longer be a duck but a rabbit. It’s all good!
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
      That is why Popper rightly criticized and analyzed Kuhn’s paradigm shifts in his book, “The Myth of the Framework.” It’s a carte blanche for “practitioners of science” to suddenly reframe the questions, tools, and interpretations without further notice.

      • Here are two concrete, specific examples of a paradigm shift in science, as set forth by Kuhn:
        1. NASA is now operating a suite of new satellites to track the effects of man’s activity on the planet in real time.
        –>Notice the loaded question by tight group practitioners of science, who share the same language and interpretation of data. This is as fine a poster child for Kuhn’s very very structured scientific revolutions as any one could wish.
        Second example:
        Paradigm Shift Urgently Needed In Agriculture – UN Agencies Call for an End to Industrial Agriculture & Food System
        A rising chorus from UN agencies on how food security, poverty, gender inequality and climate change can all be addressed by a radical transformation of our agriculture and food system.

        by Dr Mae-Wan Ho
        “Agriculture the problem and the solution to climate change”
        –>Notice the “paradigm shift” comes from top down by the “practitioners of science.” The evidence gets filled in, the history books re-written, and the duck turns into a rabbit.
        http://faculty.vassar.edu/brvannor/Asia350/duckrabbit.gif
        It’s only a problem for those who remember the Holodomir and the Great Leap, in which governments and scientists destroyed agriculture and millions died. To this day, Mae Wan Ho’s country claims the deaths during Mao’s agricultural policy changes were because of “natural disasters.”

  24. It appears that Lewandowsky et al are desperately trying to lay the ground work to justify marginalizing, bullying, and persecuting global warming skeptics. If we “nutters” don’t hang together, they will attempt to hang us separately.

  25. Someday, the media will look back and provide an explanation of “what went wrong” and “how were so many scientists wrong about global warming.” The media will simply report that there was a comedy of errors that occurred while looking at data that seemed to be saying something different than what was eventually known. The media will report that it was all innocent misunderstandings, and that there was nothing unethical or untoward about the conduct of the scientists that really were trying to save the world from a disaster that they really believed was imminent. The media will get quotes from people saying that it was better to be safe than sorry and quotes from climate scientists that say they will never be hesitant about erring on the side of caution.

  26. hmmm if they did the same kind of study on warmest blogs I bet they would see even stronger conspiracy ideation… i.e. all skeptics are funded by big oil……

  27. Conspiratorial Discourse in the Scientific Journals Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Alarmism.
    Fixed!

  28. Ah, what the hell. Since everyone’s doing it.
    Grant Et. All finds that Austrailian climate scientists who espouse catastrophic global warming also deny the United States moon landing and are morons.

  29. My response is “Recurrent Laughter: Another Study in Obsessive Invention of Malign Claims about People in the Blogosphere with Better Supported Views than Those of the Authors”.

  30. I would like to object to the use of the term “peer review” in speaking of scientific journals, etc.. In law selecting a jury of peers is a two step process. Over the years it has become 1. corralling a randomly selected, larger than needed number of people consisting of a representative cross-section of the citizens of that jurisdiction–“venire;” and 2. culling from that panel a balanced set of biases by using two opposing sides to question and weed out extreme positions and incompetents–“voir dire”. Thus, a hopefully balanced jury of peers. Even this rigorous process can go wrong. So called “peer reviewed” science has a tendency and does sometimes become crony reviewed science. How do we guard against this? Step 2. You must allow opposing views to cull out the obviously biased on both sides, leaving the middle ground. For these reasons I remain a science and scientist skeptic, i.e., questioner. Science outside the lab does not self-govern well.
    And reviewing my thoughts about the use of the phrase “conspiracy ideation” I now think that the use of “ideation’ is intentional and well-thought out in this instance as a kind of euphemism for rubes who ideate conspiracy where absolutely no credible (judgment call I know) evidence of conspiracy exists, translate that to wild imaginings of the paranoid, easily manipulated, and religious fanatics who cling to irrational superstitions. You can just see them chuckling over their coffee. I am sure there are people who ideate conspiracy. I won’t point to any likely subjects. By equating us with those who ideate conspiracy, they are saying that we are mere children on their adult stage, imagining everything. The article is designed to provide fodder for self-styled intellectuals to compliment one another on their superior intellects and sneer at everyone else below their station. It has no redeeming value and contributes nothing to the debate about CAGW. This is the pinnacle of hubris.

  31. “What’s funny is that Lew et al don’t seem to realize they are talking about a large percentage of the population who have these questions:” Large percentages of the population also vote for the worst possible candidates for office, at all levels, frequently and half of the population has an IQ of 100 or less. Not only is this not a problem for one selling garbage but probably is a benefit to them and their theories.

    • Which is why in the American colonies after the King’s army was sent back to England, those men realized a direct democracy would be a disaster. Instead, they framed a representative Republic with two branches of Legislature. The intent of the US Senate, that is to represent the States, though was altered by the first wave of Progressivism and the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 making US Senators a popular vote in each state..

      • They also limited voting to those who owned land. Since most taxes at the time were based on land, this had the affect that only those paid taxes were allowed to vote.

  32. What is it with the lefties/green and conspiracies? From the clinton’s “vast right wing conspiracy” to this nonsense. The leftist/greens see the bogey man behind every corner. Now that deserves a peer reviewed study.

    • “delusion of persecution- a delusion that one is being attacked, harassed, cheated, persecuted, or conspired against. It is one of the subtypes of delusional disorder.”

    • Read your Marx.
      Marx defines society as a class struggle between evil capitalists and salt of the earth Labour.
      It is a framework of interpretation that the Left share. The world, to them, consists of victims and oppressors, and you are only a good guy if you are on the side of the victims.
      The possibility that Marxist thought instead of being a huge breakthrough is actually a counter productive source of unnecessary friction between members of society who in fact share more of a symbiotic relationship, never occurs to them.
      And the further possibility that with the advance of mechanisation the whole concept of Labour has simply vanished without trace, is equally hidden by massive cognitive dissonance.
      As with Climate Change, Marxism is another massively Convenient Lie that has promulgated itself simply because it flatters peoples egos, gives them something to believe in, excuses their failures as someone else’s fault, and gives them the moral right to trample on other people.

      • If one chooses to eat the rich he will find they taste foul.
        When all the rich have been eaten , it’s time to eat the semi-rich, then the rich-poor, then the poor.
        Turns out they all taste the same.
        And all the jobs are gone.
        Ayn Rand knew this.

  33. Papers, such as the one by Lewandowsky et al, are nothing more than a reworking of the old Soviet method of declaring dissidents to be mentally ill and are incontrovertible evidence, to use the APS wording, that AGW is just an -ism backed by junk science.

  34. It is completely normal behavior for the powerful to conspire to maintain and increase their power.
    The media has used wacko/nutjob along with the word conspiracy so often that even people who are normally critical thinkers avoid any subject that suggests a conspiracy could have occurred. Shame is a powerful tool to control behavior. The fact that conspiracy ideation can be thrown out unquestioned as a psychological disorder, is evidence of the complete brainwashing by propaganda the media has accomplished.
    The idea that conspiracies don’t exists is more of a delusion than the belief in them.

  35. Lewandowsky and his agenda-defined “research” are particularly ripe targets for those who question the integrity and usefulness of the academic publishing process in general, and psychological “research” in particular.
    Lewandowsky’s wild-eyed accusations of conspiracies against his “research” cries out for “research” in response to his response!
    “To date, we have become aware of 7 instances in which editors were subject to what can reasonably be classified as harassment or intimidation in order to achieve the retraction of inconvenient papers. The potentially chilling effects of those activities on academic freedom must be analyzed further.”
    “Conspiracy ideation” indeed!
    In his fevered academic imagination, there’s a vast network of “deniers” who are out to destroy the poor “researcher” and his important findings on “conspiracy ideated deniers.”

    • “To date, we have become aware of 7 instances in which editors were subject to what can reasonably be classified as harassment or intimidation in order to achieve the retraction of inconvenient papers. ”
      any chance they can name these papers , or it the lack of evdainced proof of the ‘conspricy in action?

  36. I would really like to know what it was that led Dr. Ivar Giaever to finally “research climate research.”

    • It appears he was aghast at the APS’s use of “incontrovertible” in their 2011 statement on Climate Change. The use of that word in physics, as he notes, is unscientific, which led him to resign from the APS in his very public letter at that time.

    • katherine009
      See Giaever’s recent Nobel speech “Climate Change Revisited”

      “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,”

  37. How do you “peer review” articles in a journal that:

    …aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches).

    Egads.

    • So if you throw out the scientific method then this paper makes a ton of sense…Brilliant!

      • “So if you throw out the scientific method then this paper makes a ton of sense…Brilliant!”
        Or alternatively, this is the result of pretending to apply the scientific method to the soft sciences such as psychology.
        This is what Karl Popper rightly identified as “the aping of the natural sciences by the social sciences.”
        micetype: not a personal remark or contradiction to the person above.

    • Thats hilarious opluso. And more than a little disturbing. Loosely translated, it amounts to
      Post your rant here at this “journal”
      Its a fitting home for Lew’s work though.

    • I found this quote at Jo Nova’a:
      The problem with scams is that those perpetrating it need everyone duped quickly by an emotion driven story heavily promoted by all sorts of plausible proofs that initially appeal to specific personality types convinced of their superiority, hence the conviction that they are right despite logic, common sense and evidence.

  38. I should think that Lew as a psychologist would know that conspiracy is conducted in secret and not broadcast on multiblogs. Indeed, it ceases to be a conspiracy once everyone knows about it. Like when the insider released the Climategate emails, the jig was up for the climateers, Cop19 failed miserably, everyone was writing columns and blogs about it. With the conspiracy no longer a secret, there is no effort required to make the science look kosher. Hey, the real agenda has already been outed: we have to destroy the US economy, democracy, capitalism, ownership of property and put unelected elitists in charge to make sure we can succeed in wiping out half the population.
    So why do the climateers keep needing to adjust the data to fit? Well they are scientists and have to do something.

  39. Maybe Lewandowsky (and fans like Bill 2) need to read up on the “mainstream” behavioral research being done.
    “Where do conspiracy beliefs come from? Recent behavioral research suggests that they do not reflect pathology or lazy thinking but may instead come from normal, rational minds. ”
    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/crazy_beliefs_sane_believers_toward_a_cognitive_psychology_of_conspiracy_id/
    This part about conspiracy believers was particularly revealing:
    “Rothschild et al. (2012) found that when participants read about environmental destruction caused by unknown forces, they attributed the blame to a scapegoat—an entity with the means and desire to subvert others’ well-being for its own gain. Blaming the scapegoat restored participants’ feelings of control. Importantly, participants given a chance to affirm their feelings of personal control were less likely to blame the scapegoat.”
    Let’s’ see….people who learn about environmental destruction caused by unknown forces…create a scapegoat with the means and desire to subvert others’ well-being for it’s own gain. Such as…the fossil fuel industry? Or the Koch brothers? Or the human race?

  40. I’ve decided to unilaterally add a new feature at WUWT: Best comment of the day:
    paqyfelyc
    July 8, 2015 at 8:44 am
    2.1 (attested by 33 AD ) : crucify two known thieves together with the one you want to smear
    [thief 1 :] link between lung cancer and smoking, and [thief 2 :] between HIV and AIDS
    checked

  41. Lewandowsky et al cannot accept that they are wrong. Conspiracist ideation is effectively falsified by Lew’s two original surveys. In looking at the blog and US population internet surveys about 15 months ago I concluded:-

    A recent paper, based on an internet survey of American people, claimed that “conspiracist ideation, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested“. Analysis of the data reveals something quite different. Strong opinions with regard to conspiracy theories, whether for or against, suggest strong support for strongly-supported scientific hypotheses, and strong, but divided, opinions on climate science.

    As Jonathan Jones acknowledges, I reached basically the same conclusion as Dixon and Jones – though they used a more rigorous method.
    This is not the only area that the Stephan Lewandowsky – a Professor of Cognitive Psychology – fails to grasp the plain obvious. As I realized quite early on, Lewandowsky blames the mistrust in “climate science” on what he considers to false thinking about the world, evidenced by belief in conspiracies and “free-market ideation”. (For which you can mean anyone on the political spectrum from Libertarian party member to moderate Democrat.) But the mistrust is more basic than that. The climate community have many times got their forecasts wrong, but never acknowledge it. They branched out from their field of applied geography into politics, ethics, public policy-making and economics. In all these areas they are largely clueless activists. They still do not acknowledge that others have a valid point of view, or something to contribute to the debate. Would you distrust people who claimed they have a monopoly on truth, when it is blatantly obvious they do not?

    • Yes, I certainly would.
      And do.
      But I do not hate them.
      In fact, I pity the fools.

    • Nice point, Kevin. False thinking. It’s almost as if Lewandowsky, and many alarmists, have never even engaged in examining skeptical thought. It is false thinking to think that skeptics think falsely.
      They’ll learn.
      =========

  42. As a certified lay man in this arena: 1) I don’t think the world is flat, 2) Smoking causes pre-mature death in 1 in 6 smokers. 1 in 12 if confounding factors are taken into consideration. Of course I read this some place but it was backed by studies and seems reasonable. 3) Second-hand smoke dangers have been greatly exaggerated. I have read a few papers on this and equate the alarm to be that of the alarmist global warming claims. 4) The benefits of vitamins and nutritional supplements have been greatly exaggerated. 5) Vaccinations are good for society. 6) HIV causes AIDS 7) The holocaust was real 8) The CFC-Ozone depletion connection is thin and doesn’t prove that the ozone holes at the poles are man made. 9) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the green house effect is scientifically supported and doesn’t conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, CO2 levels have increased since pre-industrial times, global temperatures have increased but the increase is dependent on the years selected, scientific evidence that links CO2 to the increased temperatures as well as future global temperatures is tainted by environmental activism and political bias, Reducing CO2 emissions will do little or nothing at controlling climate change. 10) The health and environmental effects of GMOs are mostly unsubstantiated and exaggerated….I think 10 is enough.
    My point: Although I may be more educated on the above than the average Johnny Q, I am by no means an expert or even a novice in any of the above fields of study. My skepticism about man made climate change has nothing to do with conspiracy ideation but is based on what I think are reasonable conclusions based on what I know. I may be wrong…but I do not see conspiracy. I wonder what Lew and Cook would have to say about me?

    • What Lew and Cook might say about you:
      Options-
      1. You’re wrong on at least 5 of the 10…making you only 50% intelligent.
      2. You’re wrong, but you couldn’t help it because the Koch brothers (or someone else) paid vast amounts of money to confuse you and distort the truth.
      3. You’re not only wrong, but we can tell that it would be a waste of time to try to teach you anything at this point.
      4. You’re conclusions are not reasonable, because reasonable people would have gotten all 10 correct. And agree with us.
      5. You’re probably not a published scientist, therefore you’re just wrong. 24/7. On everything. Always.
      6. Just because you posted this on an internet blog doesn’t make it “important” or “constructive”.
      🙂

      • I think you probably nailed it Aphan. I tried to post at Tamino’s site one time and I think I heard all of the above and more. Of course any point I made was quickly edited out by Tamino…

    • re: Eric H. July 8, 2015 at 1:24 pm
      “As a certified lay man in this arena… 2) Smoking causes pre-mature death in 1 in 6 smokers. 1 in 12 if confounding factors are taken into consideration…”.
      Of course that means that smoking doesn’t not cause pre-mature death in 5 of 6 smokers or 11 in 12 if confounding factor…..
      It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

  43. I know that time passes quickly but I am constantly amazed at how many of the younger Warmists I argue with simply have never heard of CLIMATEGATE.
    Sometimes when I’m battling on comment sections and I run into heavy opposition, I simply post excerpts from Climategate emails, one at a time. Such is their fear of these few statements that the insults and provocations usually stop immediately!
    I think it’s everyone’s duty to remind the world that the key scientists, in the lead body which promoted the Global Warming scare WERE conspiring to deceive.

  44. On rationality of a ‘nutter’
    ‘Sensible’ people think that climate change is driven by CO2, regardless how insignificant its concentration is, since it happens to be around 24/7.
    ‘Nutters’ ignore ‘sensible’ thinking and go for something irrational.
    Only a ‘nutter’ would pursue ‘ridiculous’ ideas, while ‘sensible’ scientists will comfortably and forever run in circles chasing their own tail, having the brain tattooed with the capital bold CO2 .
    One wonders why anyone would want to be a ‘nutter’ when it is so easy, convenient and useful to be ‘sensible’.

  45. It’s been my experience that the vast majority of Internet trolls accept Global Warming as fact, and the reason may be because it feeds their pathological need to harm others. Attacking and insulting “deniers” is socially acceptable and even encouraged in the Climate alarmist community, and that’s an engraved invitation to sociopaths.
    It has recently been reported that internet trolls are far more likely than the general population to display serious psychological illnesses in real life. These people are often narcisscistic, Machiavellian psychopaths.
    Based on their logic, Climate alarmist are psychopaths. Which journal can I get this discovery published in? And when can I expect my Nobel Prize?

  46. Illogical psychobabble fraudsters that are so entranced by their own flawed work, continually seek to republish the same nonsense?
    Just how dense are these loons?
    Instead of tearing their work apart and rebuilding it from the bottom while addressing all of the very valid claims, they instead seek to republish the exact same foolishness addressing only ethical personal lapses?
    Consider that several different psychologists have reviewed and dismissed the original paper as fatally flawed not counting the original paper’s horrible design, execution, data collection and analysis.
    Yet these clowns insist on supporting zombie rumors by pretending to resurrect the ignoble deceased insult to cellulose plant growth?
    Ah, the sweet entrancing lure of Paris must overwhelm what little is left of intelligence and common sense the authors have been hiding.

  47. Funny: most of the True Climate Believers I run into online (can’t really call it debating) believe in at least one of of: 9/11 Was An Inside Job, non-traditional medicine (i.e., chiropractic, homeopathy, etc.), false-flag operations (i.e., most of modern news), etc.
    BTW, having worked in government for 26 years, I subscribe solely to the idiom: never attribute to conspiracy that which rightly should be attributed to incompetence.

    • Jones,
      Exactly! People who’ve worked in government for any appreciable length of time are the least likely to believe conspiracy theories, I think. Well, unless they’re one of “them”.
      “Run from your wives! …I mean, run for your lives!”

  48. Larry,
    No offense intended, but I have a very strong moral, and logical, objection to people attempting (like Lew, Cook etc) to diagnose or assign mental illness to others over the internet. (Or stereotype, or pigeonhole, or anything of that sort) No one has the ability to read the mind or heart of someone else, and no professional, ethical psychologist would EVER assume to be able to do so, much less any average person. I put it bluntly like this…how YOU behave, and what YOU say, tells me more about you than anything you could say about someone else.
    There are narcissists and belligerent and annoying people out there that don’t fit the diagnosis as a “sociopath” in real life. Not all sociopaths have a “pathological need to harm others” and not everyone that you decide is a “troll” really is one. Some climate alarmists are just stupid, gullible, and uninformed.

    • (Oops! I posted this message in the wrong place. I’ll try again…)
      Aphan,
      No offense taken. My post was meant as satire to spoof those who try to characterize all skeptics as crazy conspiracy theorists. I simply applied their methodology to my observations of which side of Climate Change most internet trolls are on and the results of recent psychological research on trolls.
      Now if I can just get this discovery published in a major journal, I feel certain that a Nobel will be mine! 😉

      • Now I am leaving responses in the wrong place! Sigh. Mod…can you delete the post to Leo here?
        Larry, thanks for explaining. My sarc detector is on the fritz.

  49. From the Journal’s Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
    climate science

    Disclosure and conflicts of interest
    All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of
    interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

    If you published a paper titled NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science and folks pointed out the that less than 1% of respondents believed in the conspiracy in the title (10/1145), would it not be a conflict of interest to do a paper analyzing the responses without recognizing this fact that was hidden in the original paper?
    There is no sophisticated and complex conflict of interest here. Just a bunch of dogmatic people who cannot recognize that there are are other points of view possible, that have proven to be more valid than their own.

  50. Re: Lewandowsky & Cook 7/8/15:
    Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change.
    Lewandowsky & Cook promote climatology to a science by citing climate change (omitting manmade) as coequals alongside HIV/AIDS and vaccination models. Some minimally science-literate interlocutor needs to ask the L&C to explain why the epidemiology models successfully predict disease rates, while the AGW model successfully predict nothing.
    Science reporters, like the authors, are unaware that Modern Science requires models to work, while Post Modern Science requires instead that they be (1) peer-reviewed, (2) published in certified journals, and (3) claimed to have consensus support from a clique of certified practitioners. The two versions of science monopolize center stage today, but their criteria are mutually exclusive, PMS being what philosophers call the deconstruction of MS. MS thrives in industry, as it must, including pharmacy labs, while Climatology is academe’s poster child for PMS. All the latter has to do is seed government regulations and dislodge money.

  51. This ‘Recursive Fury’ paper should be required reading for any psychology course because it is a very good example of author ‘psychological projection’.

    • You don’t need to be a psychologist to recognise that Lew and his sidekicks are displaying some very odd, even obsessive, behaviour.

      • very true, and the fact is, the amount of eyes that see that scribble will be a tiny fraction of those that read this one blog. if their aim is to clear their minds by some self-confirmation to their religion, then it wont really help. just more people will see how dishonest they are. each passing paper will bring further ridicule too.
        i think the sane are backing away from global warming, only those with vested interests remain to defend it, and these two are an example of those that placed their careers and reputations on the line. they have no where to go, and their egos wont let them take the path of truth.

      • When Lew’s current paper doesn’t have the desired effect, he could quite probably turn to stalking. He needs therapy…

  52. There is a branch of psychology, wedded to philosophy, that maintains life cannot exist without meaning.
    Now, think of a shrimp; a creature of the ocean. And, it’s netted by a trawler. It is surrendering its one and only life but, nonetheless, that ultimate sacrifice gave it meaning. A mere invertebrate, it is soon to provide gastronomical joy to a vertebrate – a higher being. What great worth and meaning that shrimp’s life has been.
    Now try, just try to visualize that deceased shrimp’s spirit hovering overhead its cocktail sauce embalmed body as the spirit shrimp sees its former self being forked … try to visualize this … being forked and brought up to …
    … that … that … that open mouth!
    On that man! To that open mouth. And no way to stop it.

  53. They left out that some climate skeptics also don’t believe that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love.

  54. Ah, La Lewny.
    Sometimes I just can’t get enough of La Lewny. Cook just turns me off, he’s a complete nuff nuff in my opinion but La Lewny is something special. His facial ticspressions are mesmerising.
    Go to

    to see what I mean.
    Its like going to some strange religious ceremony in some obscure language. You just go with the flow and watch the perfromance.
    Episode 10: is good too. try

    There’s lots more
    Enjoy.

    • hahaha, video 1 – there is a conspiracy… by conspiracy nuts to bring down the climate establishment!!!
      this just has to be self-parody.

    • It’s obvious to me that this guy has used LSD and psychoactive drugs IMO. He has likely experimented with at least one or more those things that are casuing those tics and mannerisms that he can’t control that he is not aware of.
      But what I find amusing is he is accusing skeptics of being alarmists based one just a few data points, when in reality it is exactly the opposite.
      The Climate Change Believers are the ones now who ignore the big picture and press to focus on a few manipulated data sets and just the Arctic ice levels being soemwhat low. They need people to ignore the contrary evidence that builds uncertainty to Climate Change. Such as the Antarctic Sea Ice levels at record highs, Greenland Ice pack now growing, Arctic multiyear ice now higher, inconvenent growing glaciers in the Humalyas that need to be ignored. Droughts come and go. Regional patterns change, but it is the CAGW believers who press the CA drought as evidence of Climate Change. Hogwash, and we all know it.
      Mr. Lewandosky is the nut case. No doubt about that.

      • Interesting you should make that comment Joel. Of course that old acid head, the original acid head, Timothy Leary was a psychology PhD who taught at Harvard no less.

      • Heh, ‘My name is Stephen. I think about misinformation’, from your second video.
        Why, yes, he certainly does.
        ===============

    • I tried REALLY hard to not enjoy or incorporate the word “ticspressions” into my current and future vocabulary…I want to be a nice person. But alas, my soul has a dark and snide corner and I cannot stop laughing.

  55. It is hard for me to see how Dana, Lew and Cook may imagine that they have achieved anything beyond alienating both reasonable skeptics and scientifically honorable alarmists.
    Even if I were a committed alarmist who wished to use propaganda and smears to support my case for the destruction of western industrial infrastructure, then I don’t think that I would want these people fighting on my side.
    I formerly bought into the alarmist propositions, after a decade of subscription to National Geographic and drinking up all the kool-aid served to me by the BBC and the Guardian, but even back in those days, I still would have been shocked by this level of witless pseudo-science as churned out by Lewandowsky.
    This group accuse skeptics of raising questions that tie up the debate.
    But, for several years now, the debate has been focused on a crappy psychology paper which is patently an embarrassment to anyone who has the misfortune of being associated with it.
    How has that helped the development of scientific knowledge?
    It’s helped Dana, Cook and Lew to grab the limelight for themselves.
    Are they totally blind to the fact that it is the inept and shoddy actions of individuals such as themselves that have lead many people to increasingly question whether or not they can trust the pronouncements of academic scientists?
    Anyway, as is often requoted here: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

    • That’s the point.
      JMason at the Guardian claimed he was a scientist and therefore sceptical. And yet he supported this paper.
      Clearly, he isn’t sceptical. So he can’t really be a scientist.
      Real scientists will be wary of anyone who follows into this trap. The paper is so clearly junk that anyone supporting it must have abandoned their critical facilities..
      It’s a pseudoscientistometer.

  56. Ho hum.
    You create a conspiracy to falsify global data, subvert science and flood the media with propaganda that you basically call ‘science’.
    And then when someone challenges you, you say they are suffering from conspiracy theorism.
    Where’s that T-shirt?
    “Sometimes there really is a conspiracy”

  57. The list of scientific blunders is a long one. No conspiracy theory is needed:
    Once upon a time 99.9% of scientists believed that continents had fixed geographic positions. Those of us who claimed that continents were mobile were labelled nutters.
    S. J. Gould remarked that, if PhD students and post-docs at Harvard wanted to discuss continental drift, they had to do in the back stairwell. At my alma mater we were warned that if we ever wanted to teach at a university in North America we had to conceal our views on continental mobility.
    Ditto in Darwin’s time for anyone who believed the Earth was older than 300 million years, the age computed by Lord Kelvin. He did not know about radioactivity and the heat of fission.
    Ditto for anyone who doubted that humans had 48 chromosomes. Or that pyloric disease was caused by an organism. Or that infectious diseases are caused by organisms.
    Thomas Kuhn showed how herds of scientists are formed and how the herds fragment and reform.
    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
    No conspiracy is necessary to explain belief in catastrophic man-made climate warming.

  58. When I first became aware of Lewandowsky, my first thought was that he was projecting. Nothing from him since has changed my mind.
    A good question is whether or not he really believes his nonsense, or whether he is a charlatan taking advantage of the asymmetry of the debate, and the massive amount of money and mistaken belief supporting the alarmist position.
    Ignorant or disingenuous, it’s always the same question, the same question.
    =====================

    • This is also a tool for examining conspiracy. Is the proponent ignorant or ‘ingenious’?
      I’ve long claimed that this catastrophism is no vast conspiracy, though there are certainly those who’ve breathed together insidiously and socially destructively. Instead, this is a social mania, a bubble of belief, an extraordinary popular delusion and a madness of the crowd.
      The bubble grew for all of the natural reasons detailed at length in many skeptical commentaries. It has destroyed wealth in an epic fashion, it is a delusion and won’t stand the test of time.
      We are going to have to develop, as a species, resistance to this sort of madness. I expect this short-lived social phenomena of alarm to become a vaccine against the most virulent form of this madness.
      See, there will ultimately be some benefit for our detour into social psychosis.
      =================

    • I agree Kim, it is either projection or outright lying. I tend to think in his case it is the former, if only because his videos do not make me think it likely he is a very good liar or actor.
      He honestly believes his delusions, very possibly.

      • It’s hard to tell with him. His videos scream ‘liar’ at me, but that may be my bias. He’s either stone cold mad, or desperately corrupt.
        ================

      • Given his involvement with the obvious propaganda mill, I tend to go with corrupt. You may be right, though, that he is only very sick, and I hope for the sake of him and his soul that you are right.
        =================

  59. At the end of the article is Professor Markam’s explanation for withdrawing the article in question. He pontificates “in science we cannot allow… ” Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t these the same “scientists” who allow that the proper treatment for some cases of identity disorder is surgical mutilation and hormone therapy to transform the biological sex of a patient! Psychology is the only field where a huge percentage of its practitioners get involved with in order to come to grips their own troubled mental condition. Since the second world war it is almost like the inmates have taken over the asylum!

  60. It’s old fashioned, I know, but I prefer that when someone presents a quote, such as

    “people who question the veracity of global warming/climate change are nutters”

    , the source it’s attributed to actually have said what is in the quote.
    Lewandowsky et al did not say that, although you attribute it to him. Insofar as ‘nutter’ appears in the article, it is quoting people who were complaining about the prior article — that they didn’t like being portrayed as ‘nutter’s.
    If you’re going to complain about ‘smear’, it’d be better founded if you didn’t start by inventing an inflammatory quote and putting it in someone else’s mouth.

    • It is, however, correctly characterized as a ‘sad message’. Would you care to address Lewandowsky’s gross errors rather than Anthony’s minor one?
      =====================

  61. In my opinion Lewandowsky has acquired a dubious reputation among he psychologists since the fall of the Berlin wall: The first to diagnose the opinions of a subjective, undefined group of people.

  62. I, for one, do not believe Lewandowsky and Cook are capable of the act of “ideation”.

  63. I think the photograph of this imbecile “lewandowsky” should be the “face” of climate reality, I mean would you buy a used car from him??

  64. If these people lived in early times, they would be put in a pillory or even worse if someone labelled them witches. I really can’t grasp the mentality of these alarmists, human kind does cause pollution. And SMOGS were a reality in London during the 50s. But human kind has a great grasp of reality and adapts, as they did in London making it a smoke free zone. Natural disasters are something we can’t control but try and get prior warning of an impending weather event, or earthquake or volcanic eruption. We can’t stop typhoons or hurricanes, cyclones but we can build houses to withstand them. But this lot in WA, they are so arrogant they could be sued for libel. They’ll get their desserts one day soon. If we get colder especially the Northern Hemisphere we do face famines and they should be putting all money into an alternative and effective measures to combat cold not heat.

Comments are closed.