Stephan Lewandowsky's "Moon Landing Paper" scathingly criticized by team of psychologists in a new book

There is a new book about to be published titled: The Social Psychology of Morality,  which is to be published by the Psychology Press. I and several other skeptic bloggers have been given an advance look. The new book has a chapter on the interaction between “high moral purpose” and scientific integrity, and it cites the recent sliming of climate skeptics work of Stephan Lewandowsky. There’s this [chapter] that pretty well sums up the caliber of Lewandowsky’s work:

The Curious Case of Condemning Climate Skeptics as Conspiracy Theorists (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013)

Into this mix stepped Lewandowski et al. (2013) with a paper titled, “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” – which strongly implies that people who doubt global warming believe bizarre conspiracy theories.  As Lewandowsky et al. (2013, p. 622) put it, “… conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”

One possibility is that this was true – that a disproportionately high number of people who disbelieve climate science also believe in something as silly as the faking of the moon landing.  Another, however, was that this was essentially trumped up in order to cast those who are most skeptical of the climate science as fools.

The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact.  Out of over 1145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked.  Among the 134 of participants who “rejected climate science,” only three people (2%) endorsed the moon-landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exist in the sample.

Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers.

That last line is basically academic speak for “Lewandowsky, you’re full of shit”  and I make no apologies for saying that, because it’s the harsh but real truth. As far as I’m concerned, by his actions and lack of scientific integrity, Lewandowsky has made himself the poster child for noble cause corruption. His buddy John Cook, creator of the 97% consensus meme is similarly afflicted IMHO. From Wikipedia:

Noble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that persons “will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result,”[1] a result which appears to benefit the greater good. Where traditional corruption is defined by personal gain,[2] noble cause corruptions forms when someone is convinced of their righteousness, and will do anything within their powers to obtain or concertize the execution of righteous actions. Ultimately, noble cause corruption is police misconduct “committed in the name of good ends”[3] or neglect of due process through “a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live.”[4]

Conditions for such corruption usually begin where individuals perceive no administrative accountability, lack of morale and leadership, and the general absence of faith within the criminal justice system.[5] These conditions can be compounded by arrogance and weak supervision.

Here is the abstract:

Abstract

In this chapter, we review basic processes by which moral purposes can sometimes motivate immoral behavior, and then suggest how moral agendas can sometimes lead social psychology astray through an array of questionable interpretive practices (QIPs).  These practices can be used to advance a moral agenda by permitting researchers to interpret the data as supporting that agenda even when it does not.  The QIPs reviewed here include: blind spots (overlooking or ignoring data inconsistent with one’s moral agenda), selective preference (accepting research supporting one’s agenda at face value, but subjecting opposing research of comparable or greater quality to withering criticism), and phantom facts (making declarations or drawing implications without evidence). Four major areas of social psychological research – sex differences, stereotype threat, attitudes towards climate science, and the ideology-prejudice relationship– are reviewed and shown to be characterized by unjustified conclusions plausibly reflecting high moral purposes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how to reduce QIPs in research that has moral undertones.

Friend of WUWT, Psychologist, and Lewandowksy critic Dr. Jose L. Duarte is one of the co-authors.

Read it all here as a draft at the primary author’s website, source: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/CanHighMoralPurposesUnderminescientificIntegrity.docx

Josh nailed it in his 2012 cartoon:

lewpaper

The fun in all this will be watching how wackadoodle defenders of the faith, like “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien, will try to defend this travesty of Lewandowsky’s.

UPDATE: Barry Woods advises of a must-read article about the lead author citing Lewandowsky’s horrid work in a symposium http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth-about-stereotypes/

UPDATE2: Worth sharing from the quillete.com article:

His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.

While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.


Note: shortly after publication this article was updated to fix a spelling error Lewnadowsky > Lewandowsky, and to add text from the Wikipedia reference on noble cause corruption. The word “passage” changed to be [chapter] so it is accurate.

And of course, thanks to Barry Woods for finding the docx file in the first place.

 

Advertisements

222 thoughts on “Stephan Lewandowsky's "Moon Landing Paper" scathingly criticized by team of psychologists in a new book

    • I have never encountered social psychology work that was not designed to create internalized mental models that would be unable to differentiate the truth from a false narrative. Now we have the World Bank pushing ‘nudging’ a la Cass Sunstein and the Behavioral Insights Team in the UK.
      We will be nudged to disregard the facts until that disregard becomes a Habit of Mind. It was never about genuine Science as a falsifiable hypothesis. It was about social science creating a malleable mind.

      • My old boss, Chester Newton, used to say that sociologists and psychologists have done more damage to mankind than all the wars in history.

    • I know many people who are convinced of AGW, but believe whole-heartedly in homeopathy, and the value of vitamin supplements.

      • Harlan, do you think vitamin supplements have no value? I for one wouldn’t compare them to homeopathy. See scurvy and vitamin C for an example.

      • “and the value of vitamin supplements”
        Seriously, or did you forget the /sarc tag? e.g. CoQ10 for dedicated statin users, vitamin D…

    • Wiping with the Lew paper would most likely just result in another smear. I wouldn’t all that Lew on my a*s.

  1. Love this article and Anthony Watts’ way with words. I’m always satisfied reading wattsupwiththat articles because they never contain an apology or a politically correct qualification. Just the facts and common sense reality.

    • Hey stop that now. There is a very nice bird in Canada that doesn’t like having its name appropriated by a vermin.

    • Well actually he is a researcher. everything he attempts has to be searched and researched and re-researched re-re-researched, so as far as his own work is concerned, he is at stage two.

  2. “…and did indeed find that “conspiracist ideation” negatively predicted (-.21, standardized regression coefficient) acceptance of climate science. So, where is the problem?”
    So, they have a problem with the title of the paper, and one can argue it is overly provocative for sure.

    • “Among the 134 of participants who “rejected climate science,” only three people (2%) endorsed the moon-landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exist in the sample.”
      There was no significant link between the two. In fact, 70% of those who believe the moon landing was fake ALSO believe in AGW. So a higher correlation exists there.

      • Well, one of the conclusions of the Lew paper was that “conspiracist ideation” predicts “rejecting climate science”. The case for causation the other way around was not made. The title, as I said, may be overly agitating, but as an example of the overall pattern still has the direction of influence right: moon landing is fake (believing this is a sign of conspiracy ideation), therefore (see the direction of causation here?) climate science is a hoax (the same conspiracy ideation MAY (not must!) be at play here).
        The Lew paper is not saying “climate skeptics” believe the moon landing is fake whatever the headline of the paper.

    • Wagen,
      Your efforts at obfuscation are a FAIL. If some AGW believers are conspiracy ideationists, and some climate skeptics are conspiracy ideationists, but the conclusion of your paper is that conspiracy ideation is associated only with skepticism, then those conclusions are entirely worthless.

      • Obfuscation? My paper? What are you on about? I gave a direct quote from the Jussim et al paper that is discussed above but is missing in the discussion above.
        Jussim et al thus acknowledge that the Lew paper found that conspiracy ideation predicts dismissing climate science (to be sure: only to a small degree, after the biggest predictor, i.e. free market ideology).
        I agree that the worth of the conspiracy ideation finding is limited.

    • Which is how they claimed to get away with it. The problem is that the impression is obviously false (and 0.2 is not a significant correlation by any definition of the word). out of those surveyed, 95% of climate skeptics do not agree with the moon hoax theory. This is ignoring the very strong likelyhood that at least some of the answers were fake (for political gain or simply for giggles) or simply mis-selected.
      You cannot make ANY determinations out of 10 people in a sample of several thousand aside from the fact that they are very rare.
      There is a reason the witness’s oath is “the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth”. The correlation is a partial truth in that it is not meaningful. However, the headline is a falsehood because it gives a distinct claim of a conclusion that cannot be reached.

      • Well, the significant effect of conspiracy ideation in the regression analysis (in which free market ideology was entered first as the strongest effect, so it is not comparable to a simple correlation anymore) is not only based on those that think that the moon landings were fake. Instead:
        “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings”
        I agree the title of Lew’s paper is overly ‘catchy’ (understatement). It is important for scientists that their papers get publicity, though. Helps with careers. That explains it for me.

    • To illustrate the problem in a way you might get Wagen:
      I don’t believe the moon landings were faked. What can you tell me of my opinion of AGW based on Lew’s work?

      • On Lew’s work alone that you are less likely to think that climate science is a hoax than someone entertaining the notion that the moon landings were fake (or similar conspirational notions).
        However, you asking me this question…

      • Even though you’ve already demonstrated it twice Wagen, your third answer serves best to demonstrate you don’t understand the correct use of statistical inference, which places you firmly in the set of most people who read headlines.
        A factor that describes only two percent of the variance in a sample isn’t a factor; it’s noise. You could just as easily have added “preference for fish over red meat” as a factor and if your acceptance criteria were low enough (or non-existent) made the claim that skeptics tended to prefer fish or that a preference for fish was predictive of skepticism. In the vernacular it what we statisticians refer to as “junk”, the sign of a deceitful experimenter with an agenda based design out to “prove” something the media will be too stupid to reject outright but attracted to by a sensationalist and provocative headline. In other words it’s meaningless click bait that makes no contribution of any kind to science. A lot like the alarmist studies making claims that rising ocean temperatures “may”/”could”/”might” kill sharks in 400 years based on some idiot doing destructive (and likely illegal) “experiments” on endangered species in an aquarium. And similar nonsense.
        If you plan to argue the scientific validity of experiments like the one described, you’re wasting your time.

      • By the way, the correct answer to Clovis’ question, “What can you tell me of my opinion of AGW based on Lew’s work?”
        Is “Absolutely nothing”.

      • @Bartleby
        My interpretation is not wrong. I know the effect is small, but it was still there (of course, it may have accidentally happened to be significant, these things happen). Also, I know it is not really important. “Paranoid personality sees conspiracy” is not really mind-blowing new stuff.
        So, why does Lew’s paper get so much attention and controversy? Because of its title and framing! 😀
        The Jussim paper discussed here, however reverses the causation and attacks the reversal (a.k.a. straw man). The Duarte kid has a lot learn. 😉

      • “of course, it may have accidentally happened to be significant, these things happen”
        You are very entertaining.
        It’s a poll. A POLL!!!!!!!!!

  3. The list of activists who lack integrity grows longer
    Mann
    Gleik
    Lewendowsky
    Turney
    Jones
    Gore
    Oreskes
    Klein

    • If, like Lewandowsky, you just want to make stuff up, you can conclude whatever you like.
      For anyone who is interested in sticking to factual information, best to draw no conclusions whatsoever from the big fat steaming pile of lying lies that lying liars tell.

    • Either that or they have no opinion on AGW. Since the latter is not likely, I have to recommend the former.

  4. The notion that either Lewandowsky or Cook are involved in noble cause corruption is absurd, they do it for the attention.

  5. The QIPs reviewed here include:
    blind spots (overlooking or ignoring data inconsistent with one’s moral agenda), selective preference (accepting research supporting one’s agenda at face value, but
    subjecting opposing research of comparable or greater quality to withering criticism), and
    phantom facts (making declarations or drawing implications without evidence).

    (I’ve edited the formatting above.)
    Philip Tetlock has written the ‘bible’ on this kind of stuff; “Expert Political Judgment, How Good Is It? How Can We Know?”. Over the years Tetlock assessed the ability of experts to make predictions. One of the things he had to deal with was the array of defenses the experts put up when they were wrong. The list is long and Tetlock deals with it in great detail. The bottom line is that, even ignoring noble cause corruption, experts (and everyone else) are more likely than not to suffer from all the problems cited above plus a bunch more (the list is on page 164). The psychological defenses are formidable and Tetlock’s analysis of them is (for me anyway) head splitting.
    I expect that Stephan Lewandowsky and company will mount a vigorous defense and will not shrink quietly into a dark corner.

  6. “Noble cause corruption” is just another way of saying “The end justifies the means”.
    When those promoting “a cause”, no matter how noble it may be, become corrupt it won’t be long before they corrupt “the cause” itself. Or rather, the “noble cause” may remain but that is no longer what they are promoting.

  7. Ideology, where the truth is what is believed rather than what the facts are.
    or
    “Don’t confuse me with facts, I know what I know!”

  8. Btw,
    “… conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”
    is not the same as
    “…climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing…”
    Having a propensity for seeing conspiracies, makes someone prone to consider climate science a hoax. Is this controversial? The mentioned “implication” that “climate skeptics” are by definition conspiracy ideators is not made.
    Lewandowsky is well aware that the -by far- greater predictor of “climate skepticism” is free market ideology.

    • Wagen
      “Having a propensity for seeing conspiracies,”
      “Lewandowsky is well aware that the -by far- greater predictor of “climate skepticism” is free market ideology.”
      Wagen , you state ideology, Climate skeptics have no one defining ideology. Climate skeptics come from all walks of life, professions and nations. This leads one to conclude that ether you yourself are a conspiracy theorist or a very very craven and disingenuous individual.
      michael

      • From the abstract of the moon landing fake paper:
        “Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”
        From the presently discussed paper:
        “…and did indeed find that “conspiracist ideation” negatively predicted (-.21, standardized regression coefficient) acceptance of climate science.”
        Somehow this finding was not mentioned in the blog post above…

      • Wagen:
        There are no ‘findings’ of Lewserandownsky discussed above.
        What is discussed is Lee Jussim’s chapter, “Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?”, in the book, “J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality.
        Also mentioned above is an excellent article by ‘Claire Lehmann’; “How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes”.
        Read Lee Jussim’s terrific dissection and destruction of Lewserandownsky’s false psychology, perhaps even you might learn something.
        Be sure to keep a dictionary nearby.

      • @ATheoK
        The second quote in my comment above is a direct quote from the Jussim et al article. It is not in the present blog post. Where do you think I got it from?
        Then you come and say ‘Read Lee Jussim’s terrific dissection and destruction of Lewserandownsky’s false psychology, perhaps even you might learn something.’ 😀

    • “the -by far- greater predictor of “climate skepticism” is free market ideology.”
      Wrong.
      All available evidence points to CAGW skepticism being rooted in intelligence, education in the scientific method, being able and willing to think for oneself, and the ability to draw reasonable conclusions from a given body of information.

      • “All available evidence points to CAGW skepticism being rooted in intelligence, education in the scientific method, being able and willing to think for oneself, and the ability to draw reasonable conclusions from a given body of information.”
        Where is your data? Lewandowsky provides data (the article discussed here uses that data) and concludes “that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science”.
        Do you have anything more than personal belief?

      • “Where is your data? Lewandowsky provides data (the article discussed here uses that data) and concludes “that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science”.”
        Or alternatively, rejection of socialist economic philosophy also predicts rejection of climate science. Hey, you’re right. Makes perfect sense and Lewandowsky is right.

      • Wagen untrained:
        The evidence is in every article and following commentary that Anthony hosts here day after day.
        Loopydowski scammed his data by actively seeking CAGW devotees to pretend and respond to his alleged questionnaire. Loopers then twisted the data, hid the data, pretended to statistically analyze the data, then he wrote whatever he wanted.
        Those facts you can find yourself in many places, by looking up the analysis and discussions. All of those online discussions are archived in several blogs; e.g. http://www.whatsupwiththat.com, http://www.Climateudit.com.
        Lewserandownsky’s research has been thoroughly analyzed and debunked several times. In the latest example, Lee Jussim’s chapter, referred to above serves as an exemplary dissection on how not to perform psychology research.
        In other words, Lewandowsky’s work and research may be used for generations; Alongside “Trofim Lysenko” Lewser’s work will help educate students on steps and attitudes to avoid in order to conduct legitimate research.
        If only Wagen can learn…

      • Wagen may be on to something, I’ve always suspected Putin of being a free market ideologist and moon landing compiracy afficcianado. But perhaps that was just my free market ideology acting up. Is there a pill for that condition? I’ve often thought it would be nice if I could just slide into a medically induced state of bliss where I could trust that the central planners were smart enough to fine tune trillion dollar economies, or the weather.

      • So, just so I have this situation straight…
        A psychologist writes a “research paper” attempting to smear global warming skeptics by lumping them in with crackpot theorists. A paper ignoring studies showing opposite correlations, manipulating data, etc. And may as well thrown in any economic theories the author disagrees with while he’s going. Got it.
        I have an alternative theory. A scientist not getting enough funding or attention sees a global warming movement which has abundant resources and wants to join the party, too. But, the topic is climate, not psychology. No worries, we can fake some more data, ignore some other studies, and smear people who disagree with those at the party. Now he’s in the club, too!
        Where was this study published, The Onion?

      • @ATheoK
        In Jussim et al they try to undermine the notion that “climate skeptics” believe that the moon landings were fake. Lew’s paper never made this claim. Read more carefully next time.

      • @Justin
        I see a scientist doing a survey and reporting the results. I see no evidence the data are ‘scammed’, ‘twisted’, or whatever.
        I can agree to a degree with your sentiment though about the framing of the study and the choice of the headline. Publicity is good for scientists. What’s an aspiring scientist to do?

      • “Lewandowsky provides data”
        Data obtained in violation of your own protocol isn’t data.
        It’s GARBAGE.

      • You guys should have figured out that arguing with anyone who feels the need to defend Lewandowski and Cook is like arguing with the little retard kid down the street. No offense to any kids, but one has to be retarded to think Lewandowski ‘s work has any merit. You’d better serve your fellow man by contacting Wagen’s adult supervision and telling them he’s out wandering around.

      • @timg56
        And still the Jussim article agrees with earlier research by saying ‘and did indeed find that “conspiracist ideation” negatively predicted (-.21, standardized regression coefficient) acceptance of climate science.’

        • Wagen, Wagen, Wagn
          Do you still stand by Lew’s “studies”?
          Do you accept this is worse than manure? cause manure has a use.
          What is the use of Lew? Scare children?
          If you don’t eat soup, Lew will psychobabble you!

    • Wagen, you are twisting like Lewandowsky. We do understand what he means. You seem to be missing all that, like any other troll..

      • What is your definition of troll? And can you spell out what you think (who’s “we” btw?) that Lew means that I am missing? Thanks

    • The following folks; Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Ted Kaczynski, Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee, all with various forms of dangerous forms of psychopathologies were also avid Global warming alarmists. I’m sure many more could be found, such that a case could be made that psychopathology is a good predictor of global warming ideation. And judging from the actions of Warmist ideologues, there does seem to be a close connection. Remember the 10/10 blood-spatter video?
      So two can play at that game.

      • Wagen, as usual, you missed the point. Are you being disingenuous, or just stupid? Hard to tell. Need more data.

      • “such that a case could be made that psychopathology is a good predictor of global warming ideation”
        Well, make the case, provide the evidence. Not sure what the relevance to the present topic is. So, yeah, I may be missing your point. Describe it again to me as if I were a seven-year-old, maybe I will understand it then.

      • Wagen,
        We’d have to describe it to you as if you were a 7-year old with a learning disability.
        The Moon Hoax paper is crap. You do know what crap is, correct?
        It is crap because of how poorly the survey was put together.
        It is crap because of how the results from the survey were filtered.
        It is crap because of the unbelievably substandard level of statistical analysis employed to arrive at the results. As Jurrim points out, they had to work really, really hard to make the data say what they wanted.
        That there are people so willing to argue on behalf of Lewandowski and Cook is rather amazing. Perhaps if one were my brother I might try (though it might be more along the line of making excuses, as defending work that bad goes beyond the duties of kinship.)

      • @timg65
        And still the Jussim (not Jurrim!) article discussed here says: ‘and did indeed find that “conspiracist ideation” negatively predicted (-.21, standardized regression coefficient) acceptance of climate science.’

    • “Having a propensity for seeing conspiracies”
      So what of having a propensity for [perpetrating] conspiracies, as do the climate science crew?.

    • “free market ideology” is just another term for “authoritarian policies skeptic” or “state intervention skeptic”.
      Bizarrely, scientists from academia (unlike the scientists doing engineering (*)) are rarely hardcore “state intervention skeptic”. They can doubt that physics constants like the charge of proton is constant, but not the need of government policies for almost everything.
      (*) yes, engineers are doing scientific jobs, there is no opposition between “pure” sciences and engineering, but a continuum from theoretic with no foreseeable use to immediate problem solving

    • Wagen,listen very carefully
      If you actually go ahead and read anything with the title of “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,” Then you are are a nutcase.Understand?

    • It is a very strange paper you are trying to endorse here Wagen. I would suggest if you’d like to be enlightened by real and actual causation, you might like to ponder why it is that so many of the CAGW ideology are left-wing thinkers? This, I believe, is a much more illuminating fact.

  9. Jeez…these guys are psychologists (whatever that really is) – their own literature is full of “questions” regarding difficulty/inability to reproduce of “core” experiments (or at least the few times they give it a shot). FYI: 100 years after General Relativity people are still testing it.
    What do ya expect? Why do we even discuss this cow poop? The science class in the 3rd grade at the elementary school down my street is literally a more intense intellectual hotbed.

  10. Be careful, there is another title “The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil” also published by Psy Press that came out in 2011. It may be a perfectly wonderful book, but it is not the same book.

  11. The bad Dr. Lew and his echo chamber pals have authored yet another dubious study as noted on the Real Climate site. Deception is the stock in trade for these crusaders, and this time they cherry pick and then alter the axis titles of a temperature chart to make it appear to show economic growth.
    Next Economists were asked if the chart indicated an economic slowdown. The results are then extrapolated to “prove” the pause never occurred. The amazing part is that it is so well-written that it is obvious that the authors are far from stupid. Perhaps they think they are outsmarting “normal” folks with this drivel. In any case, the study is the poster child for garbage in, garbage out.

    • Rob Ricket
      “The bad Dr. Lew and his echo chamber pals have authored yet another dubious study as noted on the Real Climate site. Deception is the stock in trade for these crusaders, and this time they cherry pick and then alter the axis titles of a temperature chart to make it appear to show economic growth.”
      Cool, Grab their new “Graft” scale it proper, to reflect ..001 pence/cent. Last be sure and index for inflation over 20 years, Then send the chart to the relevant economists and ask if they want to review their findings. Also a gentle observation that they were being used.
      While people are willing to be a part of a scientific experiment, they tend to get irritated when used as a “cat’s paw”.
      michael

  12. Believing AGW science is badly done, poorly modeled, working with insufficient data, or averaged beyond usefulness, is not the same as believing it is a hoax. That requires a conspiracy of global proportions beyond the competency of any of our elected leaders. This is just bad science by emotionally driven people based on an irrational hatred of fossil fuels. Also, predicting the future has never been science, has an abysmal track record, and one must be either a fool or a tool to blindly accept the soothsayer’s constantly renewed cries of impending doom without some degree of skepticism.

    • Not only that, but if it wasn’t for all the bad science, then it might have been possible for a rational person to assess to what extent the current warming trend may have been influenced by the addition of anthropogenic CO2. A small fraction of the money spent so far, but spent on real science, would have possibly provided us with some significant insights.
      I originally wanted to answer questions in my own mind regarding the extent of warming historically and currently and regarding attribution. All that I have so far discovered is that science has been taken over by motivated conclusion affirming crap.

    • Hoyt
      Agree with almost every word of your post other than ‘irrational hatred of fossil fuels’. I think it’s much more about ‘saving the planet’, allied with some elements of anti-capitalism against industry and the Establisment in general rather than specifically against big oil.
      The odd thing is that some companies are exempt from the criticisms: Micro$oft is loathed but Apple is worshipped despite being almost the definition of big business.
      As for politicians, from a UK perspective we have lots of talk but relatively little action beyond some taxes on fuel (and even then we now have the lowest pump prices for gasoline in 5 or so years). It’s all about being soft and fluffy, to appeal to soft liberal voters in Middle England (who are the ones that actually decide the election). Image over substance.

    • Look up the definition of hoax, and then consider the facts.
      However it started out, by the time people realize that they are misrepresenting facts in order to obtain financial gain, it is by definition then a hoax.
      To argue otherwise is to be snookered by the idea that everyone involved has to have had a meeting and agreed at some point to perpetrate such a scheme.
      there is evidence that many have, and many lines of evidence that others are simply along for the ride.
      People who are near, but not at, the top of a Ponzi scheme are not necessarily aware of what is happening, but that does not alter the fact of what is actually happening.

    • Why do people seem to always assume there’s a “problem with the server” when in fact the problem is with their own posting being held in moderation. You have so many links in your comment (and duplicate) pending that it flagged the spam filter.
      Comments with lots of links are typical for spammers trying to get traffic.

      • OK – but I’am no spammer and there was not the used information that the comment is in moderation. This would have made it clear…

      • Yes but when you click “post comment” and the webpage refreshes with a sharp link going to nowhere, the interpretation isn’t obvious.

    • Well it failed a third time, and I have no idea why – So I’ll leave it – pity for the waste of time…

  13. OK, now it seems to work, so I try it again:
    Lewandowsky and his buddy Oberauer are quite obviously ultra-green hard core activists as this website shows:
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/about.htm
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=324
    and very well connected there with other notorious climate-alarmistic zealots:
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=23
    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=25
    So, it’s psychological simply impossible that they can act like sober and unbiased scientists when they deal with this topic. Thus, it’s rather sad and amazing that alleged “scientific” journals do accept obivous propaganda-stories by self-declared (and therefore clearly biased) activists in the very field of the publication…
    BTW: Mr. Oberauer is a good example of the old wisdom that many Psychologists can very easily be mistaken for their patients… 😉
    At least according to the picture in this source:
    http://www.psychonomic.org/oberauer
    Sorry – Just fun… 🙂

  14. one (1) is a strange thing, I think there is a truth there but I cannot explain it.
    I know I used to fret about it when I was an infant.

    • when I was a child magic and mystery existed there to be seen in all flower and noises and animals and things to be frightened of and things to love and things to surprise. Magic and mystery and joyfulness not to be confused with measuring heartlessly and assuming superiority over for example a stag beetle.
      Is one human worth more that the entire species of stag beetle ? for example ?
      climate-things-otherthings-humans ?
      nobody is willingly going to suicide to save the planet. What shall we do ?

      • Not too conflicted zemlik, eh?
        Do you avoid stepping on ants, spiders and grubs too? Perhaps you checked for bacteria, planaria and other life on the soles of your shoes, before walking?
        Do you skip personal ablutions like brushing your teeth and washing?
        Do you use poisonous highly lethal chemicals for cleaning? Chemical solutions like bleach or contain ammonia or alcohol?
        Of course you eat healthy living things every day without much conflict; e.g. meat, vegetables, berries, baby plants (seeds, flour, rice, etc.). If you are eating, you are maiming and killing things.
        Face it, you kill lots of things every day without bothering to check first if you were about to eliminate the genus. For your lack of consideration or attention you might’ve condemned many species to extinction.
        Pretending conflicts for some bugs and animals but willfully destroying others is pure hypocrisy or unstable mental state issues.

  15. Motivated bogus science from the “unskilled and unaware of it” social psychology brigade.
    Here is an example of one of their masterpieces, from 2011, still residing on the internet, “Meat eaters are selfish and less social”. Well that’s a nice predictable liberal meme : http://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-selfish-less-social/
    Except that we soon after learned that the author of the study, Diederik Stapel, had been discovered to be guilty of MAKING EVERYTHING UP. As explained beautifully here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    But, as Lewandowsky himself observed, once a popular lie is successfully promulgated then it is very hard for the truth to erase it. That indeed seem to be the basis of his career.
    Unless he is merely – unskilled and unaware of it. A satisfactory alternative explanation.

  16. In the case of data showing vaccines in bad light, doctors say on record that they don’t wish to publish or advertise these results for fear people would not vaccinate!
    You can’t get much more “good caused” than that.
    And yet, we are supposed to follow “the science” (settled, obviously) on the safety of vaccines. And read the good data showing the good results (open accessed, obviously, unlike 97% of biomed results).

      • sciencebasedmedicine.org = clueless moronic hateful progressive liberals who can’t read
        “Vaccines” works? Which ones?
        The flu vaccine works?
        The live polio vaccine doesn’t spread a variant of polio?
        The Hep B vaccine doesn’t cause MS?
        LOL
        Also, “real doctors” are full of crap. Real doctors backed up all the medical pseudo science of the last century, and you probably don’t know a single example of it.
        [??? .mod]

  17. The prominence that Lew and Cook have received shows has low climatology has gone. They completely turn science on its head. Normal science is about making conjectures about the real world that fail to be contradicted by the evidence. These conjectures stand or fail independently of who made them. Lewandology sees science through the beliefs of academic “scientists” about the world around them. So when the real world contradicts the “science” the data is adjusted to the beliefs. Lewandowsky did his bit to help eradicate the eradicate the recent warming cessation. But that means the “scientists” in physics, chemistry or psychology suddenly become experts on public policy choices, whereas academic specialists in those fields who are critical are falsely attacked. Roger Pielke Jnr. and Bjorn Lomborg are two prominent examples. As this chapter states, the believers end up being blinded to what the real world data tells them. Comparing the two Lewandowsky surveys together, for instance, shows that those with strong beliefs in climate science also have extreme left-environmentalist views. Compared with the American public, it is the proponents of climate mitigation rather than the opponents who are on the political margins.

    • My claim that Lewandowsky’s surveys demonstrated that with strong beliefs in climate science also have extreme left-environmentalist views can be illustrated by two comparative graphs.
      Both surveys had questions on beliefs in “climate science” and on “free-market” ideation – basically a contrast between free-market and left-environmentalist perspectives. On the Moon Hoax survey there were four responses (strong or weak, agreement or disagreement) with five questions the total score on free market ideation ranged from 5 (extreme anti-free market) to 20 (extreme anti-free market). The average response to the “climate science” questions I graded deep green (average 4 = very pro-climate) to scarlet (very anti-climate)
      http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci6.jpg?w=600
      Unsurprisingly from the climate alarmist blogs it was placed upon, most of the respondents are the deep green believers in climate. But they are also very anti-free market. The “Moon Hoax” survey was mostly about climate believers, not about skeptics.
      The internet survey of the US population had five responses, including a middle neutral/ don’t know option. With five questions the total score on free market ideation ranged from 5 (extreme anti-free market) to 25 (extreme anti-free market). For the average response to “climate science” questions, there is now an amber middle band.
      http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci5.jpg?w=600
      For the US population on political views there is a normal distribution of responses. The vast majority politically in the middle. The result that far more people are pro-climate than skeptical can be attributed to question biases.

  18. I post this earlier today @ Bishop Hill. Hope it’s OK to cross post in this instance:
    I often wonder why I had never heard of such a thing as the “faking of the moon landing” prior to the Lew paper.

    • Re: “I often wonder why I had never heard of such a thing as the “faking of the moon landing” prior to the Lew paper.”
      Obviously, because there was a massive cover-up with long-lasting effects!!
      Wait a minute? Cover-up with long lasting effects? Could this be the work of Maybelline Anti-Aging Foundation, which delivers, flawless, radiant, natural-looking coverage for any skin tone and type?
      (erm…some sarc/spoof there, in case anyone was in doubt).

      • Re Maybelline and other cosmetic companies, why are the models always younger and or good looking? Why don’t they show a wrinkly old hag before and then 10-weeks after?
        My guess is that sales would plummet.

        • Yeah, it sure seems to work for the models in the photos.
          Apparently women are expected to think, “woah, that anti-aging serum seems to have made that photoshopped 21 year old look like she barely beyond her late teens”.
          Of course they don’t really think any such thing. But the marketing must work. Plus the sciencey sounding jargon and the exorbitant pricing.
          I’d like to imagine that women were far to smart to fall for that shit.
          But, they seem to keep funding the mass deception.

    • If you were alive at the time, and paying attention, you were almost surely aware that some people claimed the moon landings were faked.
      I think you date yourself as younger than about…I would say 40?
      Since it was not much discussed after the lunar program was ended, the younger you are, the more easily it could have escaped your attention.
      So…how old are you, eyesonu?

      • Physical age at well past 50.
        I still prefer my whiskey on ice and my women on fire, so let’s say that I try to impersonate myself as under 40. So far, so good. I’ll try the moon landing argument if and when I get called on age!

  19. People rarely mention that the choice of conspir*cies already revealed the bias of the so-called “research”.
    Whatever the outcome the work was already biased when this specific list of theories were chosen. Whilst other widely circulated theories which are more popular with leftists/liberals seem to have been intentionally excluded.
    The second principle cause of bias, was the choice of where to publicize the study and how to invite participants.
    The third cause was the failure to consider the participation of individuals who gave bogus answers in order to paint themselves as conspir*cy theory believing climate change skeptics.
    The fourth cause of bias was the choice of statistical analysis.
    Then the fifth was the motivated conclusion and title of the paper.
    I’m sure that there was more bias than this to be noted but it’s so boring because ultimately we are wasting our time talking about the idiotic creation of a complete imbecile.
    I’m inclined to suspect that the purpose of this exercise was simply for Lewandowsky to draw attention to himself whilst wasting a lot of smart people’s time. He certainly is NOT worthy of the attention.
    But, I’m sure that the entire episode has played out to his satisfaction.
    It has nothing to do with science. This is more akin to the strategy used in the promotion of modern art.

    • Some people believe 9-11 truthers because they can’t accept that fire can destroy a building. Also, lack of physics people learn before they get fifteen (like knowledge potential energy).
      Some people believe Moon landing is a hoax because Moon photographs are “unreal” (mountains very far away are clearly visible, no stars, etc.). Because, well they are Moon photographs and not made to appear “realists” photographs according a the feeling of a film director. People object to clean objects on the Moon and lack of crater because their mental images clash with reality, they are ignorant and can’t be bothered to look stuff up, a task made ridiculously easy with the Web.
      They may be “conspiracy ideating”, but we don’t know that. Pure stupidity can explain stuff, no need for the additional “conspiracy ideation” psycho-pathological (or psychobabble).
      And people who believe Moon landing is real may be just a ignorant and stupid. People believe tons of stuff like the Apollo missions are real and also crazy stuff. Do these people know why they believe Apollo missions are real? Because they have been told so? Have they even read of the “arguments” “proving” all Apollo missions are fakes? If not, how do we know they wouldn’t believe these “arguments”?
      How do we know people who don’t believe the WTC has been dynamited as in a controlled demolition also don’t believe everything the media say? Everything the gov says? Did these person believe in the Bin Laden had a James Bond villain’s lair theory?

      • Yeah, it comes down to personal insight and discernment. Greatly helped of course, by good general knowledge and a grounded understanding of scientific principles.
        But, I think that the most basic tool is a version of Hume’s maxim – that we should ask ourselves, which is most plausible – that the events described in the theory took place or that the theory is a heap of made up garbage.

      • Sadly, most humans believe whatever they want to believe, whether those beliefs serve them well or not. As a scientist and an engineer, I have chosen to believe in verifiable data and whatever facts the data exposes and supports, which serves my engineering goals well. I know that men walked on the moon 50 years ago because I have been present as a laser was fired toward the moon and the retro-reflector left there returned a clear signal. This was not an episode on “The Big Bang Theory,” it was a laser ranging program that included measuring the drift of tectonic plates. But that is the kind of data on which I choose to base my beliefs, none of which is available to support the fake Climate Science Consensus. If they had real, verifiable data, they wouldn’t have to make up these idiotic phsychobabal papers.
        Here the laser is firing at a satellite.
        http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/haleakalanew/images/telescopes/laserBig.jpg

      • “This was not an episode on “The Big Bang Theory,””
        This episode was on TV this morning.
        Leonard says something created by man, not something brought there by a man. Which is correct.
        I don’t understand why people use this “proof” that isn’t.

      • James Loux writes: “I know that men walked on the moon 50 years ago because I have been present as a laser was fired toward the moon and the retro-reflector left there returned a clear signal.”
        And the problem with this proof? It isn’t necessary for people to walk on the moon for there to be a retro-reflector on the moon; the two are not dependent.
        Without taking sides on the subject, its still important to understand the nature of proof and what one consists of. After thinking about this a great deal myself, I’ve concluded there are no absolute proofs available. Unless you go up there yourself and count the cigarette butts you don’t have proof and no one has a real reason to believe you when you come back to tell your story.

      • If one had a very strong telescope, one might be able to see the lunar rover where it was left, the descent stage of the lunar modules, and maybe even the flags and footprints left my the astronauts who walked there.
        Now, one could say that none of these are proof either, but what is the point of a discussion where the only things that can be taken as “proof” of any thing, any event, any theory, are direct observations by the specific person judging the evidence?

    • “simple-touriste
      December 11, 2015 at 5:36 pm
      Some people believe Moon landing is a hoax because Moon photographs are “unreal””
      Some of the pictures are, IMO, suspect given I know that the astronauts used a special Hasselblad camera mounted on the “chest” of their suits. I would imagine that to be difficult in a spacesuit. Also, the lens was “etched” with “cross-hairs” so that any image captured on film would have these cross-hairs in front of the image captured. Some images are suspect in this regard IMO.

      • Every one of these so-called cross-hair anomalies have been examined and debunked.
        As for something being difficult in a space suit as evidence that the moon landings were faked…if it was easy everyone would go there. The astronauts were not some random tourists…they trained exhaustively after being carefully chosen.

  20. “OPEN” democracy?
    10 Dec: Open Democracy: Adam Ramsey: Why did the BBC broadcast climate deniers during COP21?
    By giving airspace to conmen and conspiracy theorists during the Paris Climate Summit the BBC failed its public service remit
    Piers Corbyn thinks that climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by Qatar to boost the price of oil. Viscount Matthew Ridley is a coal-mine owner and was chair of Northern Rock when it collapsed…
    What do these two men have in common? The BBC thinks they are appropriate people to put on prominent shows to discuss climate science. Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) was invited on Andrew Neil’s This Week, Ridley was given a slot on the Today Program, both in the first week of the climate change summit in Paris. Both directly contradict the strong scientific consensus on climate change and neither have any qualification to do so.
    ***This is rather like giving serious coverage to the idea that humans didn’t walk on the moon or that JFK was assassinated by the FBI. Only, it’s much more dangerous than that, because the sowing of doubt about climate change is delaying action on this vast global problem…
    The BBC exists to inform, educate and entertain. They don’t fulfil any of those by giving conmen and conspiracy theorists prominent space on their factual programming to spread discredited and dangerous nonsense.
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/adam-ramsay/why-did-bbc-broadcast-climate-deniers-during-cop21
    2 comments only:
    Tony Quintas: The BBC’s public remit also requires it to be impartial. It has been attacked in the past for not presenting the dissenting voice, especially on climate change. That mere minutes have been given to a few voices who do not hold with the prevailing opinion on climate change does not violate their remit, in fact it does quite the opposite given the vast amount of airtime allowed to the consensus.
    Nicholas Till: The inclusion of Piers Corbyn is plain mischief-making, to embarrass Jeremy.

  21. “OPEN” democracy?
    10 Dec: Open Democracy: Adam Ramsey: Why did the BBC broadcast climate deniers during COP21?
    By giving airspace to conmen and conspiracy theorists during the Paris Climate Summit the BBC failed its
    public service remit
    Piers Corbyn thinks that climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by Qatar to boost the price of oil.
    Viscount Matthew Ridley is a coal-mine owner and was chair of Northern Rock when it collapsed…
    What do these two men have in common? The BBC thinks they are appropriate people to put on prominent shows to discuss climate science. Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) was invited on Andrew Neil’s This Week, Ridley was given a slot on the Today Program, both in the first week of the climate change summit in Paris. Both directly contradict the strong scientific consensus on climate change and neither have any qualification
    to do so.
    ***This is rather like giving serious coverage to the idea that humans didn’t walk on the moon or that JFK
    was assassinated by the FBI. Only, it’s much more dangerous than that, because the sowing of doubt about
    climate change is delaying action on this vast global problem…
    The BBC exists to inform, educate and entertain. They don’t fulfil any of those by giving conmen and
    conspiracy theorists prominent space on their factual programming to spread discredited and dangerous
    nonsense.
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/adam-ramsay/why-did-bbc-broadcast-climate-deniers-during-cop21
    2 comments only:
    Tony Quintas: The BBC’s public remit also requires it to be impartial. It has been attacked in the past
    for not presenting the dissenting voice, especially on climate change. That mere minutes have been given
    to a few voices who do not hold with the prevailing opinion on climate change does not violate their
    remit, in fact it does quite the opposite given the vast amount of airtime allowed to the consensus.
    Nicholas Till: The inclusion of Piers Corbyn is plain mischief-making, to embarrass Jeremy.

    • Some context to that OpenDemocracy.net blogpost.
      Quite obviously post was just a dramaqueening hatchet job littered with untrue smears, in the aim of pushing the religion of Climate Alarmism.
      But the first thing is Piers Corbyn was on for 15 mins in the middle of the night, while the show was filling in time waiting for a by-election result (show ended at 2am).
      It gave the presenter an opportunity to challenge Corbyn’s climate views, and to get insight into the relationship with his brother Jeremy Corbyn ..the leader of the Opposition part in the British parliament.
      BTW Ridley doesn’t own a coal mine. Rather both Al Gore and Ridley received royalties from the companies that mine on their land. In the case of Al Gore the zinc mine closed some years back.
      Context 2: politician Lord Ridley (active in the House of Lords) was on 2 days running on the morning news radio show r4Today. In the 3 hour prog he was on for 3-4 mins. The second time was right at the end of the show so he had a choice : make his point , or answer the untrue smear that he owns a coal mine.
      The BALANCE : Against that the BBC airs masses of climate alarmist claims which lie outside the IPCC science , but these usually go completely unchallenged (Like Emma Thompson on Newsnight)
      If skeptics are not on the BBC then there is less opportunity to challenge and smear them.
      Anyone know if OpenDemocracy.net is a front for something else ?

  22. Since Josh’s cartoon was reproduced here, I must add one thought that I have had for a long time. Looking at this cartoon, and Josh’s cartoons of the odious Mann: just how gentle Josh is. He puts humanity and even niceness into these thoroughly trashy people – imho, way beyond what they deserve. But Josh, my hat is off to you, I think you must be a truly fine and loving person, refusing to see the depths of their moral dirt, commenting only on their claims and actions. You are an example to us all, may God bless you.

    • Congratulations. I’ve said something similar recently here, but you’ve put it much better. The result of his gentleness is that his cartoons have penetrating power, ironically.

  23. From a person who believes that global warming is going to cause all the snow at the north pole to melt and that Santa Claus and the reindeer are all going to drown.
    What does the psychological term “projection” mean.
    As for the moon landings being a hoax, why reply with a “you can see the US flag left on the moon through a telescope.” – obviously a lie.

  24. NASA scientists say that before they send a man to Mars they have to find a way to get through the Van Allen Belt. That kind of proves that the moon landings where a fake.

    • There is a special reflector on the moon that was placed there by a person. It had to be put there by a person because there were no “landers” that could do it remotely at the time. You can point a laser at the coordinates of this reflector and it will bounce that light back at the source. You can even measure the, increasing, distance between the earth and the moon. That does not sound fake to me. You can even find this information, and the mission, on the interweb in seconds these days. I read this information in a library.

      • “there were no “landers” that could do it remotely at the time”
        How can we be sure of that?
        Is designing a remotely-controlled “lander” more difficult that safely bringing a man to the Moon?

      • At that time all NASA did was send rockets that literally just “bombed” the surface. Want to lay a device in a location with a certain level of precision, AT THAT TIME, needed a machine to carry a person or persons. And that was what was made. It’s provable. The mission was Apollo 14 and that “experiment” is still running today.

      • And remember, the computers on those craft were no more powerful than a digital wrist watch. So no “smart rovers” were possible then even if they could be delivered. Remember, a pilot, landed all the Apollo missions, not a computer.

      • “simple-touriste
        December 12, 2015 at 2:04 am
        A very unconvincing demonstration.”
        Unconvincing? LOL…and mission that took man from earth to the moon, laid a device for an experiment that is still, verifiably, working, and returned those men to earth, unconvincing?

      • “simple-touriste
        December 12, 2015 at 2:25 am”
        No, and no-one has ever said it could not be (Transmission time delays etc etc electronics that would weigh more than a person to do the same job). However, the BEST solution at that time and I repeat *AT THAT TIME* was to have a trained pilot at the controls. It’s the main reason why the missions worked so well!

      • I was well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the computing technologies in the 1960s. There was no system at the time capable of making a successful landing on the Moon other than a human pilot. There was also no mechanical system at the time, other than a human, capable of placing a retro-reflector on the lunar surface without contaminating its reflective surfaces with Moon dust, which was easily stirred up. Keeping those reflective surfaces clean was a major issue in placing the device. That reflector is on the Moon and returns an optical signal because people were there to put it there.

        • Do you links to documents about the dust issue?
          It doesn’t seem like dropping an object pointing in the right direction is any kind of achievement. Seems like a very simple issue.

      • “James Loux
        December 12, 2015 at 3:52 am”
        AT THAT TIME! Exactly right! Some people don’t get that…

      • “simple-touriste
        December 12, 2015 at 3:58 am”
        The fact we can ACTUALLY train a laser to the reflector, AND a beam is REFLCTED to the SOURCE indicates something NOT Lunar is there.

      • “So no “smart rovers” were possible then even if they could be delivered.”
        A rover with real computing power and autonomy is need on Mars. Why would it be need on the Moon?
        “You can point a laser at the coordinates of this reflector and it will bounce that light back at the source.”
        I am sure you can. What I am asking is why is man intelligence essential when dropping a glorified mirror on the earth of the Moon.
        This line of argument looks less convincing at every step.

        • simple-touriste

          “You can point a laser at the coordinates of this reflector and it will bounce that light back at the source.”

          I am sure you can. What I am asking is why is man intelligence essential when dropping a glorified mirror on the earth of the Moon.

          Well, consider that Armstrong had to manually fly the Lunar Lander (taking over right at the last few seconds of the Apollo 11 landing) to move around a field of boulders and debris on the first landing. Can you guarantee that the landing area will be completely and accurately surveyed?

          • If you want absolute guaranties, don’t drive to the Moon.
            I would be willing to risk the life of a mirrorbot.

      • I am sure the moon landings occurred just as they were portrayed, but I understand the point that a reflector on the moon is not very strong proof.
        If one were inclined to disbelieve it to begin with, I do not think that mirror would change one’s mind.
        Looking through a telescope and seeing objects left behind as films from the events depict…seems like stronger proof.
        But, in order to think the landings fake requires one to believe a great many particular items, not simply that it may have been possible to do so.

      • “consider that Armstrong had to manually fly the Lunar Lander (taking over right at the last few seconds of the Apollo 11 landing)”
        Considering that Apollo 12 could retrieve elements of Surveyor 3 which landed on the Moon, it proves beyond doubt that Moon landing skeptics wouldn’t be alone believe a probe could land safely on the Moon before Apollo 11:
        https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/383416main_surveyor3_226x164.jpg
        Astronaut Alan Bean inspects Surveyor 3.

        Of course, landing within walking distance of the now inactive robotic lander (operational from April 20 to May 3, 1967) would prove pinpoint landing capability and allow the astronauts to return parts from the Surveyor for engineering assessment. The Surveyor 3 site also provided the opportunity to sample debris from the Copernicus crater impact, and what appeared from crater counts to be relatively young mare basalt.

        Source:
        https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html
        Anti-Moon landing skeptics meet NASA!

    • So, you consider the moon landings a fake, that would predict you are sceptical that action needs taking to curb AGW if Lew’s theory’s are correct. Enlighten us?

      • “consider that Armstrong had to”
        and we know that because … the astronauts and NASA tell us so?
        So we can trust NASA on a completely unverifiable account of the Apollo mission? Is that axiomatic?
        Rationalisation much?

  25. So Lew isn’t qualified to get a paper past an actual peer review in his degree field but actually HAS a Doctorate degree? Mann could this get interesting.

  26. Lewandowsky’s Fallacy
    Most people who believe A also believe B, implies most people who believe B also believe A
    Lewandowsky has an inability to think logically.
    You can create a reflexive fallacy out of this.
    Lewandowsky is an individual who has an inability to think logically who also believes in AGW, implies that individuals who believe in AGW also have an inability to think logically.
    Climate articles are full of formal fallacies. Does anyone know of this fallacy by another name?

    • Climate articles are full of formal fallacies. Does anyone know of this fallacy by another name?Lewandowsky’s Fallacy: Most people who believe A also believe B, implies most people who believe B also believe A

      That has the syllogistic form:
      If A Then B
      B
      Therefore A

      That’s called “affirming the consequent,” IIRC.

      Lewandowsky is an individual who has an inability to think logically who also believes in AGW, implies that individuals who believe in AGW also have an inability to think logically.

      Ditto.

  27. Here’s an alternative explanation for the overlap between Contrarianism and Conservatism (basically, hardheadedness):

    Chris H says:
    September 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    “To a limited degree Dessler is right in saying that opposition to big government and climate scepticism go together. However, his implication that the one determines the other is incorrect. As Melanie Phillips points out in her book “The World Turned Upside Down”, the liberal left mindset predisposes to a set of values that is in favour of AGW, “green” issues and big government….
    “In contrast, those on the right tend to be more pragmatic and look at what works and consider the evidence. As a consequence, AGW scepticism and opposition to the current US government … will go together without one “causing” the other.”

  28. STEREOTYPES — my personal opinion
    To begin to understand stereotyping one first has to understand its non-verbal beginnings. Mankind in its most primitive state was non-verbal. When a person heard a rustling in the brush and low growls, those sounds were stereotyped as coming from a big fanged tiger looking for a meal. Those who screamed and ran went on to breed the next generation. False positives had little consequence. A false negative was catastrophic.
    Other species of animals (who were probably just about as intelligent as primitive man) did this same type of “stereotyping”. Stereotyping is not just a human thing.
    (I am ignoring the opinions of B. F. Skinner, a truly great man.)
    So the process of reaching decisions off partial data is in our makeup. It is a survival trait. (In this age of information overload, if you give it a moments thought, you will realize that we seek stereotypes in data like a thirsty man seeks water. In fact, I will go so far as to say that no science paper has ever been written with all the data about the subject available. Experiments produce only limited data and the conclusions, right or wrong, are reached off that partial data.)
    The invention of language allows easier categorization. This is actually a great gift. The number of categorizations we can use has increased immensely, on the whole increasing the accuracy of our stereotypes. With language we can narrow things down getting closer to the reality of what we are seeing.
    So we stereotype all the time. But Sociology refuses to see stereotyping in this broader context. Instead it is reduced down to studying “how stereotyping causes us to make false judgments about our fellow human beings”. (Note Has there ever been a study that suggests we make quite accurate judgments about our fellow human beings, wise judgments that prevent us from getting “eaten by the tiger”?)
    Human beings stereotype. It is a survival trait. It is encoded in our personalities. We are not going to get rid of it. So we are going to stereotype all our lives and so are future generations.
    So how should we begin to study stereotyping? I suggest we study “input”. What data do we use to form our stereotypes about people? In this day and age we have a vast amount of information available to us.
    OK now lets make the liberals howl RACIST!!!!! Let talk about the information whites use to form stereotypes about blacks. Here is a simple quiz. In your mind answer yes or no.
    1) One in fifteen African-American men are currently in prison and one in 106 white men. True or false?
    2) One in three African-American men during their lifetime will be sent to prison. True or false?
    3) of all murdered blacks whites kill 8%. Of all murdered whites blacks kill 13.5%. Whites make up 62.6% of the population and blacks make up 12.6%. A black person is over 8 times more likely to murder a white person than a white person is to murder a black. True or false?
    4) Now use your stereotype skills. A black person is walking in a white neighborhood after dark and a white person is walking in a black neighborhood after dark. The white person is in greater danger of being robbed, injured or murdered. True or false?
    5) Use your stereotype skills. A black person and a white person walk together into a room. They are applying for the same job. The interviewer can ask no questions but must make his decision based on appearance only. The white person will get the job. True or false?
    So what is the great failing of current studies of stereotyping? They need to start by looking at the surface. They need to take into account the information the stereotype is being created from. They have to be honest about whether that information is true or false. We stereotype and it is an important survival tool.
    The Nazi and the liberals both know that false stereotypes are created by providing people with false information The Nazi did it back in their day and the liberals do it now.
    (Wow, man, you know how evil Republicans are! In the South all those politicians standing in the school house door were Republicans! The KKK was made up of Republicans! Its all those Republicans that ghetto blacks keep electing that are holding them down! One woman recently commented on this blog and said that Republicans wanted to do away with birth control. It goes on and on.}
    So on a practical level we know how to create false stereotypes. But we live in an information abundant society and false information is getting harder and harder to pass off. The information we have on exactly how safe it is to be around young black males is out there for anyone to find. What does this say about the liberal image of blacks being the victims of false white stereotyping?
    So how should we make a start? By picking a particular stereotype and studying what information has brought it into existence.
    (Hmmm, We could study advertising techniques that cause a buyer to favor one product over another. That is a form of stereotyping.)
    Eugene WR Gallun
    I repeat that all of the above is just me recounting my personal opinions about stereotyping.

    • And New Zealand Maori are treated in a similar way and represented in prisons similarly. I have seen this first hand and I challenged a pharmacist why they were ignoring the person who was actually in front of me and wanted service. I don’t get it! Mind you…it matters not the colour of your skin, OH NO! It is perception. I recall years back that I went in to a store wearing what I like to usually wear, casual. Actually I can, with the right hair…(Hey I can’t stop it growing…I wish I could), look like a tramp. In any case…I did not receive a welcome in the shop and was over-looked (Hey, my money is just as good as that guy in the shiny suit). Go back a few weeks later, wearing a suit…I could not have been pampered more! One more reason why I hate shopping, esp at this time of year.

      • Patrick MjD
        My knowledge of the Maori is non-existent. Below I am stereotyping based on the little information you provide about them.
        People stereotype all the time. It is a survival trait. Do American blacks commit crimes because they are stereotyped or are they stereotyped because they commit crimes? Do the Marori have crime statistics as dismal as American blacks?
        Is it a valid claim that the Marori and American blacks are largely convicted for crimes they did not commit? Everyone in prison is innocent! But the reality is only a tiny tiny percentage are falsely convicted. “Racism” does exist and It is a false stereotype. And certainly it increases the percentage of minorities that are falsely convicted. But criminals also exist and create true stereotypes that are not racist.
        In America a jury of 12 people decide guilt or innocence. They are only to use the evidence presented in court to decide. To convict the evidence presented must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. One dissenting juror can prevent a guilty verdict. In America far far more criminals “walk” than innocent people are convicted. And I feel strongly that is the way it should be.
        I have stood in pharmacy lines myself. Maybe the pharmacist had a past history with this particular guy? Do you think he could tell you if he did — shout out that the guy is impossible to deal with and he is merely trying to service the other waiting customers first before he turns to deal with the nut case? Could be or maybe the pharmacist truly was a racists and took all whites first.
        Now maybe if you could get some statistics that show that 30% of all pharmacists treat the Marori like that, that might be reasonable evidence to form a stereotype about pharmacists being racists.
        A single story about a single incident makes no point at all. It demonstrates nothing. All people stereotype. The question is — what information caused the stereotype to come into existence.
        I talk too much.
        Eugene WR Gallun
        PS — In a lot of high end shops the employees get a bonus that is a percentage of their sales. Sales people will flock to the individual who looks like a buyer. Sales people stereotype the people who walk in the door and probably quite accurately.

      • My former wife is African. Stunningly beautiful woman. Used to experience a lot of “discrimination” going on first-hand here in Australia (And sexist racism. How would you feel if your wife arrived home in distress after some jerk at a train station said “You have a nice looking bum. Can I touch it?”). One incident noted above true. Not a measure. Too many to document in reality in my experience…to the point I dump what I was trying to purchase (Or whatever)…and walk out the store. Sales commission lost on them! There is NO excuse for stereotyping…NONE! I never saw it in Africa. And I am not talking about being “politically correct” that is even worse. It’s about respect for people…and if they happen to look differently to you so trucking what!

      • Patrick MjD
        “There is no excuse for stereotyping…NONE! I never saw it in Africa.”
        Ethic cleansing is big in Africa. In all the world Africa is the place where you are most likely to be stereotyped for death. Think back over the last 20 years. How many tribes have attacked other tribes trying to wipe them out. Marking people (men women and children) for murder based on their being of a different tribe is certainly stereotyping.
        Apparently, in your mind, you have stereotyped Africans as gentle, accepting people. Your stereotype is one based on false information. Do a body count.
        You apparently stereotype individuals and groups a lot, I bet more than I do. And you are totally blind to the fact that you do it.
        As far as your ex-wife being distressed because someone at a train station said to her, “You have a nice looking bum. Can I touch it?” — how many people did she pass everyday who were not rude to her, not sexist towards her, not racist towards her? (In New York City the man would not have asked but would have come up behind her and grabbed her ass with both hands.)
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • I said I never *saw* it in Africa and I never said it didn’t happen. I *saw* it in Australia and New Zealand.

      • Patrick MjD
        “I said I never saw it in Africa”
        HaHahahaha! Apparently you never read a newspaper or watched the nightly TV news. Don’t use the internet either, I guess — oh wait, you are using the internet!
        How could you turn a blind eye to mass murder or, if you did notice, let it so easily slip from your memory? You sound like some WWII German excusing himself for the mass murder of Jews. “I never saw it in Germany!” Yet Jews were disappearing all around him. In your mind would that excuse cut it for you?
        You claim that you don’t stereotype people but, to be frank about it, stereotyping seems the primary way you deal with people. You have so rigidly stereotyped groups of people that no facts can change your opinions. Memories of mass murder are easily forgotten because nothing can dent your rigid stereotypes.
        “I said I never saw it in Africa” is one of the lamest things I have ever read on the internet. Hahahahaha!
        Eugene WR Gallun

  29. Well, I don’t know. I guess I would be one of those silly conspiracy theorists.
    Still looking for any moon landing video that shows astronauts in a 1/6th G gravity field, where they would be jumping 6-9 feet up off the surface, or taking 15-20 foot leaps. Not a single one anywhere. I don’t believe it’s a hoax, just have my doubts, like 1 out of 4 in UK, or 3 out of 4 in Russia. I’m not a scientist, just an engineer, who can do simple physics equations.
    Likewise, I doubt that CO2 is the main mover of the climate, just a small one. Clouds seem to make the biggest difference.
    Is a conspiracy theorist one who postulates an alternative reason for something happening? That kinda leaves me out, cause I don’t buy into theories of what really happened, I just tend to doubt the official story. I just naturally assume that anything of import the gov tells us, after Nov 1963, is probably a lie. None the less, most of my friends would call me a conspiracy theorist.
    It’s just natural for one to want to know what really happened, but I don’t think it’s possible. Most people confuse that desire, with doubting and dissembling the official story. 911 is a good example. Impossible for it to have happened as they say, but equally as impossible to know just how it really happened.
    I can certainly see where my assumption would lead one to examine both the moon landings and AGW, and of course, 100’s of other lies told by the gov..

    • If it wasn’t for Parks Observatory here in New South Wales in Australia, no-one would have seen the actual transmission.

    • Jim: Try looking at it this way: On Earth, naturally dressed, you can probably jump from a standing start, about two feet. If you were weighed down with all the paraphernalia of a space suit your jump would probably be around three to six inches. So, your claimed Moon gravity jump would likely be restricted accordingly and your astronaut would manage something like two – three feet.
      Now, if you were to find yourself in an alien environment where the slightest slip on your part could endanger you and your colleague you would not take too many risks – like trying to see how high you could jump in 1/6th G. Think about it, how would you feel if your pilot fell from the high jump and managed to smash his visor…. For an analogy: I bet you can walk along a three-inch wide kerb a couple of inches above the roadway. Would you try doing that on a three-inch beam 1,000 feet up?

    • “where they would be jumping 6-9 feet up off the surface”
      Really? This is your objection?
      That astronauts weren’t doing Moon Olympics?

    • You haven’t seen videos of the moonwalking? Seriously? Consider the weight on the astronaut’s back and his limited ability to flex his knees and tell me this isn’t representative of 1/6th Gravity.
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7tFP4ha2IOQ
      For you and others who think the landings were a hoax: we have videos, pictures, left equipment detectable from earth, sent concurrent radio transmissions, and brought back lunar material. On top of that, a hoax would require THOUSANDS of government and public workers to maintain a tightly held secret, yet there has been no evidence of a fake moon landing conspiracy, and no denials from any of the thousands involved (just think of the book deals they could get!). My question to you is, what would be required for you to believe it was real? You have rejected all possible proof.
      I, personally, saw the lift-off of the night launch of Apollo 17 from a mile away. The shockwave from the blast was very real, and left no doubt that the craft would slip the surly bonds of earth.

      • And if there was the slightest doubt as to the authenticity of the moon missions, the Soviet Union would have been all over it like a rash. The Cold War propaganda value of them finding the USA faking it would have been amazing…

    • Jim Showker
      Immediately phone Lewandowsky. He would love to talk to you.
      You need to know that you suffer from (what is right now but perhaps not later) a mild form of paranoia. Go see a doctor while you are still capable of doing so. Paranoia starts out as feeling of doubt about “things”. It advances into doubts about “everything”.
      The astronauts were trained NOT to jump 9 feet in the air or broadjump 15-20 feet. The idea was to NOT perform any type of behavior that could lead to an accident. In a vacuum the smallest accident would have been fatal. Is that too hard for you to comprehend? Would love to send you to the moon wearing one of those spacesuits. Let you leap around. Give odds you would kill yourself almost immediately.
      As far as 911 goes do you doubt that Islamic hijackers boarded the planes and later took them over and crashed them? Hard to doubt that it happened that way. So what do you doubt?
      I believe the government does lie (especially if Hillary Clinton is doing the talking) but what is the reason for the “lying” that you name? No reason to lie as far as I can see.
      Eugene WR Gallun

      • joe22299
        “No reason to lie? Come on, Eugene.”
        If there is a reason to lie — tell me what it is.
        Lie that we landed on the moon when we didn’t? Why? Provide a good reason for telling that lie.
        Lie about Islamic hijackers taking over the planes and crashing them? Why? Because the government was secretly responsible? Why? Give good logical reasons why the government would do such. Or tell me what other reason you have.
        Are you saying our government is filled with loonie people doing loonie things? (Perhaps I shouldn’t say that. People in government are lying about catastrophic global warming — a loonie thing said by loonie people.)
        You know the saying — It’s turtles all the way down? When you start to try to give reasons for these “lies” keep asking yourself after every reason you give – Why? You might come to realize that your “reasons” are all just loonies turtles all the way down.
        Eugene WR Gallun

        • Loonies turtles wanting to attack Irak, Iran made a false flag pointing blame to Saudis.
          Makes sense. As much as the rest of loony conspiracies.

  30. “moral agendas can sometimes lead social psychology astray through an array of questionable interpretive practices (QIPs). These practices can be used to advance a moral agenda by permitting researchers to interpret the data as supporting that agenda even when it does not.”
    Sounds like something United Nations is heavily burdened with:
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
    – Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change
    Who voted for Christina Figueres by the way? None!
    And that is quite peculiar – as the United Nations is also concerned about human rights, which states:
    Article 21. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage …

  31. I wonder how many of those that answered the “Cooked” survey by saying they did not believe in AGW but believed that the Moon landing was a hoax were “pulling his leg”. The fact that the term belief was used suggests this as sceptics do not have beliefs, at least as far as science goes – they accept or rebut facts based on empirical data, and if the latter change they adjust their views. For a valid survey he, and others, should at least define the term sceptic (or skeptic in the USA) correctly. Science and Philosophy used to be part of the same discipline – I have a PhD but am not a Philosopher but a Scientist. The definition of these two spheres says it all: it is the “Alarmist” that are deniers (If one must use such terms) since, as the definition states, they “deny the possibility of knowledge” by turning their backs on all and any empirical data that conflicts with their beliefs -as amply demonstrated in the recent Senate Hearing that was aptly labelled Data or Dogma
    Sceptic
    SCIENCE
    1
    a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
    synonyms: cynic, doubter
    2.
    PHILOSOPHY
    an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

    • Don’t ask who, ask what.
      The lukewarmers are out there. They visit us. They study us. They want to boil us like a frog and eat our brains. It’s true. (All of which suits me, as I’m one of them.)

  32. I have previously suggested reading ‘When Prophecy Fails’ as a way of understanding how believers will react to disconfirming evidence and failures of predictions. Another piece that is very illuminating on how closed movements work is Arthur Koestler’s chapter in ‘The God that Failed’. The accounts of how the Party Line changed, and how countervailing evidence was dealt with, will be very illuminating.

  33. They askin’ the wrong question. What ah needs to know is what percentage of alarmists think we have been visited by other planets!

  34. Following quote from ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),
    “Consider the notion of “moral licensing”: people who have committed a good deed feel license to behave immorally afterwards (e.g., Conway & Peetz, 2012). Similarly, sacredness refers to “the human tendency to invest people, places, times, and ideas with importance far beyond the utility they possess” (Graham & Haidt, 2012, p. 14). Holding something sacred can provide justification for immoral behavior.”

    I read the whole chapter. Researchers of climate are subject to all those things. I was interested in two apsects in particular. The concepts of ‘moral licensing’ and ‘sacredness’ by a researcher (e.g. of climate) as a potential source of loss of scientific integrity
    John

  35. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
    Following quote from ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),
    Meta-Analytic Thinking
    A single study cannot resolve a question of human thought or behavior. By focusing on single studies, we have considerable freedom to allow our moral concerns to bias just what evidence we see as informative. It is very easy to cherry-pick studies and results in narrative reviews in such a manner as to create the impression that there is widespread support for our preferred claims, even when there is not (as indicated by the research one has, in classic blind spot manner, intentionally or unintentionally overlooked). Instead, whether or not we conduct actual meta-analyses, we should get into the habit of compiling, citing, including and considering broad swaths of evidence (whether individually or collectively; see Tsuji, Bergmann, & Cristia, 2014) pertinent to our research question, regardless of whether it supports or contests our pet hypotheses. Efforts to create checklists that can encourage a balanced and meta-analytic approach (see Washburn, Morgan, & Skitka, 2015, for such an example) can reduce morally-motivated biases at multiple stages of the research process.

    The mentioned example of a morally motivated biases checklist (by Washburn, Morgan, & Skitka, 2015), could potentially be applied to develop a checklist to be used in critical discussions of climate related research on certain venues.
    That is a positive step for militating against morally motivated biases like seen in several Lewandowsky work products and several Cook work products.
    John

  36. Prof Lee Jussim (the lead author) is further up the academic foodchain than Dr Jose Duartes..
    which in ‘academic worldview’ (compared to being merely correct) makes him harder for Lew dismiss..
    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/vita.html
    Prof. Lee Jussim
    PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS:
    2010-2013 Chair, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
    1998-present Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
    2009-2010 Interim Chair, Criminal Justice Program, Rutgers University (9/09-1/10)
    2001-2006 Vice Chair for Graduate Studies, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
    1993-1998 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
    1987-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University
    FELLOWSHIPS, HONORS, AND AWARDS
    2014-15 Consulting Scholar, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
    2013-14 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
    2013 American Association of Publishers Prose Book Award for Psychology book published in 2012(for Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy)
    2013 Elected Fellow, Association for Psychological Science
    1999 Elected Fellow, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
    1997 Elected Fellow, American Psychological Association
    1996 American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology
    1996 New Jersey Psychological Association’s Emerging Researcher Award
    1996 Elected Fellow, Society for Personality and Social Psychology
    1993 Rutgers’ Board of Trustees Fellowship for Scholarly Excellence
    1991 Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize for “Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model,” Psychological Review, 1991, 98, 54-73.
    1989-90 National Academy of Education Spencer Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellowship
    1989 Rutgers University Research Council Summer Fellowship (Declined, 1988)
    1988 Society for Experimental Social Psychology Dissertation Award
    His publication page is here (includes the chapter we are talking about)
    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/papers.html

  37. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
    Following quote from ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),
    “Adversarial Collaboration . . .
    . . .
    One way to maximize falsification attempts is through adversarial collaborations. There are challenges to such an approach, and projects may break down over disagreements prior to data collection. Nonetheless, if researchers can get past their personal (including moral) commitments to particular outcomes, there are both personal and scientific advantages to such collaborations. Personally, such collaborations are likely to advance the careers of all involved by yielding highly publishable findings. Scientifically, adversaries will likely be highly motivated to disconfirm one another’s theories, thereby stacking the scientific deck in favor of Popperian falsification. Consequently, such collaborations are likely to (and have already) constructively advance(d) the field by resolving scientific controversies (Crawford, Collins, & Brandt, 2015; Silberzahn, Simonsohn, & Uhlmann, 2014). “

    Adversarial cooperation/collaboration on climate focused science. Refreshing approach, it is.
    It is the antithesis of many climate focused scientists, (e.g. notably Michael E. Mann’s) morally motivated biased approach of no debate and no association with critics of his observationally challenged hypothesis of significant AGW from burning fossil fuels.
    Going forward, there should be an adversarial collaborative/cooperative IPCC or no IPCC.
    John

  38. Correction to my immediately above comment, replace my second paragraph with the following:
    “It is the antithesis of many climate focused scientists’ (e.g. notably Michael E. Mann’s) morally motivated biased approach of no debate and no association with critics of his observationally challenged hypothesis of significant AGW from burning fossil fuels.”
    John

  39. Some people here are taking Lew’s garbage seriously.
    It is obvious at first sight that a poll offering 2*2 choices is ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.
    The DEFAULT position in SCIENCE is agnosticism. Where is the agnostic choice in this pathetic attempt at faking science?
    And don’t get me started on the *2 choices.
    Do you believe the theory of the cheese made Moon is false or STRONGLY false?
    Yes I am SHOUTING because I can’t BELIEVE anyone is DISPUTING this.

  40. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
    Following quote from ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),
    “What is Scientific Integrity?
    “Scientific integrity” refers to two related but separate ideas: 1. The personal honesty of individual scientists in the conduct and reporting of their research; and 2. Developing robust bodies of conclusions that are valid and unimpaired by errors and biases. Even when researchers suffer no lack of personal integrity, conventional practices common in their field may produce findings that are misleading or invalid. Nonetheless, “getting it right” is the sine qua non of science (Funder, Levine, Mackie, Morf, Vazire, & West, 2013). Science can tolerate individual mistakes and flawed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for efficient correction.”

    A well based concept of scientific integrity is needed. The above is a balanced concept.
    Climate focused science community could use a balanced concept of scientific integrity.
    I think Jussim (& Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte) made an important distinction that “even when researchers suffer no lack of personal integrity, conventional practices common in their field may produce findings that are misleading or invalid”. The peer review process of leading journals who publish research in the climate focused science area do, prima fascia, appear to contribute to pushing morally motivated biased changes onto research papers by asking individual researchers to comply with morally motivated bias to some extent in order to get published.
    Even with funding the research projects there seems to be morally motivated bias in the criteria about which projects will be funded.
    Jussim et al touch upon science’s self-correcting process as needing to be capable of getting it right even with “individual mistakes and flawed theories”. In climate focused science there needs to be an overall intellectual environment that makes one want to get it right, but I see significant parts of the intellectual environment wants to enforce making it righteous.
    John

  41. Wagen,
    You seem to have accepted that: “Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science….”
    Do you understand that the people that generally support free-market economics are those that generally support overall freedoms and self-responsibility What purpose does it serve to try to tie free-market believers to “skeptics”? Why would anyone want to do this?
    Although not part of the subject papers, would you dispute a premise that those who endorse a larger government influence (more taxes, expanded government support programs, expanded government size) in the public/private lives of most people, are also the same people that accept and embrace the premise of CAGW?
    Can you define what you think the phrase “rejection of climate science” means. What does it mean to you? What did Lewandowsky intend it mean? What does the subject paper intend that it means by “acceptance of climate science”?
    I also hold a premise that I think is valid: The vast majority of those people that had/have accepted Lewandowsky’s bogus study are also likely to have accepted the premise that CO2 is the most important part of climate science. My point being that being lazy and hearing what your want to hear (without any further reasonable investigation) is related to the current “climate science” premise about CO2 being a scary thing.

    • “You seem to have accepted that: “Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science….””
      Yes, unfortunately it appears to be case. Instead of differing political viewpoints agreeing on the facts and viewpoint A offering (viewpoint A colored) solution As and viewpoint B offering (viewpoint B colored) solution Bs and fighting it out which is best (there may be viewpoints C,D,etc), there is viewpoint A offering (viewpoint A colored) solution As and B saying we should not interfere in markets (period).
      That is of course an oversimplification. But as an anology, imagine an upstream chemical plant releasing chemicals in the river killing fish. The fishers downstream lose their living. Should the plant pay (plant denies having anything to do with dead fish)? What I am thinking is that fossil fuels should be taxed/have a fee for the consequences that come with using them. According to the science (aggregated by the IPCC) there are consequences.
      “Do you understand that the people that generally support free-market economics are those that generally support overall freedoms and self-responsibility ”
      Sure. Others think more in terms of society. I get that.
      “What purpose does it serve to try to tie free-market believers to “skeptics”? Why would anyone want to do this?”
      Why do you frame this as ‘tying’? It is a reflection of reality. Look at the presidential hopefuls in the USA and correlate their stance on global warming and their political affiliation.
      “Although not part of the subject papers, would you dispute a premise that those who endorse a larger government influence (more taxes, expanded government support programs, expanded government size) in the public/private lives of most people, are also the same people that accept and embrace the premise of CAGW?”
      No. To me you are adding up to many different things. People have differentiated viewpoints about many different subjects (some don’t of course). There are Republicans in the USA who accept the science of climate change after all.
      “Can you define what you think the phrase “rejection of climate science” means. What does it mean to you? What did Lewandowsky intend it mean? What does the subject paper intend that it means by “acceptance of climate science”?”
      To me: a high risk of adversial effects to humanity if going on with business as usual. Regarding Lew? Never met him, don’t know.
      “I also hold a premise that I think is valid: The vast majority of those people that had/have accepted Lewandowsky’s bogus study are also likely to have accepted the premise that CO2 is the most important part of climate science. My point being that being lazy and hearing what your want to hear (without any further reasonable investigation) is related to the current “climate science” premise about CO2 being a scary thing.”
      CO2 is the most important thing at present. Super volcanoes, meteorites, etc might change things. All things being equal however…
      What is bogus about the paper?
      And I do not say that because I am lazy 😉

Comments are closed.