Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media

From Paul Matthew’s Climate Scepticism blog:

In the blogosphere, the hoax paper by Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac,  NASA faked the moon landing—therefore, (climate) science is a hoax was exposed soon after it came out  –  see blog posts by Jo NovaSteve McIntyre, Brandon Shollenberger, José Duarte and many others. Duarte’s comments are significant as he is a published researcher in the field, referring to the paper as a fraud and calling for its retraction.

The most concise explanation of the error/fraud is given at Kevin Marshall’s ManicBeancounter blog. The paper claims that belief in conspiracy theories predicts climate scepticism, yet of over 1000 in the sample, only 10 believed the moon landing was faked (rendering any statistical results completely meaningless) and of these 10 only 3 were sceptical about climate change. Despite the fact that the main claim of the paper and its title can be demolished in one sentence after simply looking at a table of the data, the journal concerned, Psychological Science, has taken no action.

Yesterday this story appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. As far as I am aware this is the first time it has appeared in the mainstream media. Kudos to their reporter Paul Sheehan, and also to the Quillette magazine for writing about it in December, and Lee Jussim for giving a talk about it at an academic meeting on social psychology.  Here is an excerpt:


Distorted universities need a reality check

Cultural sensitivity is turning into a victory for ideology over objectivity

… universities have become havens for intolerance, orthodoxy and unscholarly distortion.

My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal,Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish, and probably published because the journal’s editors shared the ideological bias of the article’s conclusion.

The paper was entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax“. The abstract of the study states: “Endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science … This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.”

Note the term “conspiracist ideation”. The English language is being brutalised in the social sciences to create a false sense of rigour.

When Jussim checked the data, he found that of the 1145 participants in the study, only 10 thought the moon landing was a hoax. Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.

The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field…


This may provide some further embarrassment for the journal and its editors, particularly the remark made twice that the paper was published without questioning the data because its results fitted so well with their existing prejudices.

The editor of the journal at the time, Eric Eich, behaved fairly disreputably, as revealed by FOI correspondence, by responding to a question from Stephen McIntyre by getting Lewandowsky to respond and then including that response in his reply to McIntyre and declaring the matter closed (on a separate aspect related to ethics clearance).

The new editor, Stephen Lindsay, has recently written an editorial for the journal, Replication in Psychological Science, a subject that has been in the news recently.  He shows some understanding of the source of the statistical error discussed above, since there is a section on interpreting correlations in which he says it’s a good idea to draw scatter plots, but he doesn’t seem to understand the mechanism of the Lewandowsky hoax (find lots of people who think A and B are true, calculate a correlation, then falsely conclude that people who don’t think A also don’t think B, nicely illustrated by this plot of Lewandowsky’s data by Brandon).  Lindsay’s editorial article seems to lack real conviction – he just says he “encourages” authors to provide scatter plots. Worse still, there is no requirement to produce the raw data, he merely praises his predecessor Eich for instituting a system where authors who do provide raw data are rewarded with “badges”.  If these people were serious about tightening up their field, it would be a condition of acceptance that all raw data was produced before publication and not just made available but attached to the paper in some way.

At the end of his editorial Lindsay writes “If you have other ideas as to how to enhance Psychological Science, please e-mail me about them”. I’ve done that and drawn his attention to the Sydney Morning Herald piece and this post.

249 thoughts on “Lewandowsky’s Psychological Science publishing hoax reaches the media

      • Well, it’s becoming all too apparent why a hive-tool, like Professor Lewandowsky, wants to per-emptively discredit, as mere “conspiracy theory ideations”, the shocking revelations that us lovers of liberty and ethical science have uncovered recently that finally tie together some previously perplexing, creep-out factoids:

        -Remember how Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, is always takin’ fossil-fuel burning, jet-plane jaunts from her home in Boston to her EPA Headquarters workplace in Washington, D. C. (Google: “EPA Facts EPA Celebrates Earth Day by Pollution”)? And how Gina enjoys her little do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, carbon-piggie commutes even as she pontificates about the need for us coolie-trash nobodies to reduce our own carbon footprint, seeminly oblivious to the “inconvenient truth” that our dainty, life-style tip-toes through this vale of tears leave only a de minimus fraction of the carbon footprint left by Gina’s own, in-your-face, clod-hopper, life-style stomp? And remember how us “good-guys” always wondered just what is wrong with Gina that she can’t practice what she preaches and why she can’t set the example for us proto-serfs when it comes to carbon-reduction, and why she persists in a behavior that she is convinced KILLS BABIES!!! and DRIVES POLAR BEARS TO EXTINCTION!!!? Remember all that?

        -And, then, remember how shocked we all were to discover that Gina has turned her EPA headquarters building in Washington D. C. into some sort of diabolical, “caca-boudin” injection-device that she and that whole butt-kissin’ Dookie-Mafia of hers, that surrounds her there, use to directly loose their raw, untreated feces into the historic Potomac River (Google: “Washington Times Charles Hurt $75 a day over a pond”)? And remember how everyone suddenly realized the enormity of matter, when one of us much-derided, head-less chicken “deniers” (moi, actually) noted that most of those working at Gina’s EPA headquarters are Vegan (the HORROR!!!)? And remember how the MSM blatantly suppressed the eyewitness accounts of dozens of observers, positioned at the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, who reported whole shoals and “log-jams” of EPA-genic (confirmed by DNA testing) eco-turds passing under the span? And remember how the experts pointed out that for every one of Gina’s “floaters”, visibly bobbin’ along on the surface of the Potomac, there were ten “sinkers” bumpin’ along the river’s bottom? Remember all that?

        Well finally we’re getting some clarification in the matter. In particular, Gina has just recently revealed that: “We used to, you know, and you had trash, you would, you know, eaten McDonald’s in your car, you’d throw it right out the window. That wasn’t just, I don’t think it was just my family.” To which her interviewer–a certain “celebrity astrophysist”, Neil DeGrasse Tyson–chimes in with a “But everybody did it, I remember it.” (Google: “Climate Depot EPA chief reminisces throwing trash”)

        So now we can finally figure Gina out. Could not be more simple–Gina was raised, from her earliest years, with a trashy (literally), privileged-white-litterbug, sense-of-entitlement mentality that she erroneously thinks everyone else, of her vintage, once shared. And so with those sort of values informing her youth, we can readily see that it is but a small step-up, in kind, to Gina’s CO2-spew brazen-hypocrisies of today and her on-going, bio-hazard, weaponized-crapper assault (notice Gina has no problem leading from the front and by inspiring personal example in this matter) on one of America’s great waterways. Explains everything, right?

        Finally, if I may, I’d like to register an impertinent, uppity-peon quibble with Gina and her interviewer. I’m a bit older than Gina and also experienced the “good-ol’-days”, to which Gina refers. And let me say that my family, and no one my family knew, would even think of tossing their trash out the car-window. Indeed, my family would have been shocked by such an act and would avoid the company of any low-life family that did such a thing.

        Of course, my family, and those my family knew were not likely to number among Gina’s acquaintances, for you see my family belonged to that contemptible circle of working-stiffs, invisible to Gina and her cronies, who earned their way, who paid their taxes out of a sense of civic duty, who volunteered to fight their country’s wars, and who always, even in the leanest of times, spared a “dime” for those less fortunate. In other words, my family was of the “vulgar rube” sort that never had the slightest prospect of a cushy, parasite existence on the taxpayer’s tit as an EPA big-shot (or a gig as a “celebrity astrophysicist”, for that matter (not that anyone in my family would ever want such a thing)). But rather my family was just an indistinguishable part of the “herd”, of the sort that our slacker, bug-out betters and their Gruber-enablers perpetually target with their rip-off, scare-mongering con-jobs, of which the Gaia-hustle is but the latest example.

        I mean, like, these Gaia-freak grifters with their greenwashed flim-flam are such awful people–really!

      • Mike, you raise some good points about the execrable M(s/r/rs ?) Gina McCarthy, and induced a few chuckles. But your attempt to stylistically emulate (or even surpass?) Hunter S. Thompson dilutes and distracts from, rather than reinforces, your message. I.e. WRT your future as a gonzo journalist: Don’t quit your day job.

      • @brian356

        Hmmm…your last comment has me ponderin’ and scratchin’ my head, Brian, ol’ buddy. Comparing your comment, immediately topside there, with the general, attention-seeking, sometimes witty, wound-up character of your many other comments, below, delivered at the cyclic rate, I find your pompous-ass critique of my little hyper-rant to be, I’m sorry to say, a trite, oafish, lack-luster, and “low-energy” (to borrow a phrase from a famous American) booger-flick, conveying nothing more than an undistinguished, visceral dislike for my little act (join the crowd, Brian). No big deal, of course, but I expected better of you, Brian, ol’ sport.

        But what most has my tin-foil thinkin’-cap a-buzz, Brian, is your sudden, dominate-the-thread, dynamic-fireball appearance here at WUWT out of seeming nowhere. Maybe I missed something, Brian, but in gogglin’ around I could only find you occasionally commenting on this blog, and then typically with just an odd-and-end one-liner or two.

        You see, Brian, this blog has historically been a magnet for hive-tool, disinformation wreckers. And so a sudden departure, in a commenter’s behavior, from his previous norm, excites my conspiracy-theory, “ideation”-prone curiosity. Nothing personal, of course, Brian, but, in that regard, you seem to striving to make an unprecedented “big splash” on this thread. And could my “gonzo”-journalistic, “Hunter S. Thompson”-wannabe, not-to-your-liking zinger, above, have been seen by you as a challenge to your apparent, hard-to-figure, self-promotional designs, Brian, for this thread?. But just thinkin’ out loud, here, Brian. You know, like, just sayin’ and all.

      • Not that you need any encouragement, obviously, but keep digging, mike. I’m sure it makes sense in your own mind anyway.

      • Mike:
        I, for one, strongly appreciate creative English as among other things, it livens the discourse. I say keep it up.

      • For what it’s worth, I’ve never thrown trash out the window and I loved Mike’s adjective-laden rant. While either claim may be difficult to believe it starts with not eating in the car in the first place.

      • Come on chaps, who does not secretly enjoy a smidgen of grandiose verbosity and sesquipedalian loquaciousness?

  1. Sadly, it won’t matter. He could write a similar piece a year from now, and it would be published just as quickly, no matter how full of absolute crap it was.

    This is just an isolated incident, after all.

    • Sadly, it will probably be a pre-condition for any new such publication that:

      1. It is full of absolute crap, and

      2. The pal review process will require the non-reading of the article, or no comment because the reviewer was too embarrassed about the inanity of the content to comment.

    • Ahhh, but just a few of these fabricated papers is all it takes to effectively reduce the mag to garbage; as who among those with non-corroded reasoning facilities still remaining would then trust anything else that they published.

      • Many of the mags ARE garbage, and have been for some time now, but “saving the world” has a drug-like addictive appeal to those who support the meme, and so they continue to publish pure garbage.

  2. Lewandowsky and his sock puppet Cook deserve all of the opprobrium they are getting and then some.
    The publications and faux science societies and politicians who have promoted their bilge deserve a good share as well.

    • Opprobrium? Water off a duck’s back. We’ll recognize condign justice only when Lewandowsky and Cook cannot find lucrative employment in academia. I’m not holding my breath. This “scandal” is only a badge of honor in the name of saving the children.

      • Don’t insult ducks, lol.
        But you make a good point.
        Lewandowsky and pals seem to have excellent management of the conscience.

    • I’ve forgotten the guys name. A few years ago he committed fraud to get his hand on some Heartland documents. When those documents didn’t support the case he was trying to make, he then created extra documents, included them in the packet and sent them to a reporter friend.

      This guy holds a position dealing with maintaining ethical standards at his employer!

      • Hackers sometimes get jobs working for the companies they hacked as they have a good chance of discovering other hackers work.

        Perhaps this was the thinking in Gleick an ethics job – who better to recognise wrong doing?

  3. A journal that tolerates and publishes obvious rubbish is itself rubbish. The message that cannot be unsent is we will publish rubbish when it suits our purposes. A journal that sends such a message cannot be listed among journals of science. Such a message is at odds with the very definition of science and is better defined at fiction tabloid.

  4. Umm…It appears to me that the larger conclusion the authors of this paper assert is NOT the association of conspiratorial thinking with rejection of consensus climate science, but the “endorsement of laissez-faire view of unregulated markets”.

    From the paper:

    We suggest that free-market ideology was more important for climate science than conspiratorial thinking (β = −.77 vs. β = −.21) for two reasons: First, climate science has arguably become more politicized than other sciences (Hamilton, 2011; McCright & Dunlap, 2011a), and second, given the fundamental importance of fossil fuels (and hence CO2 emissions) to contemporary economies, climate science presents a far greater threat to laissez-faire economics than the medical facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.

    Seems to me you’re ignoring the larger point made by the authors.

    • So why was the paper called -NASA faked the moon landings therefore climate science is a hoax…

      Entitled for Click bait for media /activists / poloticians to call climate sceptics conspiracy theorists. Because ‘peer reviewed science says so. LOL

      • as a reviewer, I would say that the title had to be changed, or they could find another reviewer.
        (i usually give this ‘find another reviewer’ option when I put my foot down, and realize the editor may trump my views with the other reviews.)

      • By definition, a conspiracy is “An agreement or planning of two or more persons to do an evil act in concert; also the act so planned” –Funk and Wagnalls. If you study history, you will find it is mainly the study of conspiracies. It is a sad commentary on our times that the protectors of the status quo have made the term “conspiracy theory” sound like the ideas of lunatics. Speaking of such, the Moon landings were not faked. It would have cost more to fake them than to send real people to the Moon. Therefore they were real. /sarc/

    • The authors’ choice of headlines indicates the authors’ view of what was the most important conclusion.

      As to ideology, the data shows almost all socialists believe in CAGW and giving themselves political power over the rest of us. Perhaps the headline should have read socialists believe the end is nigh unless you make us kings.

    • I think this deserves another thread so that it isn’t seen as a diversion.

      Tricky use of language (no surprise) in the paper. Just to clarify, unlike HIV/AIDS etc., “climate science” is not a fact, it is a branch of science. What do we conclude from this paragraph about the authors view of contemporary economics?

    • Seems to me you’re purposely ignoring the TITLE the authors CHOSE which does not – as you note – remotely reflect the significant findings of the paper.

    • “From the paper:

      …First, climate science has arguably become more politicized than other sciences (Hamilton, 2011; McCright & Dunlap, 2011a), …”

      While I agree the post appears to be attempting to change the subject, I still feel compelled to ask:

      Who are the folks that primarily politicized the subject?

      Answer: the same folks who require political action in response to the unproven “science” of CAGW.

      We “skeptics” would not and do not support any form of political action in response to dubious unsupported concepts presented as “settled science”. Indeed, I doubt if any real scientist would.

    • cgs,

      It doesn’t really matter what the authors assert. What matters is how much evidence they have to back up those assertions. And they don’t have ANY. But Lew and Cook et al are so inexperienced in the real world outside of “social science” that they leave their muddy little footprints EVERYWHERE and then act innocent when adults point out the mess and ask “Did you track this crap in here?”

      They keep trying to “manipulate the public” with “sticky” things and “leaky” things, and “consensus” things, because they KNOW, as social scientists, that propaganda WORKS. That word alone is evidence. 20 years ago, propaganda and propagandists were EVIL and VILE and HORRIBLE in every single way possible. No one wanted that label used on them. But then something happened, social scientists started introducing the idea that propaganda wasn’t ALL bad….it could be used in GOOD ways just like it was used in corrupt ways. “It’s just a tool” “It can do more harm than good”.

      And now it’s a tumor, a cancerous, festering, malignant cancer. It started in the organ of “social science” and is beginning to spread through the body to other organs. Either the powers that be are unaware that their body has cancer, or they don’t care. But it’s loved ones are starting to point out that something must be done…SOON or it will be too late.

      • Propaganda has been alive and well ever since there were free markets. It’s called advertising. The VAST majority of advertising is trying to make you believe something that isn’t true. That’s propaganda.

  5. The editorial itself helps explain and confirm that all parties involved are encouraged by a sense of no consequences to any degree of outrageous or unprofessional behavior. That happens to be the common denominator for political and union behavior as well. Not having rules that apply is in itself a predictor of patterns. See financial markets and pseudo regulation as a guide.

    • That editorial from Stephen Lindsey needs to be linked to on every website we all have access to! How utterly pathetic is it to have to say IN PRINT, “Guys…um…ok…it looks like you guys weren’t paying attention in the 6th grade.”

      • Interesting.

        Human CO2 emission caused “global warming” or “climate change”, to become “settled science” only needed to go through the first two steps to be good enough for the Pope and the current US President.

        .

      • “only needed to go through the first two steps to be good enough for the Pope and the current US President.”
        Yet I am sure I read here that vast sums of money are spent on climate research. That directly contradicts you assertion. All this research has gone thorugh ALL the stages above – this is proved by a large number of published papers. These cannot possibly have got thorough peer review based ONLY on asking a question. This is elementary and obvious to anyone who thinks about it even a little.

      • “only needed to go through the first two steps to be good enough for the Pope and the current US President.”

        seaice 1-I didn’t say that. Quote’s not mine. And it was obviously a joke.

      • Thanks for the laugh, seaice1.

        Please show even one scientific paper that provides actual evidence and data showing that human CO2 emissions have a measureable effect on the warmth of the atmosphere. Not “may” or “might” or “could” have, but “does” have. Not theory or models, but observable data that can be replicated.

        If there was one that completed the Scientific Method, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.

        The fact that you don’t know this is proof that you’ve fallen for the deception.

      • Interesting link about psychology, Aphan. Not sure why you posted it here. JohnWho claimed that climate change had only gone through the first two steps of question and hypothesis. This is manifestly false, as there have been a vast number of examples of procedure, experiment, data analysis conclusion, abstract and presentation. A great many have been discussed on this blog. Johnwho asks me for one example that proves the entire case for climate science, thereby demonstrating a lack of understanding of the process. Anyway to gainsay what JohnWho says it is only required to show that more than two steps of the method have been followed.

        Aphan says it was obviously a joke, but I do not find it obvious. Many things here I assume must be jokes, such as the recent article that suggested all graphs must start at zero, but they are apparently intended to be taken seriously. Apologies for the failure of my joke detector.

      • seaice1 says:

        …there have been a vast number of examples of procedure, experiment, data analysis conclusion, abstract and presentation.

        The same can be said of astrology, scientology, phrenology, etc. But John Who is right, there’s nothing that confirms AGW. And it’s not just AGW, which probably happens, but it’s just too tiny and insignificant to measure, or it would have been measured by now. Instead, the climate alarmist crowd has been pushed into the “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) corner. You can’t defend that position, but you can’t retreat from it, either; what would happen to the “climate studies” grant hose if you folks admitted that there was no real problem? You’re stuck, and your position is indefensible. No more public debates is one result.

        Now most of the scare is focused on Arctic ice, which is silly when you think about it. The spotlight is off global ice, which is pretty normal. So Arctic ice is cherry-picked to try and keep the scare alive. But now Arctic ice is rising, too. And even if it disappeared as was widely predicted, what’s the problem? Unlike the Antarctic and Greenland, Arctic ice is only a few feet thick, and there’s usually lots of open water.

        You folks argue incessantly about things you can’t even quantify, and then assign your conclusions to human CO2 emissions — while refusing to credit natural climate variability. You really don’t seem to understand how preposterous that sounds to rational folks. Since there’s been no solid evidence produced for the climate catastrophe you believe must be in the works, the more rational among you are beginning to change their minds and admit that maybe ‘DAGW’ is an overreach. But others immediately go on the attack because their gravy train might be derailed. Your position is not logically defensible, but you’re stuck. No matter, the whole thing is coming unglued.

        So what will it be for ‘seaice1’? Being rational? Or being part of the hoax?

      • “So what will it be for ‘seaice1’? Being rational? Or being part of the hoax?”

        Based on observations and experience, I have a hypothesis and will be collecting empirical evidence to support my conclusions. :) How about you?

      • seaice1-
        “Not sure why you posted it here. JohnWho claimed that climate change had only gone through the first two steps of question and hypothesis. This is manifestly false, as there have been a vast number of examples of procedure, experiment, data analysis conclusion, abstract and presentation”

        No, seaice1, that how YOU interpreted what he said. Let’s examine-

        JohnWho-“Human CO2 emission caused “global warming” or “climate change”, to become “settled science” only needed to go through the first two steps to be good enough for the Pope and the current US President.”

        Can you see the differences between what he actually said (as in the actual words in their actual, original formation) and what YOU just accused him of “claiming”? Just let me know if you can’t, I’ll be happy to come back and clarify the differences for you.:-)

        seaice1-“A great many have been discussed on this blog. Johnwho asks me for one example that proves the entire case for climate science, thereby demonstrating a lack of understanding of the process.”

        Wow. Again, that is NOT what JohnWho asked you for-

        JohnWho-“Please show even one scientific paper that provides actual evidence and data showing that human CO2 emissions have a measureable effect on the warmth of the atmosphere. Not “may” or “might” or “could” have, but “does” have. Not theory or models, but observable data that can be replicated.
        If there was one that completed the Scientific Method, we wouldn’t be having these conversations.”

        Again, happy to clarify if English isn’t your native tongue, or grammar and sentence structure aren’t your forte, or you struggle with logic and reason. Just say the word.

        “Anyway to gainsay what JohnWho says it is only required to show that more than two steps of the method have been followed.”

        “Gainsay”- “to deny or contradict (a fact or statement).”

        You can deny anything you’d like to seaice1. Opinions are allowed here. But simply “gainsaying”-denying or contradicting a fact or statement from him is just that. Denial. And you haven’t rebutted his facts/statement with anything other than more of your own personal opinions. But since you can’t even quote him directly or accurately represent what he actually SAID, perhaps you should work on THAT first? Because what you are doing is called using logical fallacies, and that DOES get noticed and corrected here whenever possible.

        “Aphan says it was obviously a joke, but I do not find it obvious. Many things here I assume must be jokes, such as the recent article that suggested all graphs must start at zero, but they are apparently intended to be taken seriously. Apologies for the failure of my joke detector.”

        My posted cartoon was a joke directed at the scientists involved in the current discussion, which is taking place even amongst social science PUBLISHERS. That discussion involves the FACT-through direct scientific analysis/testing, that more than 2/3 of the results published in psychology papers ARE INVALID and cannot be reproduced. It’s not just your joke detector that is broken seaice1-it’s also your ability to follow a discussion from it’s very beginning in any coherent, or honest way.

      • It used to be that data could kill a theory. Then they just got better at adjusting the data to fit the theory.

      • MarkW-

        I am actually starting to wonder if we trace all this back to it’s origins, and then work our way forward to today, if what we might find is that good, hard working scientists are producing the best scientific research they know how to….and at some point SOCIAL SCIENTISTS like Cook, and Lewandowsky etc were “brought in” to consult when it was determined that “Scientists needed to communicate better” with the public. Remember that? And that it was SOCIAL SCIENTISTS that started to manipulate the MESSAGE…push the PANIC buttons in people because the EVIDENCE clearly did not support calls for alarm….And when people did NOT panic, because the data shows there is no reason to….James Hansen and Gavin and others who hold sway over “THE DATA” from it’s highest source, started to find ways to tamper with it so that it WOULD match the message…

        What if we could prove that the MESSAGE came first….”science is settled”…from morons, not scientists..Al Gore etc….the data showed the message was wrong…so in order to “save the world” some very messed up in the head “officials” started moving it to match…and then even bigger morons….social scientists got involved in creating a “data/propaganda” daily special to offer up to everyone?

        And when THAT worked, but only on the simple, gullible and stupid…and there wasn’t enough of them to create a majority….the only thing they had left was to ATTACK the minds and motives of those who refused to eat the daily special! If you can’t fool them, shame them, ridicule them, make people turn on them….

        I don’t think it’s the SCIENCE or the DATA that is killing science’s reputation….I think it’s certain, specific, WEASELS in the hen house. I think the muddy footprints on the floor all keep leading back to Cook and Lewandowsky and James Hansen and Mann and the original “IPCC Gang” for a reason. What if THEY are the “patient zeros” that started the raging infectious epidemic surging through science today?

      • “What if THEY are the “patient zeros” that started the raging infectious epidemic surging through science today?”

        Likely so, but they were themselves set in motion.

      • “Who do you propose set them in motion?”

        I propose no one by name. The indication is that a number of people seem to have been attracted to a Great Attractor and cling to it like iron filings to a magnet. I have noticed that nearly all of them are Crown Colony refugees: Australians in particular, but also Canadians, Scots and a few pale Americans.

        Whether this Great Attractor is instantiated as a person, or as an organization, or as the enemy of god I do not know (likely all of these). Inasmuch as it is tightly integrated with one-world thinking the inner circle will certainly include the founder of the UNFCC, Maurice Strong.

        The great attraction has been around for as long as people have been around, the Utopian dream; Plato’s Republic and so on.

        Much is made of Karl Marx, or even Saul Alinsky, but they are the front-men. Marx was rather useless if I remember right and depended on Friedrich Engels for sustenance and ideas. As I review their history, I am reminded that sheep imagine themselves to be shepherds; both Marx and Engels imagined themselves to be illuminated and wise, obtaining personal power by advancing revolution by workers. That it cannot work and hasn’t worked escapes their comprehension; factory workers tend to be that for the simple reason of not being anything else. Neither do they contemplate what the factory workers would do if there were no factories. They seem to think the factories simply exist, as if by magic, and would still exist if there were no builders of factories, no capital to invest, and so on.

        So how do you foment a revolution, and why would you? The why is easy enough; each left-wing philosophy is identified by a name — Marxism, Leninism, the Jacobites and so on. These are they that like personal power and influence and get it by stampeding the sheep.

        The latest incarnation is simply a different fear; fear of all natural disasters rolled into one: Flood, drought, too hot, too cold and the cause of all sorrow is still industrialization.

        So if all humans are to reject industrialization, it suggests rolling back the clock — to what? To feudalism, lords and vassals, serfs and servants. Naturally the advocates, the rabble-rousers, do not imagine themselves as becoming a serf; each considers himself wise and smart.

        So its not exactly a conspiracy and yet it doesn’t take much of a dog-whistle, a call-to-arms, to activate the world’s power-hungry elite and corral them into the global warming meme. I remain fascinated with the specific persons and sources of all this. Except for Shellnhuber, all seem to be variants of English; an empire that once ruled the waves now waives the rules.

      • I am not disagreeing with you in any fundamental way. But the “attraction” or whatever it is, does not rob men of their own free will. If these idiots were set in motion by it, it is only because they stepped VOLUNTARILY into it’s grasp and influence.

      • Aphan wrote “But the attraction or whatever it is, does not rob men of their own free will. If these idiots were set in motion by it, it is only because they stepped VOLUNTARILY into it’s grasp and influence.”

        Yes; that is why it is an attraction, a temptation, a suggestion that operates effectively on the suggestible. It is nearly axiomatic that the “sheep” are suggestible as otherwise they cannot be herded. Whisper in their ears is all it takes.

        It is also unstable since anyone can whisper in their ears. That is why churches meet every 7 days to lay out the social rules to prevent defections and drift. It is why warmist blogs purify themselves of contrary expression, it isn’t science that is settled, it is this new religion and it cannot tolerate contrary viewpoints.

        Neither is it a command from “on high” that blogs purify themselves; it is fear, uncertainty and doubt by the faithful that they fear losing their faith. Unless you are well anchored, engaging in a discussion contrary to your value system could result in you changing your value system merely by thinking about it — that’s probably how you (readers of this blog) got what you’ve got right now.

      • Again, I think you and I merely differ on one key point. You make it sound like those that follow can’t help themselves, aren’t capable of restraint, are mere victims programmed by nature to be led without thinking. I am debating THAT idea. EVERY person has a conscious, and even those with the least accurate ability to choose their own actions, STILL make a choice.

        “It is nearly axiomatic that the “sheep” are suggestible as otherwise they cannot be herded. Whisper in their ears is all it takes.”

        The “sheep” axioms have also been propagandized into uselessness as well. When people use “sheep” behavior as an axiom, they usually have come to believe that ALL sheep are stupid, easy to entice, and will blindly follow anyone. That simply isn’t true.

        Anyone who has worked with or been around real sheep knows it “takes more than a whisper in their ears” to get sheep to do what you want them to. It’s almost impossible to “herd” sheep in the same way one herds cattle. They cannot be DRIVEN successfully unless they are almost completely surrounded by drivers and dogs etc and even then, it involves painstaking slowness and a lot of cursing-at least as I have witnessed the process. *grin* At the first sense of “forced movement” they scatter in all directions calling out to each other with panic and chaos.

        A “good shepherd” is one that the dominant sheep have grown comfortable with, someone that they have learned to trust and rely on. Once that relationship is established, the shepherd can signal them-yes with even a sound- and the “leader” sheep will simply follow behind him, and when they do, the other, less dominate sheep in the herd will follow quietly behind them. Lazy, less dominant sheep will follow OTHER sheep, if other sheep move first. But good, smart, dominant sheep will only follow THEIR shepherd.

        Goats on the other hand, are even worse and are barely controllable no matter how good the shepherd is. They are stubborn, stupid, selfish, and it’s every goat for themselves for the most part. But offer them FOOD…of any kind….even garbage and they come running to get their faces in the trough first.

        I think the axiom should be about GOATS rather than sheep. But as it’s used today, it’s a very limited analogy that isn’t really logically applicable-which is how I know it was created either by the uninformed or the manipulative.

      • Aphan wrote “I think you and I merely differ on one key point. You make it sound like those that follow can’t help themselves, aren’t capable of restraint, are mere victims programmed by nature to be led without thinking. I am debating THAT idea.”

        Yes, we are pretty much on the same page. After 20 years in the Navy where usually I was the only non-smoker, I heard almost every day “I can quit any time I want!” with the answer obviously “yes” — the mechanism of addiction in that case is mental; smokers don’t want to quit except sometimes on a weaker intellectual level or economic level.

        The more intelligent the human, the less driven by instinct. But instinct still operates. It operates by changing your wants rather than directly driving behavior.

        Your commentary about sheep is much appreciated. In some ways I mis-use the term, but as you point out, the lead sheep follows the shepherd and the other sheep follow the lead sheep; especially if surrounded by border collies and men on horses. It is this “sheep that is leading other sheep” that I sometimes focus on when I am trying to comment (usually unsuccessfuly) on ATTP for instance. So many people imagine themselves to be the “shepherd” when really they are only the lead sheep and their flock measured in dozens or a fraction thereof.

        You can get ants to march forever (or until they die) in a circle as they follow the scent trail. I think some global warming activists have gotten themselves into a similar situation where the leader is following the trailing sheep. I’ve noticed a small cluster of advocates that cite each other, comment on each other’s blogs, co-author each other’s papers and gradually purify the circle until not much is left except the circle.

        It may be that whoever started this thing is no longer involved; it has become an eddy in the current of human dominion.

      • Thank you for your service. My father was career Navy. I keep his master chief shield on my desk. And thank you for your thoughts as well.

    • Based on recent evaluations, that gun should show the barrel pointing down, showing Lew shooting himself in the foot.

      Unless, maybe, the way it is, he could shoot himself in the foot while his foot was in his mouth.

      Hmmm…

      /grin

    • well seeing as the grips the wrong way round..
      if a certain person did design it for “personal use”
      Id like to see the barrel point the alternate way as well
      just sayin:-)

  6. 1000 is what John Brignell over at Numberwatch would call a “trojan number.” The real number is 10, of which 3 are skeptics. This leaves 7 believers. Therefore, believers are the ones associated with moon landing skeptics.

    • FBC3… +1

      Of those who buy the faked moon landing story the majority also buy the CAGW story.

      That’s the headline.

      • There was no “don’t know” and to me it’s the most unsettling point of this “Moon landing…” hoax.

        Lew can’t even “ideate” that people can have no particular opinion about stuff they know little about. He think everybody just follows some crowd.

      • Fair is difficult to define. Since the survey appears to have been seen only by warmists in the first place, I wonder at the legitimacy of the “10”. I suspect they were punking the survey.

      • “10 is an insignificant sample size”

        If in a drug test you get 10 cases of rare and serious disease, and most are in the exposed group, you may have something to talk about. Rare but serious side effects are a serious concern (this is what Lew is trying to say on his blog.)

        For a poll, with no verification, not so much. A few people just want to have fun. Anything of the order of 1% could be people having fun.

        For a ONLINE poll… lol… do I have to explain how one person having fun can trash the results?

        And in no case would the study title be “rare disease causes exposure to drug”.

        Lew would understand the difference if he understood anything about statistics.

      • “Lew would understand the difference if he understood anything about statistics.”

        It’s clear that he doesn’t understand statistics. Neither does Oreskes, or Cook, or Nuccitelli or Gavin or the majority of the social scientists publishing papers today!!! Posters here like Brandon Gates ALSO do not understand statistics or how NOT to use them in the hard sciences.

        http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

      • “There was no “don’t know” [answer] and to me it’s the most unsettling point”

        Also, what is this truth scale about?

        Do you agree or disagree that 2+2=4? Or do you agree or disagree strongly?

      • He’s focusing on the scale. What does agree or strongly agree mean when faced with a true or false question?

      • Greg Cavanagh wrote “What does agree or strongly agree mean when faced with a true or false question?”

        It means nothing. It is an opinion survey.

      • “It means nothing. It is an opinion survey.”

        So it isn’t a survey about propositions. It’s a survey about different tastes.

        What is your opinion about watermelon ice cream?
        – strongly like
        – weakly like
        – null position
        – weakly dislike
        – strongly dislike
        – never tasted it

        There is no watermelon ice cream d*nial. There is just dislike.

        So the proposition that it’s a survey about FACTS is refuted.

        And yes, photos of the Moon looks “fake”. We just aren’t used to that environnement.

  7. “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I am the worst.”
    — Larry Flynt

    “If the journal Psychological Science will publish scum like papers written by me, then it will publish anything. Because I am the worst.”
    — L.

    • Ha! This is funny. However, there is one rather significant difference. It seems, at least from my experience, that there is an upper threshold in current scientific publications, i.e. papers with really good material are typically rejected. While rubbish disguised as science is published. This is not funny…

  8. This sort of story is very dangerous for the CAGW promoting fraternity: For years people (my brothers included) have been laughing at (and never listening to) people like myself who have tried to put the case against CAGW alrmism. They have been told again and again by the establishment communities of science, politics and media that the science has been honestly and rigorously assessed and opponents are a loony right-wing fringe minority that have been misled by oil funded pseudo-science.

    CAGW works on two assumptions

    1. that the public are idiots.
    2. that the reputation of the establishment will sustain lies forever.

    Ordinary people will react very badly when get a sniff that they have been set up by rich people in the establishment to believe something that is basically lies, especially if poorer people have been hurt or cheated. This situation reminds me of how in Britain we were taken into the 2nd Iraq war on a concoction of made up alarm stories, people who were taken in then are now the most aggressive towards Blair (who has become hugely rich) who they call a war criminal.

    The CAGW alarmism has been concocted and hyped to mislead ordinary people, the alarm stories have destroyed jobs and lives. Other People have become rich and powerful on the back of the alarmism. They could well find themselves on the wrong side of a witch hunt.

    • The claim that lies led to the 2nd Gulf War (actually a continuation of the first, since it never officially ended) has been thoroughly refuted over and over again. The only people who still believe it are those who want to believe it.

      • claim that lies led to the 2nd Gulf War
        =======================
        Even Powell didn’t believe the guff he was ordered to spout. A child of 5 could spot it in his body language. Like the good soldier he was, he followed orders and when events went sideways he fell on his sword to protect those above.

      • So where are the weapons of mass destruction then, MarkW?
        The ones that could be fired at 45 minutes notice.
        Gulf War 2 was based on the premise that Saddam had WMDs and that he was complicit in 9/11, for neither of which was there enough evidence to justify a war, the chickens from which are now coming home to roost with a vengeance.

      • Dubya should have just said “Saddam tried to assassinate my daddy, a Former POTUS, and I’m going to get him”, ’nuff said. Most people probably would have said “Not sure he’s worth it, but if you insist, I’m behind you. He’s a rabid dog.”

      • The lead up to the 2nd gulf war is analogous to AGW science. What happened was that all these intelligence agencies have all the analysts who’s job it is to produce assessments. This is almost identical to the publish or perish model of academia. Assessments built on assessments. One assessment would move the ball the next assessment would cite that assessment then move the ball a little further. By the time of the 2nd Iraq war there were mountains upon mountains of assessments all “proving” that Saddam had WMDs. But there was actually very little evidence. Just mountains of annalists expanding on other analysts speculation. Just as in climate science published speculation is taken as fact in the next paper.

      • Cache’s of chemical weapons were found, as were mothballed programs and equipment for the creation of both biological and nuclear weapons.
        Saddam had a history of making and using chemical weapons and refused to provide evidence that those programs had been destroyed.

        I love the way that some people keep coming up with tired old lies in order to try and prove that Bush lied.

        Powell is and was a hard core liberal who strongly opposed the first Gulf war.

        Wow, the lies keep getting higher and deeper. Nobody ever claimed that Saddam was complicit in 9/11 or that he had weapons ready to be used on a moments notice.

      • Too right Mark. Saddam was gaming the rules. The UN said stop it. He would not stop manipulating the inspection. Bush got approval to invade and he did. Bush did everything correctly, legally, and with the support of the UN members which supplied troops in the coalition.

      • In retrospect it seems Saddam went out of his way to mislead his enemies into suspecting his WMD stockpiles were larger, and his WMD programs more advanced, than they were. Playing cat-and-mouse with inspectors enhanced that impression. Hoist by his own petard in the end, as it were.

      • MarkW I do not know if you know the British story Our prime minister, Tony Blair, stood up in a crucial debate in our parliament about whether we should go to war and told the representatives that Saddam had missiles armed with WMD that could reach British bases in Malta within 45 minutes. Later this claim was tracked back to one very loose report from one field officer that had not been clarified in the usual way they do when assessing intelligence reports (it was a bit of junk he picked out from amongst the noise of intelligence gathering). Blair’s statement was a deliberate sexing up of intelligence to create an impression to our Parliament that we were in imminent danger of being attacked, it was as near a lie as you can get.

        Recently there has been further evidence that lawyers were seriously leaned upon to change words in their legal opinion about the legality of the war.

        Whether a lie was made is not my point, it is that people react very strongly if they perceive politicians have manipulated them with lies. If people begin to perceive that the CAGW is underpinned with a system of lies that has made politicians and their friends rich then it is game up, the visceral reaction will be fast a swift.

        Personally I think the changing of the raw temperature data will eventually do for them. Afterwards there will be people who will tell us pedantically that the alarmists never lied. In my book the torturing and sexing up of data is a way of lying, but I agree it is a matter of opinion where you draw the line. Was it not your Clinton who said it depends on what you mean by “is”

      • Saddam perhaps had WMD, or not, he may have been willing to get those, or not, but the PP (Precautionary Principle) leaves no choice: war was the only option.

        The PP always wins.

        That, or else the PP is worthless.

        Also, why would US provide proofs of the existence of WMD? Certainty is enough, and the intelligence agencies were probably 97% sure – there was no poll but I am 97% sure a poll would have had a 97% result.

        Also, the opponents of war were merchants of doubt. You don’t listen to merchants of doubt.

        And don’t forget the consilience of evidence of experts opinions of polls (I may have missed up the word salad).

      • Saddam was rather like some fool who hold up a liquor store with a fake gun, gets shot by the owner, and then insists that he was “unarmed”. I do remember the lead in to the war, and the issue was that Saddam would not stop bluffing.

      • Dictators tend to surround themselves with yes men who are usually not predisposed to deliver bad news for fear of their lives. It seems entirely possible to me that the intelligence agencies around the world intercepted communications concerning WMD programs that didn’t exist.

      • I’ve read credible accounts suggesting that Saddam scripted just such communication to reinforce the false narrative, knowing they were being intercepted.

      • Don’t forget it is a known fact that Saddam gassed Kurd villages on a number of occasions.

        Saddam knew that having nukes would strike fear into his enemies (and friends) — so for years he pretended that he had them. (Not to mention that he gained status among Arabs as the nuke counterbalance to Israel). Though Saddam’s bomb may have been a Potemkin bomb it worked politically.

        Israel was playing its own double game. As long as Saddam did not actually have a nuke it was to Israel’s advantage to help the world (meaning in particular the US) believe Saddam did have one. Such an existential threat to Israel generated a lot of military aid and caused America to overlook Israel’s permanent policy of expanding its borders. People forget that back then Israel was the MAIN SOURCE of US intelligence on the Middle East. A lot of the provided intelligence was deliberately false.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Good one NEWMINSTER. Why don’t you ask the surving Kurds what they think about the chemical weapons Hussien used on them. Conditions of the first surrender included UN inspections, Hussein played silly buggers to pump up his image to the locals and it backfired.

      • Colin Powell has stated that his speech to the U.N. on verification of WMD was the low point in his entire career. If he didn’t know what he was saying was nonsense, he should have. The bush 2 administration should be tried for war crimes. Denial of that is disgusting. If it was refuted, it was with “evidence” akin to that for AGW.

      • “The bush 2 administration should be tried for war crimes.”

        With you as prosecutor, judge and jury I presume.

    • “Ordinary people will react very badly when get a sniff that they have been set up by rich people in the establishment to believe something that is basically lies”

      I wonder. Public reaction to official repudiation of “butter kills” (the “consensus” for many decades, and which spawned a multi-billion-dollar food industry) has been a shrug of relief. Where’s the outrage?

      • I think that Scott Adams has it right in saying that “identity” is at the top of the list where “reason” doesn’t even come close for most. This is how governments convince cannon fodder to support insane, unreasonable wars through “patriotism”. Similarly the FDA/NIH has convinced most that they are the good guys in fighting obesity, heart disease, cancer, whatever good-for-us program people can be convinced to follow. As a result, if a few mistakes are made along the way, well those are easily forgiven for the sake of the good-for-you goal. Climate alarmism/propaganda works much the same way with the “it makes me feel so good” Gaia campaigns.. Unfortunately the only solution would be education to recognize the manipulation and that is not in the best interests of politicians and others making money from the programs. So continued public dumbing down is the certified future of mankind.

    • 1. that the public are idiots.
      Well supported by the evidence through most of history and no different now:

      2. that the reputation of the establishment will sustain lies forever.
      Bad assumption. A lie need not last forever. Nevertheless, a couple thousand years is not out of the question:

      • Ideologues can’t seem to see that there is a different between a religion that walks away when you say no and another that removes your head or crucifies you if you say no. Its what progressive thinking does to you.
        While I agree that the public is in general stupid I contend that it is the result of progressive ideology applied to our educational systems.

  9. The words Psychology and Science should not be put together IMO. The former is a study of human behaviors and beliefs, the conclusions from observations are only subjectively true. The latter is a study of natural physical phenomenon, the conclusions from observations are necessarily objectively true.

    • There is no way to determine whether our existence is objective or subjective. Another related thought: Copenhagen Interpretation dismisses causality… Well, let’s take away “science” title from quantum mechanics, at least in current interpretation. :)

      • Joel and Walt-totally agree!

        It is entirely possible to be objective about numbers and equations and proofs and facts because they are consistent, unchanging, demonstrably reliable, always dependable. Thus the Scientific Formula can be rigid and unbending, and it SHOULD BE. But PEOPLE are subjective, so there’s hardly any way to OBJECTIVELY study them while BEING one. People-as a whole- are inconsistent, changing, demonstrably unreliable, and only sometimes dependable. So the methods used to study them are more squishy, bias-able, unreliable, and messy.

        This is the problem in a nutshell….instead of the SOCIAL (soft) sciences having to conform to the rules and requirements of the scientific method, the social sciences are infecting the hard sciences with their methods and practices!

      • “There is no way to determine whether our existence is objective or subjective.”
        97% pure fatuous nonsense, that is.
        It would be impossible for you to make such a claim if you did not exist, duh.
        It is self evidently true. It is an axiom.
        You are spreading Lewdness, Mr. Mystic,
        How can you be a physicist?

      • Walt:

        Try hitting yourself on the thumb with a really big hammer, this may help resolve the “objective or subjective” issue.

  10. Part of the reason for the acceptance may have been that up until that point Lew’s publication record was respectable, for one in his field. (Ditto Oreskes, before she got involved in our topic.)

  11. Do you ever get the impression that the three most important words for the eco-deluded in the phrase, “Look at me I’m saving the planet” are “Look at me”?

    • I’ve noticed that. Saving the planet is definitely an ego trip, otherwise they would actually care about trees being harvested to protect coal and eagles being battered to death in windmill blades. To all of that they look the other way. Maybe their ego is their mission (and here I was thinking it was global warming and the End is Nigh). “Look at me, look at me,” says it all.

      • Imagine being a James Hansen, spending your long career laboring in a field where long-term predictions are impossible, and feeling you haven’t really made a difference in people’s lives, or saved any baby whales. Like the vulture in that ’60s hippie poster (“Patience my a__! I’m going to kill something.”) he must have thought “Uncertainty be dammed! I’m going to predict the global climate a hundred years hence.”

      • Do I have to imagine being James Hansen??? Gives me chills. That aside, yes, impatient for fame and glory and money, plus to cover his butt for a hundred years (what’s not to like?), I could see a dastard lying and cheating and manipulating and fear-mongering. It fits.

      • The process of self-delusion is an unconscious one. Sufferers from Messiah Complexes are sincere individuals.

      • Jorge, that is true. Unfortunately the entire manufactured crisis of global warming is filled to the brim with rogues and manipulators, very deliberate individuals.

      • A.D.: “the entire manufactured crisis of global warming is filled to the brim with rogues and manipulators”

        Not to mention spittle-spewing wackazoids.

  12. The REASON for the moon program was a hoax.

    :)

    This Nova special on the OTHER space program….

    I think the classified nature of the USA’s real activities in space (activity of surveillance of CCCP and China and space weapons) perturbed the perception of Gemini and Apollo.

    See time stamp 12:00.

    • I find it hard to believe JFK committed the portion of GDP that was spent on the moon program just “because it’s there” and for national pride. There had to be an overarching military and technical superiority underpinning.

      • Secrecy during the cold war was essential. Also, launching military rockets into space is hard to hide. So you create a public program based on lofty principles and you have a charismatic president deliver them. The budget is sort of public. Money is diverted to secret elements of the program.

        I am sure Armstrong et al knew something about the military parts of the program (see above) and were ordered to keep their mouths shut about it. They did. Some facts are difficult to reconcile which triggers suspicions in some observers. To me, the existence of the second program is the basis of much of the skepticism in the moon landing story and the rise in UFO sightings.

        So skepticism is both understandable and appropriate and planned for by the military intelligence types.

        That being said, Lewandowsky’s sh1tty science is the only part of this that is wacky.

      • It was pretty exciting watching an astronaut walking around on the surface of the Moon. Worth every penny spent, as far as I’m concerned. Not just because of my personal excitement, but because of all the spinoff benefits the space program has given us and will continue to give us in the future.

        Too bad JFK never lived to see it.

        TA

      • The so called spin off benefits were never more than propaganda.
        Everything that was allegedly “developed” for the space program, was already under development.
        The best that can be said of the space program was that it accelerated the development of such items by a few months to a few years.

  13. The saddest part is our society has reached this state. Seems like it started in the Bill Clinton years when he constantly lied until “spin” became the new normal along with the demise of the sceptical media.

    • That was when terrorist acts were first responded to officially by calls for general gun controls in place of motive or hate religion behind it. See attack at Empire State building during the Clinton years for the reminder.

  14. The best way to “enhance Psychological Science” would be to stop publishing the work of, ah, discompetent authors.

      • They say laughter is the best medicine. Glad someone got the joke. (Incidentally, did you know familiar equatorial constellations like Orion appear inverted from “down under”?)

      • Orion is my favorite constellation and, being born down here, I’m used to his orientation. BTW, I think the Earth has been portrayed the wrong way round from the start – Aussies are the right way up and it’s really you guys who are upside down.

      • I suspected maybe you were “Da’n Undah”. So, for you, when you face the winter sun at noon, east is to your right side. And when I’m there, it seems like the sun is traversing the sky backwards, from west to east. Quite disorienting for someone used to getting their bearings from the sky. None of these things occurred to me until I visited Sydney a few years ago.

      • A.D. that makes sense, since most of the land is north of the equator, naturally the northern hemisphere would be heavier.

      • Brian356: Happy to oblige:

        ”˙ǝɔuǝᴉɔs ɟo uoᴉʇɔǝɾǝɹ ǝɥʇ oʇ sǝʇnqᴉɹʇuoɔ uoᴉʇɐǝpᴉ ʇsᴉɔɐɹᴉdsuoɔ ʇɐɥʇ suoᴉʇsǝƃƃns snoᴉʌǝɹd ɟo uoᴉʇɐɯɹᴉɟuoɔ sǝpᴉʌoɹd sᴉɥ┴ … ǝɔuǝᴉɔs ǝʇɐɯᴉlɔ ɟo uoᴉʇɔǝɾǝɹ sʇɔᴉpǝɹd (ƃuᴉpuɐl uooɯ ǝɥʇ pǝʞɐɟ ∀S∀N ʇɐɥʇ ɹo ƃuᴉʞ ɹǝɥʇn˥ uᴉʇɹɐW pǝllᴉʞ ∀IƆ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ‘˙ƃ˙ǝ) sǝᴉɹoǝɥʇ ʎɔɐɹᴉdsuoɔ ɟo ɹǝʇsnlɔ ɐ ɟo ʇuǝɯǝsɹopuƎ“ :sǝʇɐʇs ʎpnʇs ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɔɐɹʇsqɐ ǝɥ┴ ˙“xɐoɥ ɐ sᴉ ǝɔuǝᴉɔs (ǝʇɐɯᴉlɔ) ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ – ƃuᴉpuɐl uooɯ ǝɥʇ pǝʞɐɟ ∀S∀N“ pǝlʇᴉʇuǝ sɐʍ ɹǝdɐd ǝɥ┴

      • BTW, I think the Earth has been portrayed the wrong way round from the start – Aussies are the right way up and it’s really you guys who are upside down.

        I can see this discussion going south real quick.

      • LOL! Brilliant responses here!

        Brians356 – Yes, another confusion is Christmas time in summer, yet an awful lot of our Christmas cards depict snow.

        Mark W – my reasoning as well. :)

        Harry, you crack me up – that’s brilliant!

        And Greg, yes, I had no idea what I was starting!

      • brian356-I thought when you balled it up and threw it in the trashbin it just swirled in the opposite direction as recyclables in America do?..or was it something….else….

    • You have no idea what you are talking about…the SMH is a major propagandist component of the MSM in Australia. Fairfax is Fairfax after all!

  15. Climate Science isn’t the only place where such sloppiness occurs. For reasons i don’t understand, i enjoy studying the details backing up medical studies. Many times I have been stalled in correlating the data and the study findings, until i realized that somehow the authors had reversed the data sets in their entirety. These were published studies, of no particular importance, yet no one had bothered to compare the underlying data to the final report. i could only credit the report with including the data so that anyone with any real interest could perhaps write a new report that was internally consistent. except that the subject wasn’t that interesting in the first place. (i am frequently interested more in process – not conclusion.)

    • That could explain the “97%” pronouncements that butter, animal fat, eggs, food-borne cholesterol, etc would kill us, as certainly as CO2 will. Decades later, on page 23 of the Sunday Supplement: “Never mind.”.

      • side-note regarding dietary elements that will kill us – or make us live to 120:
        those are all based on observational studies, and there are plenty of confounds in those – (exercisers tend to eat better, socioeconomic confounds, etc.), plus there is multiple testing – usually, studies will not tell you how many predictors and how many endpoints, altogether, were in the longitudinal survey, and will not tell you what has been examined.

        10 predictors and 10 outcomes = 100 mathematical relations to examine for “statistical significance.”

        p = .05 = you have five “significant,” just by chance.

    • Isn’t that the most stunning thing to read? It’s like saying “Ok class….those of you who hand in your hypothesis early and get teacher approval first, and show your work, will get a big shiny sticker on your papers!” Made me want to hurl…seriously.

  16. BishopHill had a post to highlight that the Good Doctor will be given a pro-bono (to the public) platform to air his views, courtesy of that most venerable of scientific institutions – the Royal Society, on February 22nd.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/4/the-royal-society-celebrates-a-hoaxer.html

    Doubtlessly, Dr Lew, will bring the Sydney Morning Herald article up so he can robustly demolish its content or, at least, be overjoyed to accept questions from the floor on the same subject.

    I only wish that I was able to attend this meeting and share in the raw excitement engendered by breathing the same air as this great man and his RS acolytes but, realistically, I would probably swoon and be in danger of being trampled by an over-excited mob of acolytes as they rush to touch the sleeve of this colossus of science or be blinded by a forest of selfie-sticks.

    • Stephan Lewandowsky will have learnt to control questions from the floor. In a John Cook Lecture that he hosted in October 2013 at Bristol, Cook was confronted with some penetrating questions that exposed his “97% consensus” study to be nonsense. In the follow up lecture from Michael Mann (as reported by Anthony Watts) Lewandowsky tightly policed the Q&A.

      • That is the same tactic used by Tim Flannery and his Climate Commission in Australia. Their government brief was to tour Australia answering questions about CAGW.
        What actually happened was a rehearsed harangue and a refusal to reply to questions by sceptics. If a sceptic repeated the question, security escorted them from the room.
        For this Potemkin show Flannery and his Commissioners were paid $180,000 p.a. for 3 days work in a week.
        University lecturers say without question that they believe in CAGW. They expect students to say and write the same. They produce outrageous hockey stick graphs without discussion as if this is proof.

      • The man makes me physically ill. Watching him strut around with the microphone like some kind of soft bellied bouncer protecting his climate celebrity from the unwashed masses was as disturbing as it was telling. Why is it that the people who study other people seem to be the most oblivious to what their own behavior reveals about them to everyone else?

        It’s like going to a lecture presented by a famous speaker who proved that it is possible to accurately calculate the IQ of another person based entirely upon what they wear, and you just cannot take your eyes off of the clown suit, feather boa and swim fins he’s wearing….

  17. Standard Fallacy:
    A implies B. Therefore B implies A
    Example:
    Most people who believe in the Easter Bunny also believe in Anthropological Global Warming.
    Therefore most people who believe in Anthropological Global Warming also believe in the Easter Bunny.

  18. “NASA faked the Moon Landing”.
    The standard reply is “You can see the Stars and Stripes on the moon using a telescope – how did it get there”. This is in fact false, There is no telescope on Earth with this resolution.
    So why make this argument when you can say that you can beam a laser off a mirror left on the moon, which is actually true?

    • No telescope on Earth, ok, but what about the Hubble telescope? And possibly the landers left behind are visible from earth-bound telescopes, the main problem being they’re all on the Moon’s “limb” as viewed from Earth, where it’s perpetual twilight, so we’re seeing them from the side, not from above, if at all.

      • The Hubble and earth based telescopes do not have the resolution to see objects as small as the descent stages of the Lunar Modules. If you want to look at distant galaxies you don’t restrict the instrument’s field of view. The moon does not have permanent light and dark sides with perpetual twilight between them. It rotates once on it’s axis in the same time that it orbits the earth, so we always see only one side of it. The moon, therefore, has a nearside and a farside. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed the landing sites, and that imagery is available online. Interestingly, from their shadows we can see that 5 of the flags left behind are still standing. The flag at the Apollo 11 site is not visible, having been knocked over by the ascent stage engine blast, just as Buzz Aldrin has always maintained.

      • I stand corrected. They timed the landings so that, for the few days they were there anyway, they were near the grey line, with the sun very low on the horizon.

    • That is the standard reply? I’ve NEVER heard anyone in my entire life respond with that. Ever. Of course, I don’t know anyone who thinks that NASA faked the moon landing either….

      • I knew one guy who was. He was a co-worker and fellow programmer.
        He was convinced that the technology of the day could not have gotten us to the moon. Therefore we didn’t.
        I tried to show him how there were low tech solutions to all of the problems he listed, but he wouldn’t listen.

      • His own argument could have been uses against him…the technology of the day was so bad there’s no way they could have “faked” it that effectively. LOL

    • “…you can beam a laser off a mirror left on the moon,…”

      Yes but that doesn’t prove it was men who left it there.

      /sarc

      • I remember a video of some guy who put a gardening glove into a home built vacuum chamber, then when it was pumped out, showed that you couldn’t bend the fingers of the glove.

        Thank god NASA didn’t use gardening gloves on it’s space suits.

  19. In any organization that touts absolute immunity among it membership (tenure), there will be those doofus types that get joy from testing the system. It could also be described as an act of boredom.

  20. There’s an old saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Take a good long look at that picture of Lewandowsky – any picture at all of Lewandowsky – and tell me – just try – that that saying is always true. The largely vacant, and vapid if not vacant, contents of that corrupt book before you are perfectly revealed by that looking away slit eyed, stilted, sneering, stubbled fake bearded, clown book cover before you.

    • Easy Tom, that’s ad hom, although I also (having seen him only in photos) find his stare to be vacantly ominous. He certainly doesn’t use “dapper” to sell himself and his opinions, that is obvious.

      • To be fair, it doesn’t help his cause that the least flattering photos of him are chosen by his detractors, of course. He can’t be that ugly, can he? Hey?

      • brians356: I remember the front page photo of Reagan at his first inauguration from the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation. They showed him in mid sneeze.

  21. My prediction: He will search for an even more outlandish headline claim next time and this or another sheepish administrator (editor) will shy away from the fight. That is because the editors are also in it for short term gain on their vita. And the same will be true of the next editor. When this kind of relationship is applied to personal misconduct, the administrative response is to hide it rather than confront.

  22. “…he merely praises his predecessor Eich for instituting a system where authors who do provide raw data are rewarded with ‘badges’.”

    *

    Why do they only get badges? Why not a wizard’s hat?

    (Do I need a “/sarc” for that one?)

    • Don’t be silly A.D. Everard, the hats are only for PROFESSORS…not just anyone. But if you turn in your hypothesis before you do your experiment AND you show your work, you get one of these shiney, glittery stickers to show your parents!

  23. I’ve seen another paper, where a higher % of predominantly female psychology 2nd year graduates think the moon landings were faked, than in Lew’s sceptics / Moon Hoax paper..

    this is the same paper, that famously thought conspiracy theorists simultaneously thought Diana faked her death and was also dead,, yet the data had zero people agreeing with that..

    strange what does NOT get reported in that paper!!
    Dead or Alive – Wood et al (absolutely no realtion)

  24. For those who may not be aware of how Alan Sokal deliberately published a phony paper in a prestigious peer review journal to prove ideological bias, read the Wikipedia entry for the “Sokal Affair”.

    • Erm, Social Text was prestigious only in the opinion of fellow sufferers from academic proctocraniosis. It was a hodge-podge of post-Normal, Chomskyesque, deconstructionist drivel. Sokal created a parody paper so chock full of parallel gibberish that it matched the editors’ preconceptions to a micron. They couldn’t NOT publish it, even though the very first paragraph gave away the joke, had they examined its content with the least smidgen of critically.

      During the wait between acceptance and publication, Sokal was petrified that someone associated with Social Text would pick up the proofs, read them, and instantly blow the whistle, thus undoing all his “work,” a master stroke for rationality.

    • Chair in Cognitive Psychology…snort. He’s also a Brick in Human Psychology, a Shoe in Reality Theory, and a Partridge in A Pear Tree. :)

  25. Lew and his cohorts just founded a new society. It’s called the Society for the Creative Use of Morality (SCUM).

  26. Just to clarify, the SMH is a very old, left of centre paper and is a stable mate of the Melbourne AGE newspaper. Paul Sheehan is a libertarian/ conservative writer and is a friend of Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. He is known for his research before he writes and heaven help you if he goes after you.

  27. Can’t help but feel this has some relevance to the climate ‘debate’.
    The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. -Hermann Göring, Nazi military leader (12 Jan 1893-1946)

  28. The full title of the Moon Hoax paper is

    NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

    A simple pivot table of the responses to the NASA Faked the Moon Landings (CYMoon) and Climate Science is a Hoax (CYClimChange) statements, where a score of 4 is for strong agreement.

    There are just two respondents out of 1145 who agree with both.
    These were responses 860 and 889. Both respondents strongly rejected all four climate science statements. Further 860 strongly supported 5 of the 6 Free Market statements and all 16 conspiracy theories, whilst 889 strongly all 6 Free Market statements and 15 of the 16 conspiracy theories. When someone places uncontrolled opinion surveys on strident blogs on ethically controversial issues you are going to get scam responses. Any proper academic would delete such scam responses. But that would mean no result and no paper.

    Like with much of so-called climate science, the more you dig the worse it gets.

    • What is hilarious is that after he got rebutted, painfully, he responded with a craptastic paper on Agnotology, which ironically is “the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data”. He and Cook and Nuttybelly and the gang are the POSTER CHILDREN for “culturally induced ignorance” as evidenced in their continued “publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data”!!!

      We couldn’t make up stuff this good if we TRIED to. It’s like watching the Stooges Go To The Olympics.

      • What seems to have gone unremarked is that Lew floated a meme of singularly magnificent trollery.
        His troll job immediately commandeered the narrative and quite neutralized the ‘opposition’ who found it irresistible to devote immeasurable time and thought in an effort to refute it.
        ROI, for a troll, is measured by the ratio of his effort vs the magnitude of outrage in response.
        By this measure, Lew pwn3d like a big dog.
        Lew’s troll was true genius – look how it’s still doing ‘mindworm’.
        Lew has every claim to triumph. You just have to know Troll Rulez.
        It was a gambit. It succeeded fabulously. If there were a Nobel for Trolling, Lew would win, hands down.
        It had no other purpose or meaning.

      • I guess it’s not a complete job if I don’t also tell you what is the only winning argument, so I will.
        When you understand that this whole game is to tax your breath and redistribute your wealth, you may see the true objective and defend it.
        The magic word is a 4 letter word. It is a final argument that can not be refuted.
        You have to know what it means and you have to mean it.
        Look your marxist enemy in the eye and say it: “MINE!”
        There can be no ‘right’ to violate your rights. Nobody has any right to what’s yours, period.
        You’ve been debating the degree of submission. You do have the final word if you mean it.

      • gnomish-

        You seem to have assumed that I didn’t know any of the things you said. I’m aware. But there isnt enough evidence to logically conclude that Lew actually is TRYING to be a troll, or wants to be. He’s behaving like one. But it’s also entirely possible that he is completely oblivious to his own irrational and illogical behavior. It’s also entirely possible that he knows he’s being irrational and he doesn’t CARE because he thinks his ends justify his means. Saving the world is a NOBLE and lofty goal for anyone isn’t it?

        What I’m saying is that Lew might just be a small and ignorant COG in the machine of global socialism without even knowing he’s a cog. Cog’s can be either ignorant or complicit. You can make all the assumptions and presumptions about him that you want to, but it makes your arguments no more effective than his are because your conclusions are just as hard to back up as his are.

      • Dear Aphan,
        You sound like a lawyer trying to talk a jury down from a ‘first degree’ conviction.
        Why do you present this great cornucopia of unsubstantiated ‘possibilities’?
        Squirrels?

      • “You sound like a lawyer trying to talk a jury down from a ‘first degree’ conviction. Why do you present this great cornucopia of unsubstantiated ‘possibilities’? Squirrels?”

        Why? Maybe because the “law” is innocent until proven guilty? You’re hyperventilating accusations are equally unsubstantiated at this point. Just like “Lew’s” are. Rodent.

      • So you are defending Lew from my acknowledgement of his epic trollery?
        Why?
        I’m interested in this side-effect because it’s new to me. Thanks for any reply.

      • “So you are defending Lew from my acknowledgement of his epic trollery? Why? I’m interested in this side-effect because it’s new to me. Thanks for any reply.”

        NO-I’m the LAST person that would ever want to defend Lew from anything he rightly deserves. I happen to LOATHE the man. But my feelings about him are irrelevant and cannot be used as “evidence” against him. I am defending LOGIC and REASON and demanding that you use them here or be labeled just as much of a fool as you declare him to be. I am NOT saying your conclusions are wrong, I am saying your premises are weak and sad. You can’t prove he intended to create a mindworm. Or even knows the Troll Rulez.

        I’m sorry if the rules of logic are new to you, but you have offered nothing but your opinions and declarations and those do not earn my respect any more than Lew’s opinions and declarations did or do. Calling names and building strawmen just to defeat them are two well know troll behaviors. You might want to think about YOUR behavior before you go trying to paint someone else the same color.

      • ” Calling names and building strawmen just to defeat them are two well know troll behaviors.”

        Dear Aphan,
        I’m sure you’re right about that because you are doing it yourself with that very remark.

        “I’m sorry if the rules of logic are new to you”
        They are not. Nor are cheap insults such as this one.

        If you don’t believe our Lew wrote his paper deliberately and with malice aforethought, do you then maintain that he produced it innocently and accidentally? That is self evidently absurd. I declare that he is no fool.

        Why do you mention your lack of respect for me? Is it in any way pertinent or do you resort to ‘argument from intimidation’, the usual liberal default fallacy, because your disapproval should influence my thinking? What would Mr. Spock say?

        Thanks for the reply. I won’t ask for more.
        .

      • Aphan- “Calling names and building strawmen just to defeat them are two well know troll behaviors.”

        gnomish- “I’m sure you’re right about that because you are doing it yourself with that very remark.”

        Pointing out facts isn’t building a strawmen, nor did I call you any names. Facts are facts. You shouldn’t take them personally unless the personally apply.

        Aphan-“I’m sorry if the rules of logic are new to you”

        gnomish- “They are not.” So you DO know the rules of logic. Do you know them well? Are you intentionally not using them for some reason ?

        gnomish- “Nor are cheap insults such as this one.” Please indicate, by quoting me exactly, what I said that you think fits the definition of a cheap insult.

        gnomish “If you don’t believe our Lew wrote his paper deliberately and with malice aforethought, do you then maintain that he produced it innocently and accidentally? That is self evidently absurd. I declare that he is no fool.”

        You seem to have ignored or missed the other possibilities I introduced earlier to refute your insistence on using the black-white, false dichotomy that there are only two things that could motivate him. You did it again when you ask the question as if it COULD ONLY BE “malice aforethought” OR “innocently and accidentally.” It’s a flawed argument. What is absurd is pretending that what you THINK his motives were constitutes some kind of proof of those motives. Which is also flawed logically.

        Gnomish-“Why do you mention your lack of respect for me? Is it in any way pertinent or do you resort to ‘argument from intimidation’, the usual liberal default fallacy, because your disapproval should influence my thinking? What would Mr. Spock say?”

        Me- I said, “your opinions and declarations and those do not earn my respect”. I said nothing about respecting you or your thinking at all. Whether your opinions and declarations are respectable is the only thing pertinent here, and the way you present them currently is not respectable because they are not rational. Like bringing up Mr Spock is nothing more than reductio ad absurdum.”

        gnomish-“Thanks for the reply. I won’t ask for more.”

        Me-You’re welcome. But you don’t have to ask for more. It’s a comment section on a blog. You’ll get replies from other commenters whether you want them or not.
        .

        .

    • “An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”

      Skeptics are not rejecting “science” when it comes to the theory of human-caused global warming/climate change, they are rejecting the climate change theory because it’s predictions are proving to be wrong.

      TA

  29. I took three semesters of graduate statistics as part of my psychology training, something I have since learned is highly unusual. In one class we were asked to critique a paper from any mainstream psych journal, of which the library had many, and look for obvious errors. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Sorry, that’s not accurate, it was like closing your eyes, reaching into the barrel and attempting to close your hand without grabbing a paper that would have earned an F- in any serious statistics class.

    The field of psychology has always had “physics envy” due to psych theories being notoriously hard to verify or confirm. There is a very heavy reliance on statistics, and while there actually is some very good research out there, the field has way more than its fair share of utter garbage as well, attempting and usually failing to masquerade as hard science.

    If this guy wants to improve his journal, tell him to hire a Steve McIntyre protege to screen all his papers. He’d rocket to the top of the pack in a year or less.

  30. Notanist-
    “It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Sorry, that’s not accurate, it was like closing your eyes, reaching into the barrel and attempting to close your hand without grabbing a paper that would have earned an F- in any serious statistics class. ”

    I nominate that for the 2016 WUWT hilarious quote of the year so far!!!! I’m still wiping laugh tears off my cheeks!!!

  31. Neither the moon landings nor the global warming myth are hoaxes. A hoax has to be a deliberately fabricated lie, and the global warming myth is definitely not that. Instead it is a belief system akin to a religion. It’s proponents truly believe that they have discovered the secret of life, and no amount of contrary evidence will sway them from that belief. It has all the hallmarks of a religion. The climate has inexplicably changed and therefore we must be to blame for commiting the sin of profligate consumerism, the equivalent to avarice in the ten commandments. The remedy is for us to repent by sacrificing our luxuries and returning to a life of sack cloth and ashes. In this way we can appease the great God Gaia, and she will return our world to the normal that existed for a few short years in grandad’s day.

    • Doubtless true for the flock, but the shepherds know full well it is just a tool to excuse otherwise unconscionable (let’s be kind and say) tinkering with our lives.

  32. “Of those who thought climate science was a hoax, almost all of them, 97.8 per cent, did NOT think the moon landing was a hoax.”

    They tell us that if 97% of climate scientists agree on something, we should take it as fact, and the 3% who disagree are irrelevant. But if 97.8% of skeptics agree that the moon landing was not a hoax, Lewandowsky’s paper insists that they are irrelevant, and the 2.2% who think it was a hoax are representative of all skeptics. Why is 97% so definitive for one group but not for the other?

  33. …authors who do provide raw data are rewarded with “badges”.

    Badges? We don’t need no stink’n badges.

    • Well in kindergarten I used to get stars, the gold stars of course were the most sought after. At the time I thought it was a good idea being only about 5 years old. Apparently social science publications feel itis appropriate to their publishing scientists like 5 year olds.

      Which makes understandable how Lewandowsky remains employed in an academic setting.

  34. This development is very welcome and unexpected. It’s only when conducted in the darkness that this stuff poses a threat to society. Although I’m not overly hopeful, perhaps the ‘nouveau ordre du monde’ went too far with the clime syndicate (h/t to Mark Steyn for the term) that they’ve outed themselves. Encouragement, reward, adulation, free rein (even free reign until late-coming criticism from a minority) created the hubris that embolden them out into the light. I’ve had a few rants over the years on the subject of corrupted social science. Social psychology was mission oriented corruption whereas sociology, anthropology and the like (there seems to be more sciences these days that I haven’t kept up on) got that way by the unremitting efforts in ideological incursion and hi jacking of leadership in academe, ‘learned’ journals, the UN departments, and the rest of the infrastructure for dissemination of their political message promoting left wing fundamentals as science.

    These corrupted ‘sciences’ are not simply the useful idiots that largely practice it, but were essentially centrally planned rallying nodes in the way Jussim describes. As a student in science and engineering in the 50s it was obvious to an outsider like me from observing who ran all the campus ‘student government’, activism, newspaper, etc. Engineers and real scientists didn’t have time or the inclination for all this kumbayah-look-what-the-right-wing-exploiters-have-done-to-the-unprivileged. Indeed, the self-satisfied consumers of this thin intellectual gruel seemed to have little other to do than this and my perception was that they were themselves drawn from the ‘privileged’ category.

    In those days, mercifully, fewer than 5% of the (much smaller) population went to college, so that once the ‘arts’ crowd had graduated I never heard from or about them again. Today, apparently over 70% of high school graduates in the US go to college! This means that we ‘hear’ from them again and again and they are now a force to be reckoned with. This also fits with the patience of the left in crafting their long term plans.

  35. I think the very worst part of the Lewpaper is that among those tiny few that were convinced that the moon landing was a hoax, it’s possible, if not likely that most or ALL of them could have been biased alarmists answering the poll in order to make “deniers” look bad. There is NO discussion of this in the analysis, and only a glancing and superficial discussion of faked answers. Only a few faked answers were deleted, and all those based on monolithic responses presumed to be sardonic, or a few based on IP technicalities. Given the politicization of the issue of CAGW, fake answers MUST be considered as highly likely and highly important. Furthermore, Lew and his pals never sampled any real climate realism sites. Almost all their answers came from activist, alarmist blogs, with many being John Cook SRS insiders, whom many could have been aware of how the poll data were to be used. Lew should never do his own polling, again. And this paper should be retracted.

  36. 1) The Moon landing is a hoax. Some guy proved so on YouTube. There are many light sources on the fake Moon photos.

    2) Men have more sexual partners than women (about twice as much). I heard that on TV.

    Which one is worse?

    (Of course, a normal 10 years old should be able to destroy any of these.)

  37. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

    ‘Distorted universities need a reality check’ by Paul Sheehan of the Sydney Morning Herald on Jan. 10 2016, Sheehan wrote,

    ” The social psychologists who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field.

    Jussim’s argument is sustained at book length in ‘The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion’, by Dr Jonathan Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

    Haidt’s central thesis is that the academy has gone from being a haven for heterodoxy to a centre of rigid orthodoxies that are compromising scholarship:

    [Haidt said] “The American Academy has become a politically orthodox and quasi-religious institution. When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down. Political orthodoxy is particularly dangerous for the social sciences, which grapple with so many controversial topics (such as race, racism, gender, poverty, immigration, politics, and climate science) … Can a social science that lacks viewpoint diversity produce reliable findings?”

    While Jussim’s (et al) work (cited by SMH’s Sheehan) focused on “morally motivated bias” the Haidt book (cited by SMH’s Sheehan) focused on political (and religious) bias. I think Jussim (et al) focus on the basis of moral bias is the correct fundamental framework to understand the problematic AGW alarm bias in climate focused science.

    The concern is how the science focused on climate became dominated by a subjective school of the philosophy of science, displacing the objective school of the philosophy of science. Politics is not the means by which the subjective school of the philosophy of science dominates the science focused on climate. The subjective school found domination because its flawed metaphysics and epistemology based on post-modern philosophy dominates academia beginning in the second half of the 20th century.

    John

    • “Who will win the Ward Churchill Doofus Award in the Social Science category?”
      Can’t they all just share one like the IPCC and Al Gore shared their award? :P

  38. Just because some group has more believers of some crazy theory doesn’t mean the group has more gullible members. It could be that not enough people have seen the “proofs” of the “Moon hoax” like no star on the Moon, waving flag, no crater under LM, temperature too hot on the Moon…

    OTOH, we have SkS saying that a source of heat inside a temperature measurement device isn’t an issue.

    All this stuff could impress someone with the science qualification of a 6 years old!

    Until you have tested this stuff on people with no understanding of science, you can’t tell how they will react.

    If a large group with undefined qualifications never get ti hear a bat-crazy theory, you can’t predict how many some members of the group will accept it.

  39. Along the same lines the University of Wollongong has just accepted a PhD thesis [ie awarded a PhD] to a Ms Wilyman in which she claims that vaccination is ineffective and that vaccination programs are part of an international plot between Big Pharma and UNICEF. The aforementioned Ms Wilyman apparently claims her qualifications are in science though she submitted her thesis to the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts [the members of which are all no doubt qualified to judge a thesis on medical science]. Lewandowsky would fit right in.

    http://reasonablehank.com/2013/09/23/deranged-university-of-wollongong-anti-vaccine-phd-student-directs-readers-to-conspiracy-website/

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30561382/wollongong-uni-slammed-for-accepting-phd-thesis-on-anti-vax-conspiracies/

  40. Thou shalt not do as the dean pleases,
    Thou shalt not write thy doctor’s thesis
    On education,
    Thou shalt not worship projects nor
    Shalt thou or thine bow down before
    Administration.

    Thou shalt not answer questionnaires
    Or quizzes upon World-Affairs,
    Nor with compliance
    Take any test. Thou shalt not sit
    With statisticians nor commit
    A social science.

    Auden

  41. Lewandowsky’s Psychological
    Science.

    What’s Lewandowsky’s own psychogram – criminal intent, criminal energy, environmental illness?

    And that universities ethic comission – leaving the task to the defendant:

    is UAW representative for a sort of academic institutions – CAG, catastrophic anthropogen global?
    ____

    the links to Steve McIntyre, researcher in the field, and Kevin Marshall – thrilling stories.
    ____

    Or, as long one is’nt involved, a comedy: the characters Lewandofsky and Gleick, Stan and Olly ….
    ____

    Anyway time consuming, reading alone. Thinking you’re involved 14 ys in litigation with such some characters. Least word disgusting.

  42. adding a new field for psychological studies:

    CAG EMI –

    Catastrophic Academic Global
    Environ Mental Illness

    Regards – Hans

Comments are closed.