Stephan Lewandowsky, Gilles Gignac, Klaus Oberauer
One day a terrific psychological study is going to be written on the madness and mass lunacy which arose after climate change swam into the public’s ken…The cornerstone of this future pathological report may well be the peer-reviewed Psychological Science paper “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles Gignac, perhaps the completest, most representative work of its odd era.“Everything that could have been done wrong, was done wrong. Every bias that could have been manifested, was manifested. Every fallacy pertinent to the matter at hand was made. The conclusions, regurgitated from unnecessarily complicated statistical procedures, did not follow from the evidence gathered, which itself was suspect. In its way, then, the paper is a jewel, a gift to the future, a fundamental text to how easy it is to fool oneself. “
Trying (Unsuccessfully) to Replicate Lewandowsky
I wasn’t able to replicate Lewandowsky’s claim at all. I got explained variance of 43.5% in the first factor(versus Lewandowky’s 86%). I notice that the explained variance for two factors was 86%: maybe Lewandowsky got mixed up between one and two factors. If so, would such an error “matter”? In Team-world, we’ve seen that even using contaminated data upside down is held not to “matter”; perhaps the same holds in Lew-world, where we’ve already seen that use of fake and even fraudulent data is held not to “matter”.
There are several instances of similar outcomes. I won’t repeat them here. In comments Steve McIntyre finds more, and drops this gem:
Using my present best guess as to his calculation of latent variables, here is his Table 1 and my estimated correlation matrix. The two resemble one another except for conspiracy where the sign is reversed. OLS methods (of which a correlation matrix is an example) are VERY poor methods for this sort of data set. Lewandowsky may set a sort of incompetence landmark in this respect that will take many years to surpass.
It appears for all the world that Lewandowsky has replied, sort of, mentioning the SEM that McIntyre referred too, but without daring to link to him, or even mentioning Steve McIntyre’s name. Though Lewandowsky is too busy to post up all of the data he collected two years ago he has time to craft deep and insightful lines, like …”it is easily overlooked that data analysis is also a cognitive activity.” …. O’ Really?
He-who-shall-not-be-named has replied in comments on Lewandowsky’s blog.
stevemcintyre at 02:01 AM on 18 September, 2012
I’ve attempted to replicate the factor analysis results reported in the paper and have not been able to do so based on the information available.
Given the sketchy description of methodology in the paper, I suggest that you place the script for your results online. I’ve regularly done this and found that it both clarifies methodology for readers and adds to their interest.
Your assertion that “SEM permits computation of the error-free associations between constructs,” is a very bold statement in statistical terms and a script implementing that claim would definitely be worth sharing.
Tom Fuller, pro survey writer describes some of the flaws
Among other things Fuller describes the medicalization of dissent, a delicate topic if ever there was one, but so apt. Fuller has done over 1,000 surveys himself, and he lists five flaws, two of which I found particularly interesting:
Toodle, Lew
4. Lewandowsky allowed multiple responses from the same IP address. This means that someone could spam the survey, entering time and again to influence the results. Would they? One of the sites that linked to Lewandowsky’s survey has as part of their secret tribe of activists a person who wrote, “...people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity” and another who wrote of skeptics, “Sometimes you just want to let loose and scream about how you want to take those motherfucking arseholes, those closed-minded bigotted genocidal pieces of regurgitated dog shit and do unspeakable violence to their bodies and souls for what they are doing to the safety of what and who we all hold dear.” So, yes, they would probably do so in support of their cause.
My thoughts about this are that if you, hypothetically, wanted to find a group of people who would feel motivated to fake up a survey to make skeptics look stupid, where else would you go but Deltoid, Skeptical Science or Tamino? (Not that I’m suggesting that was his aim, I’m just putting a perspective on how poor the choice of sites was.)
5. Lewandowsky discussed the objectives of the survey while the survey was open for responses, so those who wanted to prejudice the results knew they could do so. This alone amounts to research misconduct and is cause for throwing out the results of the survey as well as the paper based on it.
Lewandowsky’s inability to address any of these issues, despite writing a paper describing it and hyping it on a weblog with 8 blog posts in the past week, is evidence that he cannot address them. He simply decided before his research began that climate skeptics are conspiracy theorists and gamed a survey to produce the results he wanted.
Lewandowsky’s site Shaping Tomorrows World has deleted about 50 of Thomas Fullers comments. Strange — since we’re told the skeptics were proving the Lewandowsky hypothesis in droves, you’d think they’d want to leave all the samples of “denier” comments up for show?
Did you see That Survey in 2010? We want to know
Watts Up is looking at participation. See The Lewandowsky participation question: for everyone who did and didn’t notice the survey two years ago. Please help out with a comment. There are 898 responses, mostly of people who didn’t see the survey.
If you saw the survey two years ago, then please also add a comment at this WATTS UP page here. So far there are only 23 responses.
Replicating the Lewandowsky survey (Your chance to answer these questions)
The survey is titled “Climate Skeptics Views Survey” and it is hosted on SurveyMonkey.com. The data collection period is currently set to run until 5 October 2012 at 3:00PM ET (UTC 20:00). I will use the Oct 6th weekend to examine the initial data and plan to publish preliminary results the following week. Final results will be published sometime thereafter (it really depends on how much free time I have to finish the analysis and paper prep).
Your blog readers may access the survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TZC6MNS or by clicking on the following to take the Climate Skeptics Views Survey. (UPDATE: Two skeptics had the same idea. This is not the same as the A Scott survey (password REPLICATE), I am talking behind the scenes to try to compile the two duplicate replicates).
You can also Vote on Watts Up: Has Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky usurped Dr. Michael Mann as the most irrationally emotive spokesman for climate alarmism?
Debate is fierce in the thread. Commenters are undecided, but Foxgoose takes a leaf from Shaping Tomorrows World. Those who have read Lewandowsky will appreciate it.
I’ve just performed an SEM latent variable analysis on the results of Anthony’s poll so far, using an advanced technique so obscure and powerful that none of you people of lesser intellect could get anywhere near understanding it.
I cannot get into the details here, but basically SEM permits computation of the error-free associations between constructs, such as one’s attitudes towards Mann and one’s Lewandowsky ideation. It is because measurement error has been reduced or eliminated, that correlations between constructs are higher in magnitude than might be suggested by the pairwise correlations between items.
It clearly shows there is a latent signal that most here believe Professor Lewandowsky to be an intellectual giant and a prince among men.
QED
REFERENCE:
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.
————————————–
My posts on this topic:
PART I Lewandowsky – Shows “skeptics” are nutters by asking alarmists to fill out survey
PART II 10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky (Part II) PLUS all 40 questions
PART III here Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence”
PART IV Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science”
PART V Lewandowsky does “science” by taunts and attempted parody instead of answering questions
PART VI Lewandowsky gets $1.7m of taxpayer funds to denigrate people who disagree with him
Part VII Lewandowksy, Oberauer, Gignac – Is the paper bad enough to make history?
also UWA sponsors world wide junkets for poor research, inept smears: Oreskes
Given the outrageously low quality of so much that passes for climate “science”, you have to admit he’s doing pretty well going straight into the Top 10 on release. But I think I’ll wait for the album before I make up my mind about him.
Afraid I shan’t be filling in the regurgitated survey, though. Far too “black and white”, when everything in the real world is much more shades of grey. F’rinstance, what actually is a conspiracy theory? Most of the political ones turn out to be “tomorrow’s news” anyhow, so tending to agree with them probably indicates greater understanding rather than greater lunacy. (If you question the doings of scientists, who are supposed to be in the business of truth, why on earth would you -not- question the doings of politicians, who are in the exactly opposite business?)
10
The University of Western Australia website provides a means for the “general public” so submit complaints. In light of the debacle that is Dr. Lewandowsky’s survey, I submitted the following complaint.
By the accounts that I read (see e.g., the guest post by Thomas Fuller at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/toodle-lew/#more-71115),
Dr. Lewandowsky, who I believe is a member of your faculty, placed on the internet an analysis [NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science..] of a survey he conducted designed to reinforce his beliefs that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics and catastrophic AGW skeptics are loons and require medical attention. I am neither an expert in psychology or surveys, but as I understand it, Dr. Lewandowsky’s survey was poorly constructed, poorly worded, poorly distributed, and poorly analyzed–which may be acceptable for an amateur, but should be unacceptable for both a professional psychologist and a major university.
Some will say the reputation of the UWA has been enhanced because the UWA supports the efforts of Dr. Lewandowsky, and thereby indirectly supports the AGW/CAGW tenets. I like many others think the image of UWA has been harmed by Dr. Lewandowsky’s actions. After all, before Dr. Lewandowsky’s survey, I was only slightly aware that the UWA even existed–now I have a negative opinion of UWA.
In principle, there’s nothing wrong with such a belief; but there is something wrong with a professional psychologist (a) devising a survey whose obvious principal intent is to get responses that confirm his beliefs, (b) placing the survey primarily on internet websites that support the AGW/CAGW premise, while (c) ignoring the most popular internet skeptical websites.
Thank you for your time,
Reed Coray
An in the box labeled “What do you want to happen now?”, I responded:
I would like the University to investigate the possibilities that Dr. Lewandowsky’s survey (a) crossed the line of acceptable/ethical behavior, and/or (b) failed basic tests of competency.
10
Lew-py has done it good this time, his reputation amongst peers and educators might be suffering. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks: Will they circle the wagons around him or will they leave him in the cold and dark to fend for himself?
00
They may not say much at all, if they are not asked. They need to be. – Jo
00
No.
Surely not.
But hang on. On second thoughts if they can orchestrate Amazon’s book reviews and rating system, well …. maybe.
Oh Dammit.
Would they? Hell yes!
00
I’ve just completed the survey on the link provided. Took all of five minutes. Happy to help and I look forward to the eventual results. Thanks for posting the link.
00
The vagueness of some of the questions:
“Burning fossil fuels cause a change in climate” or words to that effect. It doesn’t require that there are emissions of CO2 – maybe just the heat released from the burning of fossil fuels could be changing the climate. (What does happen to the heat from the engine after I turn it off? It has to go somewhere?)
So, someone with a belief other than CO2 being the culprit, but say the direct production of heat, could be deemed a believer.
00
My initial thoughts were how could Lewandowsky possibly put this paper out as anything other than a tongue-in-cheek, cheap shot at climate skeptics. Surely he wouldn’t be so consumed by hubris and belief in the righteousness of his cause that he wouldn’t think that skeptics and believers alike would take him seriously. But then his continuing actions to hide data, explain his rationale and treat his paper as a scientific breakthrough worthy of worldwide adulation as the intended stake into the heart of the skeptic organisation has turned the whole event into a well-deserved, comical farce. I can’t help but laugh out loud reading the rebuttals pouring in. There must be some major face-palming occurring among students and faculty at the UWA. I thank Lewandowsky and all the responders for giving me some great belly laughs. Surely the guy must be in the running now for a government posting on six figures or an Order of Australia award at the very least. (Written with sarcasm, but not lacking in thoughts of the ironic possibility.)
00
Your assertion that “SEM permits computation of the error-free associations between constructs,” is a very bold statement in statistical terms and a script implementing that claim would definitely be worth sharing.
In other words, Steve McIntyre does not believe that any such script can be written.
It’s fairly common for psychologists to expect more out of statistical procedures than they can reasonably deliver. Statistical procedures don’t make up for poor-quality theorizing, poor experimental design, poor-quality measurement, or poor reasoning.
Even so, Lewandowsky et al.’s claims for Structural Equation Modeling are eyebrow-raising.
00
… and specific to this paper it would seem that SM does not see how such a script was written or that the proper analysis really was done. In any case, “show your work” Prof. Lewandowsky. Either he does or does not have such a script and such an analysis to show.
00
Jo,
I’ve suggested for a long time that one way to maximise your citation index would be to write the worst possible paper that you could get published.
This would get cited by those in the field and also by the “Me-to’s” not in the field to show that they know of it.
Maybe a real live test here?
00
That’s a good point.
It is relatively easy to get citations of the form, “although Lewandowsky, et. al., maintain that …, we find that …”.
It’s the number of clips on the ticket that matters, not where people were going.
00
Its good to see you keeping the heat on this academic fraud. Hopefully it will not stop until his tenure is revoked for academic misconduct.
00
A new study has found that a feeling of “personally experiencing” global warming heightens people’s perception of risks related to the environmental phenomenon – and particularly those risks germane to where they live.
Tell me, how does an individual experience global warming?
00
meanwhile, from the CSIRO:
18 Sept: News Ltd: Malcolm Holland: CSIRO study projects climate change effects across Australia
(OPENING PARA)CLIMATE change will alter the Australian landscape so dramatically and so quickly that our grandchildren could live in a very different country, according to a landmark CSIRO study…
(FINAL PARA) Wary of past criticism, the CSIRO says it is confident in the accuracy of the complex computer models it used.
http://www.news.com.au/national/csiro-study-projects-climate-change-effects-across-australia/story-fncynjr2-1226476054411
and from NOAA/NCDC:
17 Sept: BusinessWeek: Brian K. Sullivan: August 330th Month Above 20th-Century Average Temperature
August 2012 was the fourth-warmest August globally since 1880 and the 330th consecutive month in which temperatures worldwide were above the 20th-century average, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center said.
The average temperature on land and over the ocean was 61.2 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius), 1.1 degree above the century’s average, the agency said today…
The last time the global temperature was below the 20th century’s average was February 1985, and the last time there was a cooler-than-average August was 1976, said the agency, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In the Arctic, the six smallest amounts of sea ice have been recorded in the past six years…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-17/august-330th-month-above-20th-century-average-temperature
00
There is another possible reason for the worst paper. A psychologist who fails to understand basic human psychology. Consider three cases.
1. A business fails to deliver on time and what was specified. Then digs themselves into a deeper hole be making excuses and telling the customer that if they have not broken the small print of the contract. After such an experience would the customer ever trust that business again, even if dealing with a different department or people?
2. Somebody was wrongly convicted of murder due to misinterpretation of the evidence by experts, or tampering of the evidence by the police. After this is exposed, there is no action taken to release the innocent party or to stop these events occurring again. What would happen to people’s trust in the judicial process?
3. After twenty years of marriage, one of the partners sleeps with another. What happens to the trust in the marriage if the guilty partner then makes excuses, including blaming the other?
Betrayal of that trust will lead to the betrayer being viewed in a completely different light by the betrayed party. The betrayed now questions every statement and every motive. Once you have lost people’s trust, it is very hard to regain that trust – a point that Dale Carnegie in “How To Win Friends And Influence People”. Shifting blame, or failing to acknowledge fault, will only make matters worse. Yet this is what the climate science community has being doing for years.
The actions of Lewandowsky and the alarmist blogs are the exact opposite of what happens in the real world does to re-establish trust when it has been undermined. If there was an overwhelming scientific case for catastrophic global warming, then renewing trust in the science would be a huge advantage. How I reached this conclusion I detail http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/17/a-reply-to-lewandowskys-sideswipe/.
I’ve sent you an email – Jo
00
That should be “whom we all hold dear”- there’s no excuse for bad grammar.
00
“who” is accepted.
00
Not by me –
For Whom the Bell Tolls’
00
You use ‘whom’ as the verb object in the sentence.
You use who as the verb subject, e.g. ‘He is someone who works hard.’
00
nope
00
00
After that, what was the reaction in Skepticalscience.com’s secret forum?
Did the gathering of worthies reproach their hyperventilating pal?
00
Science in this part of the 21st Century now fits firmly inside the seemingly impregnable Iron Triangle made up of: CSIRO and at one corner then The Universities and Climate Scientists at another and finished off with the Australian Media as represented by SMH and the ABC.
Politicians have not been mentioned so far; but they have a special place in that they can influence all three corners significantly as we well know.
Politicians can direct extra cash for “Research” to the CSIRO and if the “right” result appear the cash will continue.
The Universities and Climate Scientists, if they tow the line can see large cash advances for “Research” which fits the template of CAGW.
The Media can see large amounts of “Public Interest Advertising Program” expenditure fall their way if the general tone of their “reporting” is supportive of CAGW and the ABC like ole man river, just keeps rolling along with its support for all things Sustainable and Renewable.
The only part of all this that is not sustainable is the tax Burden from all this Government concern for the future.
We know all of this, so the question is how do we break open the iron triangle and get some reality into our Governments expenditure patterns.
The current focus on Lewandowsky is very useful because it shows ALL of the scammers that they are now vulnerable within their own specialist domains.
Lew has been scientifically discredited on this paper; it was always open to analysis and ridicule and the way is now open to go up the ladder and ask his managers just how they justify this embarrassing level of scholarship under the UWA banner.
After that the problem comes up against the iron triangle because the media will discredit any attempt to portray the reality of the CAGW scam for as long as they can.
I wish I could be hopeful about the prospects of enlightening the average voter but it really is a primitive contest to get votes; much like a Saturday afternoon Rugby League match.
All voters will hear and see is the razzamataz from the main media outlets.
The only thing that will turn voters is the knowledge of what this Scam is costing them in extra taxes, compliance and power bills.
KK
00
Absolutely! Now how do we get them (voters) to understand what’s happening to them before so much damage is done that they can’t recover easily?
00
The politicians are very cunning in that they just skim a little bit more each year. Individuals notice a slight tightening of the belt, but they are still comfortable. Everyone attributes the cost spiral to goods shortages or the media tells us that climate change has affected the cost of lettuces or whatever. By keeping the increase in costs in check the politicians can go on squeezing blood from the stone ad nauseum.
00
There was a posting on an earlier Lew’d article that suggested when Lewandowski is mentioned his organisation is specifically stipulated. I think this is sage advice. When referencing him use University of Western Australia Psychology Professor (and climate activist) Lewandowski. To get action we need to tie UWA directly to the nutty Professor.
00
The amazing thing is that Prof Lewandowsky has published a paper based on an uncontrolled webpoll in what is well known to be a highly politicized field.
It is generally regarded that uncontrolled webpolls are at best entertainment, and strongly reflect the site readership. If you see a webpoll at the ABC Drum it will reflect the readership there. At the Daily Telegraph the poll bias is in a different direction.
So how in all the saints of Peer Review can you possibly expect a webpoll which runs on consensus climate websites be anything other than reflecting the politics of those websites? And that is the most charitable way of putting it. In such a highly charged environment can you expect no trolling whatsoever? That all respondents have squeaky clean motives?
At best this is the most incompetent survey I’ve seen in my life.
00
Let me guess how this will work out –
– UWA will award Lew a huge pay rise and a special medallion for resilience against the vitriolic attacks by climate sceptics.
– UWA will publicly back Lew for advancement of statistical methods (Lew was right, it is just that the sceptics failed to understand his novel methods).
– as a political friend of our PM, Lew will be nominated by the Australian Government as the next Secretary-General of the IPCC. When the nomination is unsuccessful, he is appointed as the ambassador to the Maldives.
– in honour of Lew (upon his ambassadorial appointment), UWA renames the Science wing to the “Lewandowsky” buildings.
– newly elected PM, M. Turnbull appoints Lew as head of CSIRO and his personal science advisor.
00
It will be nothing compared to the “madness and mass lunacy” of the monetary system that swam into the public’s ken, that is, the worthless obligations of government that are passing as money. It is possible that nothing will be written on it though since your good civilisation will have well & truly gone to waste.
00
Ka-Ching…
Got it in one.
00
It depends entirely upon who is reading the entrails.
00
Why give Lewandowsky exactly the online attention (oxygen) he always planned
—————–
Anti-warmists appear more like a Donatism schism to the Church of IPCC.
How about showing some leadership rather than arguing on IPCC doctrine semantics. At the moment anti-warmists are only reactionary.
e.g. Start a peer-reviewed journal like a Psychology of Climate Science or Physical Science of Climate Change. If your science is credible then the rest will take care of itself. If persons like Monkton or Plimer are genuine then no doubt they’ll contribute some of their profits to this end.
Count me in when the Enlightenment starts.
——————-
(Cue cop out comments)
00
Hi Mick,
The purpose of the Lewinsky blogs is to check out and comment on exactly what he did and let as many people as possible know.
The comments so far are not good in terms of his position at UWA.
The information to hand suggests that the UWA is held up to ridicule by its association with him and no doubt they will say nothing.
You can bet your pants however that they will have a quiet word with him and others like him.
The end approaches.
KK 🙂
00
“…the Lewinsky blogs…”
Hmmmm…. so the Lewandowsky scandal prompted your subconscious to toss up another “Lew” name involved in sexual trysts with a then-President of the USA in the 1990s?
Psychologists might have something to say about this…. Freudian or otherwise. Perhaps it’s just the sordid nature of Lewandowsky & co. who seem less like academic scientists in pursuit of knowledge than like …..which, politicians or ……
00
Hi Skip
Actually the spell checker cam up with Monica and I just decided to leave it there.
It’s all sordid.
KK
00
Google “Lewandowsky”.
He can’t be happy about that.
00
Another appropriate nomenclatural confabulation would be “Lew-syenko”ism.
00
‘Cue cop out comments’ – The only cop out comment I can come up with is I’m a smart arse that doesn’t understand the science so will await you guys to enlighten me but at the moment SkS and RC are my places of enlightenment, ever that or Jesus wept.
00
I sorta feel sorry for the UWA as it has now been linkled with the University of West Anglia by SMc.
Having said that though, the longer that UWA maintains its’ silence on the matter the less I feel sympathy!
We all understand how one bad apple can spoil the barrel but don’t let us move into the scenario as to how a fish rots from the head down!
00
University of Western Australia’s best application to infamy since Fleischmann and Pons.
Well done Professor Stephan Lewandowsky. And such a sterling defence.
00
Lewandowsky the worse, most hysterical alarmist? Big call, what with Flannery and Karoly cock a doodle doing around Australia.
But to be really in the running you have to get yourself arrested like Hansen.
00
Karoly had the sense to commit Gergiscide when shown that all was not well with the paper on which he was a named author.
UWA Professor Lewandowsky’s has chosen infamy over obscurity.
00
I suspect that he spent sometime weighing up the options…
Infamy, Obscurity, Infamy, Obscurity,… before finally exclaiming in a tremulous voice – “Damn it all to hell – I’ll show them what for – I CHOOSE INFAMY!!!”
00
Good one. But Karoly still has the butterflies to live down.
00
jo anne i think you will find that this paper has been withdrawn or never submitted check CA final comments.
00
Eliza, Lewandowsky’s April 2012 cv shows 7 papers in press but it does not appear that the current paper here under discussion has been listed.
Prof Oberauer papers’ published in 2012 and 2011 are all to do with working memory and none are listed as being “in press”.
Gignac seems to publish mainly in the area of Personality and Individual Difference and there don’t appear to be any of his papers “in press” either.
00
A paper can be in press for quite a while at an academic journal. Even under today’s hybrid system where electronic publication precedes appearance between paper covers, I don’t see any unusual delays attaching to Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac. Articles go through typesetting before they are released online.
An author is allowed to refer to his or her paper as “in press” as soon as the journal editor sends that coveted letter or email indicating final acceptance for publication. My surmise is that for Lewandowsky et al. this took place in July 2012, and the publicity was rushed out immediately thereafter. In other words, I don’t think they pulled a Muller.
We know now that Eric Eich was already handling submissions to Psychological Science when the manuscript was submitted, so it was submitted after the beginning of the year. The article hadn’t been accepted as of April 2012, so Lewandowsky didn’t list it on that version of his vita. Oberauer and Gignac may not have updated theirs for even longer.
00
Steve C: An excellent way of putting it – a thumbs up.
[(Oops. I did something wrong in my previous post…) all fixed] ED
00
Cheering a cause is indeed human, but when you fabricate and set up a false premise it really hurts when the truth comes out.
Our esteemed administration sent a man to his death and the media will provide cover all the way to the bank!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/gate/2012/09/chicago-native-libyan-diplomat-was-a-well-known-homosexual.php
00
Somewhat off topic but with this prediction due in a few days :
“climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”
And thia being studiously ignored:
Antarctic Ice sets New record High
And this graph being mysteriously disappeared from here :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
and treating this like it never happened :
Unusual summer storm blasts Arctic
another “leading ice expert” Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University pops out this prediction
Arctic summer Ice to disappear in four years
Is it just Me or have these “Leading Ice Experts” lost the plot ?
00
Fraud, incompetence or just plain silliness? He still needs to try a lot harder to beat the hockey stick in any of those categories. Compared to that it’s just an amateur effort.
00
…people like us have to build the greatest guer[r]illa [ed.] force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity” and …
Perhaps they should make the effort to organize such a conspiracy — with emphasis on word organize. Something must be done if they are to succeed — current strategies and tactics seem to be vain and misguided hopes of glory.
I recommend that they train their elite troops to not aim their “snipers rifles” at own feet. Errors are painful. People who handle weapons of great power must be trained in use if actual target is to be acquired. This lesson is valuable. Hopefully they will credit me with the insightful recognition of their inadequacies and remedy to same.
00
John Cook and Lewandowsky seem to be taking strategic tips from the The Judean Peoples Front
With more papers by Lewandowski with collaboration with John Cook – well “that’ll show em!!!”
One wonders how much longer CAGW can remain a viable scam with crack troops such as Lewandowsky leading the way.
00
Is it possible that Lewandowsky is a mole/plant in the UWA funded by Big Oil and the Heartland institute to secretly discredit CAGW?
I kid you not – I smell a conspiracy brewing…
Speaking of brewing, it’s beer-o’clock…
00
This brings to mind the sad tales I’ve heard of young jihadists strapping on the suicide vests and then joining with their friends to dance energetically in a circle.
Don’t bother asking “how can they be so stupid”.
00
WillR says…
You are, I think, quite correct.
The antics of the SKS crowd and fellow travellers such as Lewandowski really leave me with the impression that they are fundamentally incapable human beings – which is perhaps at the foundation of their constant angst.
I have long held the view that fear is the primary motivator of the desire to control. And their fear of the world and life is due to their basic incompetence and incomprehension of the world and humanity. This existential fear is the root cause of their attachment to the ultimate control fantasy of Man Made Global Warming – that man controls the weather, that man is the powerful one.
It is why they are so entrenched in their belief system – if it is ever stripped away, all they would have left is naked existential terror.
It has always been thus – the sane rational adults beset by the wild eyed terror of children in adult bodies.
00
New post, perhaps?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/csiro-study-projects-climate-change-effects-across-australia/story-e6freuy9-1226476054411
“CLIMATE change will alter the Australian landscape so dramatically and so quickly that our grandchildren could live in a very different country, according to a landmark CSIRO study.”
00
Errh, do you think that should be filed with “drought will become the new normal”, or with “snow will become a thing of the past”.
00
MV,
I think that staement could actually prove to be very true, unfortunately, with some minor poetic license.
it should read: “Climate change hysteria will alter the Australian political and economic landscape so dramatically and so quickly that our grandchildren could live in a very different and less privileged country from the one most of our generation or older have enjoyed, as a result at least partly of various ill-considered, unsubstantiated CSIRO ‘landmark’ studies.”
They weren’t too wide of the mark after all.
00
Along with the Arctic will be ice free by
2000,2010,2012,2015!!! and so many others.Maxine, where are you?
00
You know i am looking for a new job because i am currently at moral and ethical odds with my employers actions and a position i could obtain has become available at the CSIRO…………….maybe i will just go on the dole.
00
Eliza –
there are now a number of comments on CA re publication:
Barry Woods: The paper is NOT in Septembers journal (online today)
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/9.toc
And Prof Lewandowsky sent it peer reviewed, (in press) to Dr Adam Corner (Guardian Environment blog) late July.
shapes of IPCC, publish, headlines, soundbites, data come later. (poosibly even revised paper, or not at all?)
Stan: The website of the Psychological Science journal http://pss.sagepub.com/ where this is or was presumably going to be published has a section called “Online First” where subscribers can download upcoming articles. It was last updated Sept 13 and Lewandowsky’s paper is not on that list, nor does it appear on the list of articles in the September issue.
I wonder if this paper was just intended as a prank, never submitted or even meant for publication?
Stan: @Wayne2
The paper is also available at uwa. In both places, the cover page says: “In press, Psychological Science”
I don’t understand how a paper that’s “in press” at a supposedly major journal is already widely available online in other places. And I don’t understand how, if it’s already “in press” at the journal, it doesn’t appear in the “forthcoming articles” list that Psychological Science makes available online to its readers ahead of printing, here: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/recent
I am beginning to suspect that this paper was either flatly rejected by the journal, or that it was never even submitted.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/16/trying-unsuccessfully-to-replicate-lewandowsky/
00
Perhaps this paper needs to be read in the context of Lewandowsky and Alene Composta?
00
It’s a conspiracy damn it – why can’t you see what is going on.
Your in on it too!
00
I don’t think he had a clue what was going to land on his head. He will be reeling. These sceptics are articulate, reasonable, educated, competent, exacting, critical, and very very qualified. A whole lot of things he isn’t.
And by the way, most psychologist can’t do decent research.
00
http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/rankings/
UWA is ranked 79 in the world and 7th in Oz with an academic reputation of 77.8/100 as of Oct 2011 any guesses as to where it is now?
00
There is reason to be … ‘skeptical’ … about anything Lewandowsky has said about this paper. Both the content and the process (of survey, analysis, peer review, and publishing) are now under serious scrutiny.
In addition to his tortuous ramblings in nine (count ’em) uninformative blog articles, it seems that there is a scramble to revise the paper with ‘extended’ supplemental info in order to try to head off problems for the journal publishing the paper:
What is the current status of Lewandowsky et al (2012)?
IS the paper being published by the journal Psychological Science? Lewandowsky & co. have been listing it as “in press” since it was publicized online and with Adam Corner at the Guardian in late July 2012. Yes, it has not appeared in the Sept. 2012 issue of the journal and is not listed online in a list of the journal’s pending articles. Has it been withdrawn for revision? Can anyone get an honest accounting from the authors or from the journal about the current status of this paper? Is it truly accepted and “in press” with the journal? Has there been any change in its status since July? Has the journal required any changes to the paper since it was supposedly accepted for publication? Is there any new peer review being conducted on this paper?
The problem is one has to frame questions very specifically to have any hope of getting a straight answer. Or perhaps very broadly: “Prof. Lewandowsky, has there been any change at all in the status of this paper since July 2012?” “Has the journal requested or required any changes in the paper?”
00
“Lewandowsky allowed multiple responses from the same IP address. This means that someone could spam the survey,”
Gee, do you think? We must alert GetUp to this distortion and manipulation. They’ll expose it!
00
Anna Rose could do an expose “
Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate ScepticTrutherlands: A journey to change the Mind of “CAGW sceptics are funded by Big Oil” Conspiracy Believer”.00
It is conceivable that multiple responses from on IP address would be allowable. For example, all users of a network that share an Internet connection have the identical IP address of the proxy server or their gateway. Universities, research campuses and most businesses.
The issues is how do you then determine whether it is one person responding multiple times. You just cannot tell unless you have an independent means of identifying each respondent. Flawed sampling.
00
eminent Georgia Tech climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry says, “Lew, get a clew”
Judith Curry of Climate Etc. has weighed in and found Lewandowsky’s performance so far to be feeble minded. The usually mild-mannered, dispassionate Curry takes up the use of “BS detection” and Steve McIntyre’s word “scam” in relation to the Lewandowsky paper and the feeble defenses thereof. (she gives nice h/t to JoNova in quotation below)
00
Here is an alternative take on this matter:
A couple of years ago in the wake of “climategate” Lewandowsky and
CrookCook got together and decided they could use the power of the internet to create a new global warming meme along the lines of “the Arctic Circle is melting”. In this case the required meme was “climate deniers* are conspiracy theory nutters”.The initial plan was to bodgy up a “survey” that would be run on cultist sites to ensure the required answers to cook the survey. To cover himself Lew also contacted some “skeptic” sites, but via an unknown proxy, and in a way to ensure their non-participation. Conversely, the cultists running the head-banger sites like
Crook’sCook’s Septic Science were fully briefed on the nature, purpose and aims of the survey.Despite all this effort, the results of the survey were pretty much nothing of significance in any kind of statistical sense – as McIntyre at Climate Audit is now proving. By this time the whole climategate controversy had settled down (the “fix” was in), so the whole project was shelved.
Since the beginning of this year Lewandowsky’s credibility and reputation have taken a battering by Jo, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry and others, on a number of things. Lew needed a way to hit back.
Now Lew (like many others) had noticed a little sleight of hand developed, and run regularly, by the IPCC. They put out a press release making all kinds of claims about “new research” and how “it’s worse than we thought”. The paper itself is not released until some months later. In the meantime all the usual suspects – The Guardian, SMH, The Age, the NYT etc – all run front page stories on the IPCC claims in the press release. When the paper is eventually published it turns out to be the same old regurgitated computer-generated crap. But by then it is too late – nobody’s interested.
So Lew decided to pull the same stunt. He took the unconvincing results of his two year old survey, put them into a form roughly approximating a “scientific paper”, wrote a press release, and send it out to the MSM, who dutifully responded with the front page articles he was aiming for.
In this, Lew made a fatal mistake: he thought since his “paper” was being touted as “psychology” and not “climate science” it wouldn’t attract too much attention from the skeptic community. His bad.
.
I put it to the blogosphere jury – on the anecdotal evidence available to date:
1) – There isn’t, and never was a proper “scientific paper” written for publication – only a sham thrown together for the benefit of the dolts in the MSM.
2) – This sham paper was never submitted to any journal for publication, and hasn’t been peer-reviewed.
3) – Lewandowsky was not expecting, and was totally unprepared for, the reaction in the blogosphere.
4) – Lew is now furiously stalling for time while he A) – tries to throw together something that might just pass pal-review, and B) – is frantically trying to get Psychological Science or some other journal to agree to accept it for publication. On both counts he is failing dismally.
.
In summary, Lewandowsky tried to do a Gleick, failed, and now his “paper” looks like doing a Gergis before it’s even finished.
00
MV, you have artfully constructed a very plausible narrative of what might have happened.
But I charge you now – do you have the evidence of this conspiracy to practice incompetent pseudoscience. I tell you this – I will not stand for anymore of this portrayal of charlatanism parading as pseudoconspiratorial humbuggary to mesmerize the doltish masses fawning before the big city broadsheets and the government funded radio.
Rationality Sir – that is what I ask, no, that is what I demand of you, in sincere and fulsome entreaty to respect the laws of reason and to stop assuming that Lewandonsky is more stupid and foolish than his actions make him out to be.
I tell you now to stop stretching the bounds of credibility beyond what a sane mind can bare.
Enough, if you persist in these claims I will have to declare what you say to be a Hoax – for that is what it must be – for no man could possibly be as culpable, deluded, and filled to the brim with chicanery as the man – Lewandowsky – as described in your artfully concocted comment above.
I shall remain in denial of such a possibility, with eyes tightly shut, until I see an apology – or proof!
00
.
Well, since I can’t in good conscience have you walking around bumping into things, I apologise.
However, the “proof” will be in the pudding.
This alleged “paper” will now never, ever see the light of day in any journal of repute.
Given all that has now happened, who on earth would touch it?
00
Its perhaps a little premature to state that the Journal hasnt got it up yet as a preprint (or whatever we’re calling it). They clearly amke regular updates. If for some reason they have a backlog (very frequent in the top journals), it’ll be there in the list somehwere and once it appears on the website, Lewandowsky has a point in his favour……….Its a bit soon to be claiming he’s amde the entire paper up!
00
Has anyone asked Lewandowsky about the status of his paper?
00
Not that I know of, but if someone had I suspect the answer would be “somewhere between the back of an envelope and a WORD document, with a hastily prepared Excel spreadsheet stuck in the middle”.
00
Leave Lewandowsky alone! Leave him alone!
00
.
Actually, I think he’s probably very much alone at the moment.
00
Hey all,
sorry to break in here with something so wildly off topic, but I just saw Mar’n Ferguson on tonight’s 7.30 program.
Blah blah blah, and then he rattled off the current cost of the three major mining exports, Iron Ore, Coking Coal (Metallurgical Coal) and Thermal Coal, this latter one the coal they use in power plants.
The current cost for that Thermal Coal is around $75 per tonne, and Mar’n says at one stage it was even up around $225 a tonne.
Even with that cost at $225 per tonne, coal fired power was still far and away the cheapest form of electrical power generation.
Now, if you will, imagine how much cheaper it is at that current price of $75 per tonne.
Coal fired power can generate ginormously humungous amounts of power at a cost of around 3 cents per KWH (before Co2 Tax).
How much demand do you think there is going to be for Australian thermal coal with the price so low. They can’t dig the stuff out of the dirt fast enough.
There is no way known renewables can compete with that, ever.
Those still Developing Countries, you know, the ones that currently do not have access to the power on the scale we take utterly for granted, have the perfect opportunity to get that power, and we here in Australia, well we will just ship that coal out, but perish the thought about using it here.
Madness.
Mar’n must think we’re stupid if he thinks we can’t add two and two together.
Sometimes, my blood just boils.
Tony.
00
don’t worry, if the Alarmists have their way you won’t be able to “ship it out” either! You must leave it in the ground!
[/sarcasm]
00
.
Wayne & Julia could buy up all the coal mines then claim carbon sequestration credits!
What is coal worth on average? – about 2.86 tonnes CO2 per tonne = $65.78 per tonne of coal! To dig it up and sell it, you only get $75 per tonne!
So the more coal they don’t burn – the more Juliiar & Wayniie Poo make!
Maybe
SlackSlater &GotyouGordon should do the books and legals to make sure it’s all above board.“The ALP CO2 Reformation
SlushSequestration Fund”The more you don’t do – the more rewards are available through the
SlushFund!00
Caught him earlier today waffling on about Campbell Newman increasing state royalties on coal being the reason Rio Tinto have just sacked a large number of miners, this is fact, the company sated as much and despite Queenslands massive deficit I think a stupid move, however someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Isn’t it fact that for every extra dollar the states take in extra royalties is a dollar less the federals get into the mining supper tax bucket.
00
Basically yes, with the proviso that the companies have to make the super profits to pay the super tax. No super profits, no super tax. And the way things are going, the “super profits” look like being zilch.
Much as I dislike the man, Newman has been very clever. If his increased royalties now cause a hole in the federal budget, he can just claim he based his decisions on Treasury claims (fully supported by Swan) of what the Super Tax would return.
If the companies complain because the increased royalties end up coming out of their pockets, he needs only to point out the same thing and add that the companies supported the Treasury figures at the time.
.
In other words, perfect plausible deniability. He upped the royalties based on the assumption that it would not cost the companies an extra red cent – the money would be coming out of the federal super tax. He based this assumption on Treasury figures fully supported by the relevant companies at the time.
00
memoryvault:
Thanks for the explanation, now it all makes sense.
Bob
00
Phony lads went askew (7, 11)
00
wow just woew these guys are totally crazy
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/17/863551/false-balance-lives-in-worst-climate-story-of-the-year-pbs-channels-fox-n
reaction to Watts interview. they want PBS closed down LOL
00
Thanks for that link Eliza. Reading the comment posts there you’ll find great examples of exactly what the warmists are. Namely, shrill panicked conspiracy theorists. They believe the world will end unless they stop the Koch bros., and the oil (energy) barons. Especially rich that they now believe PBS is a tool of the Right?????
They are acting more and more insane. I have to wonder how long before they actually “pop”?
00
Eliza, I hate it when someone links to sites that makes me want to barf before I’ve even had my breakfast.
Noted was this gem, however, which I am sure will be news to Jo.
Fortunately my urge to throw up was reversed by the urge to go into into uncontrollable paroxysms of giggles at this typical nonsense from that side.
Spare me days!
00
Knowing PBS I’ll bet they’ll roll over to appease the complainers – or come so close as to make no difference. They’re already nine tenths of the way there as it is.
Any takers?
00
Has anyone considered that Lewnie may be “rational’ and have ‘planned’ this?
Step 1: he sees Julia throwing money around like crazy to AGW nutters. Flannery gets $180,000 p.a. to promote carbon tax policy, then tells us that it wouldn’t affect temperature for 1,000 years. Gets $90Mill for his geothermal project (even the truth doesn’t stop gravy train).
Step2: Lewnie decides he could do with oodles of dosh himself.
Step3: puts together provocative paper. No need to worry about accuracy, content or logic. I mean look at what Hansen, Mann even Flannery have been getting away with.
Step4: leaks paper to ABC etc. assuming peer revue is a formality.
Step5: sceptics fail to lie down and start baying for blood. Peer reviewers suddenly don’t want to be associated with this. Nor Journal, hence delay in publication. UWA colleagues unimpressed.
Step 6: Panic. Tries to stop discussion at UWA by censoring all adverse comments, so to claim paper “well received”.
Step7: Vice Chancellor suggests meeting in his (VC) office “to discuss things”.
The last step is conjecture, but may well be about to happen.
00
Step5. There’s no evidence as of yet that anyone at Psychological Science has hit the brakes. IMHO, Dr. Eich should be holding off after seeing what I sent him, what Steve McIntyre sent him, what Anthony Watts sent him, and what some others have undoubtedly sent him. It doesn’t follow that he is holding off. We don’t even know whether he is investigating the manuscript and the objections to it.
It’s a big deal for a journal to retract an article. An even bigger deal, or so I would think, to retract an article while it’s still in press (though when the authors have staged such a publicity push at this stage, retraction before publication ought to be a potential consequence).
Step7. We may hope that the Vice Chancellor calls Dr. Lewandowsky in for a chat. But what conversations have taken place between Michael Mann and top administrators at Penn State? I have this sick feeling that they consisted of Graham Spanier saying, “Mike, we’re behind you 100%.”
00
Still, we can only hope.
00
Hi Jo,
One of the things that jumped out of the Lewandowsky paper was the blatant misuse of terms. The entire paper is thus based on a false premise/false perception.
I spent some time trying to pull together definitions for terms like Alarmist, Affirmer, Warmer, LukeWarmer, Skeptic, Climate Realist, and Denier with the idea, if the definition of these terms can be documented. of seeking agreement for the definition from climate sites and an ultimate dissemination of a Press Kit which includes a glossary of terms.
I posted the idea on WUWT with some preliminary definition based on Climate Etc. research but Anthony is caught up with Alarmist reaction (hate mail) from his recent PBS interview.
Have you done a Press Kit that includes definitions of the terms used for the various groups in the debate? If not, I’d be happy to share the research I’ve done so far with the idea of collaboration from all Skeptic Sites.
My gut is telling me that if the terms are defined and agreed upon, most of the climate debate will be immediately resolved.
00
yikes, I need a proof reader.
s/b
Hi Jo,
One of the things that jumped out of the Lewandowsky paper was the blatant misuse of terms. The entire paper is thus based on a false premise/false perception.
I spent some time trying to pull together definitions for terms like Alarmist, Affirmer, Warmer, LukeWarmer, Skeptic, Climate Realist, and Denier with the idea, if the definitions of these terms can be documented, a Press Kit could be sent to the media which includes a glossary.
I posted the idea on WUWT with some preliminary definition based on Climate Etc. research but Anthony is caught up with Alarmist reaction (hate mail) from his recent PBS interview.
Have you done a Press Kit that includes definitions of the terms used for the various groups in the climate debate? If not, I’d be happy to share the research I’ve done so far with the idea of collaboration from all Skeptic Sites.
My gut tells me that if the terms are defined and agreed upon, most of the climate debate will be immediately revealed.
00
John, I think this would be an excellent project. If it takes off and you’d like (or need) help I’d be willing. I’m also in the US which may be a convenience.
00
Thanks and absolutely, the more involved the better the result.
The part of this that is giving me an itch is the realization that individuals self-label in the debate and its all “shades of gray”. Making certain that we do justice to the labels for those who support IPCC conclusions will be as important as defining those of us who do not support their IPCC conclusions.
IPCC makes this fairly simple as they define degrees of confidence in their reports. Self-labeling in relation to those confidence ratings should eliminate most of the Alarmist nonsense.
00
Footnote: at the moment I’m simply trying to determine if anyone has done a Press Kit which includes definitions of the various groups.
I discovered, Warmer and LukeWarmer were first coined on Climate Audit related to climate sensitivity which was an insight.
00
Hi Jo
The psychological issues that the warmists and Lewandowsky are suffering from are well
described in Charles Mackay’ s book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and
the madness of Crowds – published in 1841 – so the condition they
are afflicted with is nothing new – just a new topic
00
It’s a pity you don’t have a donate button! I’d certainly donate to this excellent blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
I look forward to brand new updates and will talk about this site with my Facebook group.
Talk soon!
(Tip Jar at top right corner is where you can make a donation) CTS
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/lewandowksy-oberauer-gignac-is-the-paper-bad-enough-to-make-history… […]
00