The fourth name on the new Lewandowsky paper is Mike Hubble-Marriott, from “Climate Realities Research, Melbourne”. What isn’t listed on the paper, is that Mike’s “climate research” is published under the anonymous moniker of Mike, on a site called WatchingTheDeniers A site incidentally, which is linked in the paper. Perhaps they ought to have disclosed that?
Climate Realities Research has no website, it doesn’t appear to be a registered business, and Googling doesn’t shed any light on it. Just how serious is his research?
“Mike” gave it away on The Conversation blog a long time ago, sort of, saying “my real name which is Michael Marriott – thus, any charges of anonymity can be dealt with.” Hubble-Marriott, or Marriott, what’s the difference? Hmm. (See Watching the Deniers) In his other life, he worked for a law firm as an information services manager. Perhaps he still does? But now apparently he’s a climate researcher. OK.
I’m not fussy about qualifications, there are plenty of Profs who can’t think. But Lewandowsky and Hubble-Marriott think qualifications are all that matter. Hypocrisy anyone?
Mike commented on this blog in March 2010 as “Mike” on this thread, but in the end failed the logic and accurate English bar, and his right to comment was retracted indefinitely until he could improve. He couldn’t curb his reflexive use of the word “denier”, nor could he justify it. His whole blog is named after it. Watching the deniers. It’s not possible to have a polite open-minded science discussion with someone who thinks they are talking to a “denier”. After all, a denier has a defective brain, they can’t think, can’t reason, and it doesn’t matter what a denier says. Lewandowsky, Cook and Hubble-Marriott, know they are right. It’s unscientific.
I’d like to thank Mike for posting the comment (or link) that was the all time funniest for me, ever. In 2010, Mike turned up on my blog, asked questions, and got answers. He then dismissed or ignored the papers and the reasons we offered, and went back onto his site to say he’d studied us, “done an experiment” (the methods and design appear to be lacking a tad), and that the Dunning Kruger (DK) effect explained our over-confidence.
To appreciate the humour, you need to know that the DK effect is where people who don’t know much confidently overestimate their ability. His marvellous insight and experiment were written with a glorious honesty. Right at the start Mike explains how little he knows, and thus spends his entire post proving he himself is the ultimate case study in Dunning-Krugar. Projection, anyone? I swear, I was surprised it was not labelled “satire” at the bottom.
Here’s Mike Hubble-Marriott, co-author of Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, talking about his scientific ability in 2010:
I have a confession to make: I am not qualified to discuss the intricate, technical details of climate science.
It’s beyond my capability.
I can grasp the essentials, and even make sense of (some) the actual peer reviewed research that I read. However I am very conscious that I have large gaps in my knowledge, and that crucially I am not qualified to critique the work of science.
In order to have a real understanding I’d need to pursue a Bachelor of Science and post-graduate degrees to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science.
Selected notes from his research:
My own experiment: Jo Nova’s blog
I entered these boards to see how readily the denier community centered around this board potentially exhibited the Dunning-Kruger effect.
…
These people are not stupid, they’re curious
The first poster accepts the papers are talking about CO2 concentrations and temperature rises: they simply reject the papers conclusions. The second poster does not think contain any evidence, and easily dismisses them.
Do I regard these individuals as “stupid”, “imcompetant” or “completely unskilled”? No, not at all! Actually, I did not expect them to be any of those thingsl. The heart of the matter is this: too many people think they are qualified in areas they are not.
I came away with the conclusion that many members of this community are articulate, engaged with the debate and intellectually curious.However, like me they lack a full understanding of the science.
Conclusions
At heart many “deniers” claim to be curious individuals. I think there is some truth to that.
Helping them understand just how fiendishly complicated the science that supports climate change actually is may engender more respect for the work scientist do. I also think those in the denier community might enjoy the oppurtunity [sic].
Perhaps we should be less concerned with bombarding the deniers with the results of research, but engaging them with how the science works. I actually think many of them would be fascinated.
Otherwise many of these individuals are left to the mercy of the peddlers of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.
As Dunning-Kruger suggests:
…If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill
Perhaps scientists should be reaching out to the denier community and giving them an intimate insight into the scientific method and how they arrive at their conclusions.
The full post is really something. I answered it at comment #100 on my thread.
Let’s give the man a point for honesty, and a smile for giving it his best. But enough is enough. WatchingTheDeniers is “like Deltoid” but without the science, which is really saying something. One of his main points of “research” is the trashy ad hom. He was one of the the ringleaders of the compulsive namecallers I wrote about. He, bless him, thinks it helps the planet to clutter the climate science debate with discussions about conspiracy theorists, and anti-Semitic deniers, as if they could affect the climate, or have anything to do with atmospheric evidence.
The name-calling attacks are so bad they would probably qualify as naked defamation. He and others on the web strung them by tenuous inference from the vapor. One technique used on WatchingtheDeniers goes like this: take a quote out of context, then mix it with quotes made by other people, then speculate about the connection, saying this “is similar too” that. If someone uses a two-word phrase which some anti-Semites also use, that is “evidence” the first user is also an anti-Semite. Read between the lines! It’s guilt by association of the most vacuous kind.
I expect he thinks that what he does is research rather than just advanced name-calling. Will Lewandowsky be helping his “research” out with any of the $2 million in taxpayer funds he has received? (See here and here for grant details.) I suppose, for even asking that, it will be more fodder for the “conspiracy ideation” machine. But that kind of science is ideatic, if you know what I mean… 😉
As for Recursive fury, (the paper of the moment) Mike’s past research and qualifications are irrelevant of course. The paper stands or falls on its own reasoning and I’ll have more to say about that very soon.
——–
Obviously Mike is welcome to discuss and defend his views on this thread, though moderation may be slow today.
So the “Recursive Fury” article fails to disclose that a blog it cites as evidence (watchingthedeniers) is in fact the work of its fourth author…
See also the passage on how John Cook and Michael Hubble-Marriott (or is that Marriott-Hubble?) were assigned certain data gathering and analysis chores; hence, Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer are not in any conflict-of-interest situation regarding the analysis of criticisms of their article “NASA Faked the Moon Landing.”
You can’t make this stuff up…
261
I reckon Mike Hubble-Bubble-Marriott probably still thinks the planet is warming. The temps hasnt been rising for 20 years now!!! when are they going to realise!!!
82
Oh, but they did ! 🙂
310
Or their pet Chimp did. 🙂
110
Let’s leave the chimp outta this, he’s got integrity.
Pointman
60
Or at least the Chimp has a good excuse.
Anyway, I bow to your superior grasp of the situation and admit that the Chimp would have done a better job of it. 🙂
30
I think we’ll all enjoy that.
70
“Recursive Fury,” page 31:
Our decision not to address the validity of any of the hypotheses also helps allay one
important remaining issue: Two of the present authors also contributed to LOG12, and
the present analysis may therefore be biased by a potential conflict of interest. This
possibility cannot be ruled out, although a balanced evaluation would note that the
present article arguably goes against the interests of those two authors, because it placed
several criticisms of LOG12 into the peer-reviewed literature that previously had been
limited to internet blogs. Given the well-known resistance of information to subsequent
correction (e.g., Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer, & Morales, 2005; Lewandowsky, Ecker,
et al., 2012), the present article could therefore equally be taken to run counter to the
interests of the LOG12 authors. In addition, because data collection (via internet search)
was conducted by two authors [i.e., Cook and Marriott-Hubble] who were not involved in analysis or report of LOG12, the
resulting “raw” data — available in the online supplementary material —cannot reflect a
conflict of interest involving the LOG12 authors. Moreover, the availability of these raw
data enables other scholars to bring an alternative viewpoint to bear during any
reanalyses.
Like I said, you can’t make this stuff up…
190
Huh?
70
Sounds like the output of a POMO generator(look it up)
80
Hi Junk,
Whatever all of that means; I’m sure it is very real and relevant.
IN THEIR OWN MINDS.
But obviously not anywhere in the real world.
KK 🙂
90
its the next leaked ippc report!!!
20
KK and Junk,
Just in case anyone harbours any delusions that psychology is anything but confirmation bias and projection writ large, a pseudoscientific foray into reinforcing one’s own belief system – In Lewandowsky’s various threads on Jo’s site, it is plain that he asserts that he believes skeptics, aka “deniers’, suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance. This causes us to fail to acknowledge (ie. be in “denial” of) the reality of Climate Change because we supposedly refuse to accept that our actions are destroying or at the least imperiling the planet. Such cognitive dissonance causes skeptics, he alleges (if I interpret him correctly), to manufacture conspiracy theories to supplant our responsibility for a “real” global catastrophe with fictitious conspiracies of “dark forces” which are responsible for such crimes as the Kennedy Assassination.
I subsequently viewed a glossy video on The Age website which showed a series of eminent and highly qualified psychologists who argued categorically, with the full confidence of science at their command, that those who did not believe that that the US government was somehow complicit in or had foreknowledge of 9/11 (Ironically, one of Lewandowsky’s own conspiracy theories ascribed falsely to skeptics- Please note: I am not casting judgment or entering into debate about the merits or lack thereof of this particular conspiracy, as it is completely beside the point- so don’t go there!), were also suffering from, you guessed it, “severe cognitive dissonance” because they cannot cope with the idea that the government they have invested their faith in could be (allegedly) so deceptive. They then launched into a series of theoretical justifications for their theory, using current cognitive scientific research, to explain the level of denial in the community countering their beliefs.
So, there you have it- if you believe in conspiracy theories you obviously suffer from cognitive dissonance, and if you don’t believe in conspiracy theories you also obviously suffer from ……cognitive dissonance -QED! The “science” apparently tells you so, just ask the experts.
What a crock of self-justifying, onanistic claptrap this bunch of muppets dish up in the name of science.
50
Hi Winston,
Does Cognitive Dissonance have an entry in DSM4 or current equivalent?
Lew and Co are fringe dwellers in the field of psychology [snip]
KK 🙂
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/lewandowsky-dismisses-bloggers-but-they-are-his-research-team-who-is-mike-hubble-marriott/#comment-1237666
20
THIS psychology is confirmation bias and projection (Winston using psychology terms to dismiss psychology is interesting). Not all psychology is. There are areas that can involve double-blind testing with p coefficients calculated. Please do not make the assumption that one bad psychologist proves an entire field is in error. That makes you no better than he.
30
Fervent and fuzzy. But I’m sure that it looks impressive to the Public Servants that write the grant cheques.
60
It seems to me that many of the comments on Jo’s website have more than a passing familiarity with science.
Unlike some in the CAGW community, we recognize our limitations. I’ve always sought to expand my knowledge and understanding when I find a deficiency.
Which is why I am decidedly not a believer in CAGW. If it had any evidence…
My regards to all,
Mark H.
270
Perhaps he should be added to the IPCCs vaunted 2000 list? He would fit right in with the other climate “experts.” You know, the lawyers, NGOs, etc.?
I was recently commenting on an article posted on the website of the Salt Lake Tribune. The article was about turning the left’s climate crusade into a civil rights issue. The replies I received were stunningly ignorant and oh so typical of the far left. “The science is settled” was the main cry. Most of the replies were laced with ad hominems followed by an argument by dismissal.
What was most amazing is how “unscientific” their replies were. I quoted peer reviewed papers and they linked to propaganda sites. When asked to state why the papers I cited were wrong all I received in reply was the old argumentum ad populum or bandwagon response.
Hubble-Marriott reminds me of them, just knowledgable enough to be dangerous!
Maybe Gore will make him an arch deacon?
440
Could Mike Hubble-Marriott also be Mike at uknowispeaksense?
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/about/
That Mike describes himself as “I’m a research scientist working in an ecology based discipline and part-time university lecturer.”
The only reason I know of Mike from uknowispeaksense is that he doesn’t like people who can find climate-related data on the internet, who can plot the data on a time-series graph and who can then interpret the graphs. He calls those people “Google Galileos and Excel Experts”.
In other words, he doesn’t like people like you and me.
280
Steady on Bob, they’ll be calling you a conspiracy theorist… 🙂
I very much doubt they are the same person.
110
“Ah, Murphy’s Law t’was not written by Murphy!”
“It t’were written by another fella with the same name.”
[Attrib. Spike Milligan]
171
Oh, abnother Phil Jones 😉
30
to “b” or not to “b”.. that is the question 🙂
one day I will learn to hit the right notes on the keyboard ! Until then… whatever !!
50
Bob, I don’t know if Hubble-Marriott is also Mike at uknowispeaksense, but he could be related to Australia’s Sam Kekovich,“YOUKNOWITMAKESSENSE”. 😉
[Ha ha. Yes I get the joke. Bob. 😉 – Jo]
00
“..he doesn’t like people who can find climate-related data on the internet, who can plot the data on a time-series graph and who can then interpret the graphs.”
Makes me wonder where he’s expecting them to find the data. Take their own measurements, or just make it up?
80
Dave,
I have always found that made-up data is much easier. You have more control over the error bars that way.
130
I’m trying to this right now, but I’m a bit stumped.
If I make up a temperature series around 10 to 40 degrees, I believe my numbers will represent a pretty good approximation, but where to put the error bars? 100%
If I write down that the temperature is 10 degrees with an error of plus/minus 100%, and then was the temperature limits 0-20 degrees, or do I have a 200% margin of error, or perhaps zero% error.
Personally, I believe it to be accurate to 95% confidence.
Hate to ruin a good prose with a /sarc; but these are modern times 🙂
40
Ah, but when I make up numbers, they have precisely the values I intend them to have, nothing more, and nothing less.
110
I doubt the error bars would be a percentage, of the deg C figure anyway, or you’d be damn sure when it were 0 deg. but not so about anything else.
Never trust percenges or their loose use anyway, but I know you were only joking 😉
10
Rereke Whakaaro
Are the numbers worth more if you make them work harder?
10
Ha Ha Kevin, Yes , make ’em sweat.
10
Hubble-Bubble ois actually the national data information manager at Middletons in Melbourne.
40
No Bob, Mike Marriot and I are different people. Hopefully Jo will allow me to address your assertion that I don’t like certain groups of people. I have tried to respond to some of your Excel expertise before Bob, but it seems you don’t like answering legitimate questions. I wrote about it here. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/bob-tisdale-making-comments-disappear/
As this is Jo’s blog, this has the potential to be off-topic, so you are more than welcome to visit my blog and we can discuss your work at length and you can respond to the post I just linked. I can assure you that provided you follow the rules, I won’t censor you, because I have nothing to fear.
12
With regard to the DG syndrome, I have to say that it is most definitely not limited to the less educated. You see it all the time in the scientific world, starting with Michael Mann claiming to understand statistics. In my book, MD’s are the absolute worst about this though, I am an IT professional, and I have been lectured several times by MD’s on the subject of the best way to set up Networks and computer systems.
180
A US MD is really an Australian/Bristish MBBS. Australians have proper MDs who are much more qualified than basically a US baggy arse MD.
30
MDs don’t like IT Professionals trying to work out what’s wrong with them. In fact MDs tend to think most Engineers problems stem from there analytical tendencies.
People who will insist on keep putting two an’ two together an’ coming up with the wrong answer can be quite irritating for trained professionals to deal with. I always remind myself when confronted with one, that however wrong they might be, it is that persistent determination and unshakeable belief that they will get there in the end that matters and sets them apart. That’s the sort of bloodhound doggedness that needs to be trained & encouraged.
My MD is very patient and understanding and now just plays along with my crazy notions ’bout what might be wrong with me, even if medicine doesn’t work like that.
Sorry, we’re you talking about something else ?
20
If you call your medical practitioner an MD, you would have to be want has been called from WW2, a CS.
20
Ok, I think it’s GP s we call them now, but you’ll have to help me with CS.
20
“Mike” sounds a lot like me; unqualified to do the research but well able to understand the issues, the physics and some of the math involved. Maybe I should start a blog called, Watching the Pushers. I might get famous, who knows?
Or I might get egg on my face.
110
It’s not an either/or — Arnold Schwarzenegger was famous, but got egg on his face at California State U., courtesy of a protester, in 2003.
Lewandowsky and his cronies undoubtedly have intelligence in the IQ sense, but all seem to be very low on the EQ (Emotional Quotient) scale, seeming to carry immature responses such as lack of self-awareness, tantrums, pettiness, and above all the feeling that something should be true just because they want it to be true.
There is a widely accepted theory that one of the reasons domestic dogs bark is because they have been bred to remain in a more juvenile state. The theory seems to hold for certain staff members at UWA, as well
110
Schwarzenegger is a sore subject to Californians. He’s not remembered favorably by either side of the political spectrum. Your description of Lewandowsky and his cronies is pretty much true of our dear ex governor. He was a little different in that he couldn’t quite figure out anything solid to stand for so in the end he pleased no one. Maybe others will differ with me but that’s the way I see him.
Faking their way through life seems to be all that some people can manage.
40
A little OT but what y’all think of Bolta taking on Dr Karl. Interesting that Dr Karl removes his goof from his twitter account but doesn’t explain why.
220
Maybe time for a Mosher linguistic analysis of Mr. Marriot’s fan dance of sock-puppetry? Send out an alert.
80
Don’t you know that hyphenated surnames are more authoritative? 🙂
140
And more confusing than Greek to the English speaking. When I was in college the dean of students’ last name was Livingston-Little. About half the school couldn’t get it straight that the hyphen actually meant something, including me at first.
30
The best one I ever came across was a Percival Winterbotham-Beletcher. He was, I think, a retired British Army Cavalry Officer. He was also the only person I ever met, who actually said, “don’t-yah-know”, at the end of each sentence.
30
In the Army we used to refer to those with double barrelled names for example: Major Two Fathers.
60
I recall it simply as “two-dads”. When a surname was like a first name, such as “John Peter”, we’d call the guy “no-dad”.
40
I’ve probably said too much on this thread already. But I can’t go on without saying you guys have an incredible sense of humor! 🙂
Major Two Fathers had me nearly rolling on the floor!
21
Besides, many girls have strong feelings about losing their hyphens. Let’s keep it off thread, eh?
80
Apparently now, most females are not using there maiden name in their married name block anymore.
10
Geoff,
I never dreamed of what the humble hyphen, just sitting there between two words, could inspire. Whoever said you couldn’t make this stuff up didn’t know what he was talking about. But let us by all means respect everyone’s hyphen. 😉
I’ll never mention it again.
20
It must be terribly difficult to actually carry out any research when Mike hasn’t specifically defined what a ‘climate denier’ is. He shares this problem with Lewandowsky who also skips what would be an obvious first step in researching the behaviour of these ‘deniers’.
Mike says “In order to have a real understanding I’d need to pursue a Bachelor of Science and post-graduate degrees to be able to speak authoritatively on climate science.” Yet it doesn’t seem to phase him that Lewandowsky does not have an appropriate undergraduate or postgraduate degree to speak authoritatively on climate science? Yet he does anyway.
Mike’s beloved Dunning-Kruger might suggest that many climate scientists suffer from the DK effect. Who else would ever have the audacity to say such things as “the debate is over” or “the science is settled”. Of course we are now finding regularly, peer reviewed research and empirical data which is showing how stupid it was of climate scientists to make such naive statements.
The DK effect could also be blamed for poorly trained scientists having undue confidence in their statistical ability to not notice that they have made the widely scientifically accepted Medieval Warm Period disappear, and the significance of the Little Ice Age smooth away. They also didn’t notice the poor correlation between CO2 and global average temperature, including temperature changes preceding CO2 changes, and in more recent times periods there is evidence of global temperature declines or stability while CO2 emissions continue exponential increase.
But is Mine a case of the pot calling the kettle black? He seems fairly ready to develop conspiracy theories of his own in terms of so called climate skeptics. Looking at just some examples of his own Conspiracy Theories from a 5 minute search of his Blog Site. I can’t work out whether skeptics are on Murdoch’s payroll, Big Oil’s payroll, or we are just using climate skepticism to push our fundamentalist religious views. Which is it Mike?
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/word-of-murdoch-hacking-scandals-climate-change-denial-and-rupert-murdochs-lasting-legacy/
Murdoch charged News Corporation with a missionary zeal to spread his free-market ideology. The doctrine was preached by his army of journalists and television presenters. Across the globe the likes of Andrew Bolt, Terry McCrann, Chris Mitchell and Glenn Beck spread the Word of Murdoch.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/the-socialist-haunted-world-relativity-fluoridation-and-climagte-changeas-socialist-plot/
We can point the finger at the likes of Exxon, the Koch’s and the conservative think tanks for fostering “climate change skepticism. But I think the roots of denial are much deeper than that.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/the-age-of-unreason-creationism-and-climate-change-denial-travel-hand-in-hand/
Creationism has provided the template for the denial movement, as their strategies are almost identical. Generations of Americans, Australians and people around the world have been taught to distrust science, and place their faith in fast-talking intellectual hucksters. Is it no surprise that the Herald Sun, home to Andrew Bolt, gave over two full pages to disgraced former footballer Gary Ablett to attack evolution? Isn’t any wonder that Christopher Monckton, the pompous self-styled ”Lord” speaks the language to Creationism? Are we not surprised that (now former) Family First Senator Steve Fielding not only doubts climate change, but also rejects evolutionary theory? Is there not a pattern emerging?
This was just from the half dozen posts listed under what he considers the “Best of WTD” that’s why it only took me 5 minutes. Who knows what other crackpot things he has to say on his site?
182
I go there occasionally, but I’ve yet to see any real science content.
I find he mostly posts about weather events… calling every weather event “the new normal”. He must really believe that Australia never had bushfires or floods or storms before the advent of the AGW theory.
Apart from that, he blogs about newspapers or other blogsites which publish things he doesn’t like to hear about. He complains about cherry-picked data and people giving out mis-information and things like that.
The name of his site is a bit off-putting to skeptics, but maybe that’s intentional. He does allow dissenting comments, but the name of his site probably limits the number of skeptics who would go there in the first place.
130
I refuse to go there because of the probability that someone will be tracking the traffic, collecting the IP addresses and then “studying” them.
60
Yep, you are definitely suffering from conspiracy ideation. How could you possibly think such a thing?
60
Good point, though – I don’t trust any of ’em!
20
Jaymez,
Nicely put.
At one point in my career, I had the opportunity to work with (or more correctly, for) somebody who was a true polymath.
I mentioned reading about the Dunning-Kruger effect, and my boss said, “Dunning-Kruger is often misunderstood. In reality, the more you study a subject, the more you realise how little you know about it.”
I made a quip about, “So-called experts therefore, being people who know a great deal about a tiny portion of their subject area.” He smiled, and replied, “And that is why I surround myself with ‘experts’ such as yourself.”
It’s the nicest put-down I have ever received.
170
By inference, the ultimate expert knows everything about nothing, whilst the ultimate inexpert knows nothing about everything.
120
When you reach the time in your life when you realise that you know nothing that is the time you start to learn.
40
G’day RW. I also once had the opportunity of working on a project with a gent with a couple of doctorates and other related qualifications in an engineering discipline well wide of “climate stuff”. He also maintained that Dunning-Kruger was a salutory reminder that the more one managed to learn about a subject the more an intelligent person realisesd how little they knew of it. I have kept that as my guiding light over many years in engineering to keep my feet well and truly on the ground. It is obviously an interpretation lost on Mike Whatever his Name is.
80
80
There was also a follow-up study to DK (by Heine) which indicated (a weasel word I chose specifically) that the DK effect was quite culturally biased. The survey showed asians had an anti-DK effect, usually underestimating their ability rather than overestimating. There’s an in-depth exchange between one doubting blogger and Dunning himself as to the reality of the phenomenon.
Since half the psychology papers I’ve ever heard about used American college undergrads as their cheap research subjects, I began to wonder if the Dunning-Kruger effect might be more aptly called “The Brazen American Effect”
~
Our physics teacher used to tell us learning created The Student’s Dilemma:
The more you learn, the more you know how much more there is that you don’t know, until you know everything about nothing, so why learn?
Luckily we laughed it off instead of taking it as a serious challenge to scholarship, probably because most of us were rather keen to achieve a bit more than a job at McDonalds when we left school.
I guess one doesn’t have to know everything, especially in a society that rewards specialists instead of generalists, but it can only help to know a bit more than the next guy. I would like to know if people’s social ambition plays into their “DK effect”. A kind of “fake it until you make it” approach?
00
I’m inferring that Mike H-M (or Mike M-H, whoever) hasn’t actually watched Fox News, because the network is not nearly so hard on environmentalism as he pretends.
Environmental activists frequently appear on FNC shows and are often not challenged. FNC’s biggest primetime draw, Bill O’Reilly, hates SUVs and doesn’t hesitate to vent on the subject.
Of course, merely permitting critics of the environmental movement to appear on the air must be quite shocking to Mr. M-H.
20
I can’t say anything about the others but Glenn Beck was definitely not speaking for Murdoch. They ultimately parted ways by “mutual agreement”. I think Murdoch was glad to be out from under Beck’s brand of commentary.
If you ever watched Beck and then heard his explanation to Bill O’Reilly for his (Beck’s) leaving Fox News Channel then you’ll understand why I believe Beck was an embarrassment to Murdoch. It’s too bad in a way because Beck’s predictions of future trends have been more accurate than anyone else’s. At the very least he backed up what he said with a lot of thorough research, unlike some we all know.
40
In the United States, where many believe they have a religious obligation to reject evolution, those who question doctrines of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are commonly accused of being creationists.
I didn’t realize that the same method of guilt-by-association was being employed in Australia.
30
That’ll be a first – climastrologers lecturing others about the scientific method – they wouldn’t recognise it if it bit them on the leg!
80
Presumably they’ll wave around their consensus.
10
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” —- Upton Sinclair
130
And even more difficult when he’s invested his ego in not understanding it. — Roy Hogue
30
Socialism is about finding facts or elements of your belief systems that are in harmony and casting overboard those that aren’t. Eventually if that becomes your agenda– the dialectic way of thinking–you have a socialist cosmic mind which puts aside anything that gets in the way of relationships.
30
[…] [UPDATE 3 [8 Feb, 07.30 AEST]: Jo Nova has more on Mr Hubble Marriott here. […]
10
That WTD site.. how can you argue with anyone who doesn’t understand simple thermodynamics. Tried explaining the laws and witnessed some truly atrocious understanding of basic science. They made huge efforts to believe something, by reading a 0.3C increase in the 83year daily maximum record, is a sign of impending doom. Left them to their little sandpit.
70
Not understanding thermodynamics? That would be most of the population. However it would most assuredly be the slaying the sky dragon people.
17
Undoubtedly that’s true. On the other hand I think you do understand it at least well enough to make it a mystery why you believe as you do.
20
Blogosphere response to LOG12 had nothing to do with asserted tendency to conspiracist ideation. Had they bothered to speak to anyone in good faith who objected to the paper, instead of buttressing their grotesque mental modal of ‘deniers’, I expect that ‘conspiracist ideation’ would be at the bottom of the list of their interpretations of response.
I can only speak for myself, my attitude came in two waves.
1) The paper seemed to have a predetermined intent to aggressively and thoroughly denigrate and dehumanise an entire group of people the authors did not like; consistent with the personal attitude demonstrated in the past from it’s principal author.
2) The paper turned out to be a remarkably terrible paper. Terrible ethics, terrible experimental methodology, and terrible analysis.
Today I am glad log12 exists. It is a thoroughly defused public record of anti-science, contempt and denigration. An example of modern Phrenology. A nasty, ugly piece of work and shows that people who extol and advocate lofty virtues and goals can sometimes fail utterly to measure up to their own expectations.
The new paper is just more grist for the mill. It’s goal again is 1) above, but it’s obtuse Sokal-esque apologetics of a thoroughly busted log12 mean it is dead on arrival.
Looks like Jo has run pretty hard at this Mike Hubble-Marriott bloke. Almost feel sorry for him. But then again he names his blog ‘watchingthedeniers’ ( which when I first encountered the blog found it to be excessively provocative and aggressive) and made it his personal hobby to thoroughly and without restraint denigrate and dehumanise a whole group of people. So he probably deserves to be thoroughly outed with a taste of his own medicine.
270
CAGW is a fiction, “deniers” are those who refuse to seek and acknowledge the truth.
Jo Nova seeks the truth – alarmist deniers – they’ll never love you Jo.
Mike, is in denial, that much is evident but his wrong headed purblind adherence causes more than just consternation and wasted time.
These plastic know-alls, dress up their banal claptrap, by calling it a scientific analysis, wouldn’t recognize cogent scientific analysis if it hit them on the head.
Quasi jargon be-splattered papers, quoting such gems as “Conspiracist ideation” are deliberately so worded to confuse and lead on. So that, the reader is given to the idea that the author is in possession of some specialist insight and is of [self bestowed] medium intellect.
Mike, is just another useful drone but nevertheless – these loons are dangerous because of what they believe in.
Like Moonbat’s little helpers, or a zealot in 10:10 – part of common purpose, a fabian ‘long road’ movement which riddles the UK government and NHS [see how that is working out in Britain – it kills patients].
Here, in the northern hemisphere the green agenda is already killing vulnerable people who simply cannot afford to heat their homes – increased energy prices are part of the green deal in Britain.
Useful weevils, playing with a subject, feigning knowledge and always backing the wrong horse, in this case Lewandowsky – it’s certainly not funny imho.
170
They are basically facades of knowledge.
They are people with basically zero understanding of real science, or maths, getting involved and loud-mouthing themselves in a field they know nothing about.
They are “wannabe”, ego tripping, non-entities, and if it weren’t for the issue that somehow they get themselves and their moronically loony ideas in the public eye, would be irrelevant.
110
Oh my. We live in alternate realities don’t we.
35
Another time I can agree wholeheartedly with you, John. 🙂
40
Yes, you do. Fool !
00
O/T but this is a good post from the Bolter.
Climate change dummies seem to be thick on the ground at the ABC science depts. We’ve all heard about “Robyn 100 metres Williams”, but now we have Dr Karl exaggerating a warming trend six fold.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_question_for_dr_karl_the_warmist/
When he’s found out making a fool of himself he just removes the tweets and refuses to apologise and hopes it will all go away.
What a farce and what a dummy.
121
“Watching the Deniers” is a despicable little hate site run by a hateful man.
Last year I read an article which sought to categorize David Evans, Jo and “the deniers” as a anti-semites based on David’s discussion of the banking system.
As a jew myself, I can tell you that there was not even a suggestion of anti-semetism.
I contacted Jo privately and she ran a post about it, highlighting the extremely aggressive ad hom tactics and complete abuse of logic and reason displayed on “Watching the Deniers”.
Jo, can you provide a link to that post?
I’m surprised Lewandowsky would tarnish his own reputation by co-authoring a paper connected to this hate site.
200
There were others as well as WTD using the tactic of “guilt by association of the most vacuous kind”. It’s a very old trick. The post you are thinking of was the one linked in the post above, Compulsive Namecallers.
They were accusing The Galileo Movement as being anti-Semitic as well. You can see how noxious this smear form of analysis becomes when you look at the Galileo movement statement on it which tells us about the two founding directors: “John’s wife who is a Holocaust survivor and Case’s mother, most of whose family were murdered for being Jewish.”
200
Hi Jo,
I may be talking through my hat, but this grated upon my inner ear, “… and Case’s mother, most of whose family were murdered for being Jewish.”
Shouldn’t the author have used the objective case, whom’s? So it follows that it should be indicated the quoted text was as written, i.e. “[sic]”.
I realize you’re a writer by profession, whereas I’m a grammar idiot, having learned little since Mrs. Stokes’s 7th grade English class, oh, 55 years ago. Give me guidance.
One other thing, can you add <sup> and <sub> tags to the list of allowed html?
I apologize for going off topic.
cheers,
gary
11
I’m no grammar genius, yes, probably a [sic] required. Life is short. 🙂
Sup and sub tags added. Good idea.
Thanks, Jo
60
Ah, thank you. As often as CO2 is discussed, this will help to the Nth degree. Hmm neither worked. Checking source shows both tags have been dropped.
———-
Darn. I’ve added the tags back in. Can others try to see if they work? – Jo
20
3rd CO2
Did not work in preview. Maybe in real? It shor looks purty when it does.
00
Great! Now I can drink some CH3CH2OH while I’m dating 14C !
Based on gary’s comment above, even though this does not work in preview it may work once posted.
00
That is a negative on the sups and subs. They are being filtered out.
00
Sometimes things get filtered out, but others have managed to post them. I’m trying to work out the secret code. I wondered if people are registered with the site whether that helps. I’ve wondered if I can set up a system where I can permit some regular commentators to use more code. I would prefer it. the Sup and Sub like small images, help improve readability.
00
Jo,
After our recent email exchange I think I should publicly say thank you for having the courage to stand up to these bullies. It’s tragic that you have to walk on eggshells all the time while liars and cheaters get a free ride.
Thank you Joanne Nova!
Roy
40
What is his reputation? How shiny is it that it could be tarnished by association?
110
One look at Lewandowski’s recent work should be enough to tell you he doesn’t worry about his reputation or credibility.
The man could be eligiable for sainthood, so obviously unafraid he is of tarnishing his name in the cause of protecting the planet from deniers, big oil and human beings in general.
10
What is he is talking about? What utterly flawed self-evident claptrap.
80
Yeah, but nah. It is complicated. It is hard to understand. You, me and the vast majority of climate blog readers don’t know enough to understand it properly.
But don’t let that stop you deciding which side you are on 🙂
19
John Brookes
The warmers original belief was that CO2 formed a blanket around the globe reflecting heat back to earth. Nothing fiendishly complicated there. That belief has been demolished and it doesn’t take much nous to understand why. But forget about that,just carry on and make the arguement complicated by continually changing it.
50
Yes, the underlying idea is simple. But to model it accurately is difficult. And to convince “skeptics” the models will have to improve some more.
17
Yes John, it’s complicated. So sayeth Al the Goracle. So go thou forth and believeth confidently in Saint Al the anointed one.
But in reality it excuseth away their inability to geteth anything right.
So sayeth all charlatans wishing to pulleth the wool over thine eyes. It exceedeth the comprehension of thy mortal mind. But we delivereth a savior who leadeth thee to the promised land; a land far away over the rainbow and down the green brick road.
And I get sick every time I hear it or read it.
60
No, its very very simple. We look at the climate records and can see its happily chugging along as it always has, no catastrophic warming happening whatsoever, regardless of CO2. What else do we need to know John?
50
In the Kingdom Of Fairies where Gaia is the God Mother,it is the duty of the self important, pompous, science fiction mercenaries to exercise their contrary imaginations to stretch and change natures fixed laws and truths and to put the fear of Gaia into everybody.
The Media then repeats and repeats the message until to the credulous it becomes anti-social-istic and unpatriotic for one to not believe in change and its new truths. But the message is repeated ad nauseam to others.
The truth has been stretched to the point where it has become incredible.
20
Well, we do need to know why it keeps getting warmer, and what is likely to happen in the future.
06
The climate gets warmer and colder because that’s how the climate is John. We could be slipping into a colder period. What then?
30
JB the way I see it is that the world has been warming since ca.1690 at the end of the Maunder minimum. The rate of warming in the 20th century is no higher than it was in the previous centuries. The IPCC says mankind could not have affected the climate before 1990. Why is the latter part of this trend anthopogenic yet the former part natural? When did natural quit and anthopogenic take over? why are temperature records broken at the end of a long period of warming?
Let’s up the ante:
Prove CO2 did it (60 marks)
30
Another wonderful irony is Jo’s post where this all happened. It is about Robyn Williams of the ABC moaning 3 years ago that sceptics distrust the IPCC’s pronouncements of imminent doom.
And today we have Mr Williams’ colleague at the ABC Dr Karl Kruszelnicki saying that the world has warmed by 0.3 C in the last 16 years and sceptics are wrong to say temperature has been flat.
It is very easy to now check such statements. No, the world has not warmed 0.3 C in that time, nor has it warmed at all in the satellite temperature data.
So Dr Karl misrepresented the truth. Or he is so incompetent that he never thought to look at this most fundamental and easily examined data. Which I can’t believe since he is a trained scientist. Maybe he is fooling himself. But either way, why should we believe anything he says?
Perhaps Prof Lewandowsky and Mr Hubble-Marriott could consider this philosphical question – should we believe climate reporters who are at very least incompetent?
210
This is interesting. If you get HADCRUT4 global temps for 1996 – 2012 (the last 16 years), and do a linear fit, you get an increase of 0.17C for that period. So you are right, Dr Karl has exaggerated a bit.
But of course, he could do worse and say that there was no warming in the last 16 years. And quite a lot of people do that, and no one here ever criticises them.
Strangely enough, when I look at the confidence interval for the warming for this period, I get the range 0.109 to 0.233C. And this does not include zero? This is puzzling, because I’m led to believe that a slope of zero (i.e. no warming) is included. Am I using the wrong period or what?
16
I have a question for you John. On a planet with at least several hundred million years of climate conditions similar to today’s and where we know there were large changes; Greenland was once farmed, the Great Lakes were dug by glaciers no longer there; just what difference does a temperature change measured over 16 years really make to anything?
I’m not even considering the question of whether CO2 is causing anything. I simply look at the bigger picture and I wonder what difference it makes to quibble about one drop of water more or less in a bucketful. Can you help me understand why this is so important? I do not get it.
40
Good to see you agree with me on something Roy. 16 years is too short a time period to take seriously.
22
Ok. So what is your point with post #22.1?
20
John. It is well established that the planet is warming, its a natural cycle. When we look at figures such as you give, they are statistically insignificant (zero) when trying to prove AGW. Get it now?
31
Backslider, can you give me some link to a scientist saying that the current warming is a natural cycle?
14
Here is a page with a nice graph that even you can understand. The site is maintained by a climatologist and a meteorologist: http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
20
Actually JB, that’s not how science works. The NULL hypothesis is that there is no anthopogenic signature in the temperature. Sceptics don’t have to do a damn thing. We cannot prove a negative. Those making the extraordinary claims have to provide at least a modicum of evidence.
20
Oh no! Don’t challenge John to produce evidence. His brain goes into retreat at the mere suggestion of evidence.
10
John,
One can accurately argue that zero increase and a 0.17 degree increase are not the same. Just as one can point out that Dr karl was off by almost 100%. The average lay person may easily think that a 1/100th of a degree of warming a year is too small to even count. They also can as easily think that anyone reports a number twice as big as what it really is most likely doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
(Or has reason to be that inaccurate.)
30
John – I linked to the satellite data by RSS for a reason. Satellites are less prone to the airport effect, where thermometers magically migrate to them as a way of saving money (since airlines pay for the data collection already, whereas governments don’t like spending money on unsexy meteorologists). Funny how airports also always have so much asphalt around them, and such an amazing number of hot jet aircraft exhausts. And how even more flights keep on being squeezed into airports. HadCRUT has this problem because that dataset is an aggregation of terrestrial thermometers.
HadCRUT is not too bad, but I detect a significant bias over more pristine datasets such as the CET (Hadley dares not monkey with the CET because of the historical veracity of it – too easy to get caught playing with a single consistent dataset).
I find it interesting that HadCRUT 4 has warmed the world significantly compared with HadCRUT 3. Why? But yet the UK Met Office’s models say that temperature is not expected to rise in the next 4 years. And was flat across the last 16 years in their own data. Why have they not gone the next step and said what that means to their GCM derived sensitivity values?
John – The data shows that CAGW is not happening and cannot happen, not with a net effective 2XCO2 well under 1 C. Even Hadley and UEA are now reluctantly taking this on board (hence their revised temperature prediction). If you and the left of politics continue ignoring this science you’ll just discredit yourselves. Why lose everything for the sake of one unwinnable fight?
30
Thats my problem Bruce. I want to confirm for myself that the warming for the last 16 years has a range that includes zero, and I’m obviously doing it wrong, because that is not what I get. I could use satellite data, but that is not the data that has been used for this zero warming result. HadCrut3 shows lower warming than HadCrut4, because (as I understand it), HadCrut3 did not include polar regions, while HadCrut4 does. So HadCrut4 is a better measure of *global* warming.
So my plea is for someone out there to tell me how to show that the warming for 1996 – 2012 has a linear trend with a confidence interval that includes zero. Just point me to the source of the data I should be using, and I’ll do the rest.
38
Don’t give me thumbs down! Tell me what I’m doing wrong!!
37
Anyway Bruce, I downloaded the RSS lower troposphere data, and get a trend temperature increase of 0.075C for the last 16 years. But the confidence interval is {-0.0116341, 0.161762}. So the confidence interval does (just) include zero. So if you use RSS lower troposphere temperatures, you can say that the warming of the past 16 years is not statistically significant.
24
OK, I’ve found my error. On Wood for Trees, when I asked for data 1996 – 2012 it only gave me data to the start of 2012. So by changing the end date to 2013, that part was fixed.
But the lower bound of the confidence interval for the trend was still above zero. So I had a look at the data and discovered that starting from the beginning of 1996 included a year and a half of cold temperatures. It got really warm in October 1997. So I chose that month for the start date. That only gives 15.25 years, but that is close enough to 16 for me not to worry.
Anyway, once you carefully choose your start date, the warming trend over the period has a range from -0.01C to 0.12C. So while the trend increase is 0.05C, the confidence interval includes zero, so it *could* have been cooling from October 1997 to December 2012.
So could we have the 16 years without warming stated as nearly 16 years in which it could have not warmed?
10
I don’t believe my eyes. John Brookes actually did some work to make his point and then published it right here.
I think that’s a first. 🙂
20
John – Good work. Where you seem to be different is you are using an expressed interval from 1996. Which is 17 years not 16. (I can’t tell exactly what you’ve done without a link, which you haven’t provided).
And yes you will see a rising trend if you start at the beginning of 1996. You will see no trend in RSS if you start in 1997 (January). That is the 16 years we have been referring to (ie 16 years 1 month now).
Of course if you start in 1998 you will see a falling trend, because of the 1998 el Nino.
And if you start in 2002 you will also see a falling trend.
In all of these we are interpreting data. It is possible to argue about statistically significant rising or falling trends, but in a noisy dataset it is difficult to interpret them. Which is why the climate fraternity gets paid the big bucks.
But as a guy who has crunched data statistically for many years it is clear to me that the current temperature trend does not fit the high sensitivity model. Nor can I think of any reason why some other climatic event would provide the necessary correction to account for the discrepancy.
But the low sensitivity hypothesis fits the data very well indeed, comprising solar magnetic indirect, and oceanic oscillations, plus the value around 0.6 or 0.7 C for 2XCO2 that you get from the CERES and ERBE data. It all fits very well as I found in my own analysis of the temperature record.
We are seeing increasing numbers of papers filling in the details why the low sensitivity hypothesis works, especially the dynamics of clouds. And as I said the proponents of the high sensitivity hypothesis like Hadley Centre and UEA CRU are starting to be forced into taking these climatic data into account – hence the Met Office model is now employing a more accurate estimate of the PDO/AMO and funnily enough their model now suggests flat temperature for the next 4 years.
They are not home yet, but it is encouraging that they are doing this. And as I said the left here in Australia should take careful note and walk back their commitment to CAGW alarmism. Read the political tea leaves! Indeed Jo’s latest post reports an ALP guy doing this in your own state. Good! Maybe we can get the science back onto the scientific road, and away from Lysenkoist wishful thinking activism.
40
UAH says ‘significant’ from ’93 and ‘not significant’ from ’94. Statistics so confusing! 😉
01
What is most worrying about Recursive Fury is this, which is stuck in the article:
a list of their “homes” and by association the full endorsement of the article.
”
1 Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
2 Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia
3 Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
4 Climate Realities Research, Australia ”
These “centres of higher learning” apparently have no quality control or operational code of ethics for academics.
How can these Institutions give their names and support to this low life activity which has only one object:
the denigration of those who would demand Ethical behaviour of academics in the employ of the Australian
people.
KK
This issue is not related to “Academic Freedom”; it is about a false scam piggybacking on the former good reputation of the discipline of Psychology.
130
Psychology is a profession and not a science it is a pathology of the mind , this Loo person seems to have a deeply disturbed mind. His psychologic approach to others with a different opinion shows he is far from professional, and disturbed it would seem that the brain washing of his youth in academia has destroyed his logical thought processes.
This does happen to some and the sad part is the government of the left fund them to cause uncertainty and mayhem in the minds of the impressionable. It is getting close to time to make them bite their own bum.
50
Hi Wayne
If what Lewandowsky was doing was actually Psychology you would be correct.
Unfortunately what he is doing is NOT in any way shape or form Psychology, but a bastardized concoction of Pseudo Science in the fashion of Global Warming.
Psychology does not interest itself with opinionated thought content and is primarily concerned with modes of function associated with our daily activities.
Psychology Departments of Universities would all breathe a big sigh of relief when people like Lewandowsky go to their correct location; maybe a faculty of Social Science or perhaps Philosophy or Political Economy but it is not Psychology.
The fact that it is allowed to pass itself off as Psychology is a sad reflection on the tainted state of politics and education in Australia today.
Looking at the mess of a paper that he presented in 2012 strongly suggests that he would not be capable of passing psychology subjects at Newcastle Uni.
He is a politician in a Psychology Department; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a banana in a sausage skin; but he is not a Psychologist.
Or he shouldn’t be.
KK 🙂
60
What about a Psychotic?
10
Hi Len
“What about a Psychotic?”
This area of Psychology is called Abnormal Psychology and describing the specific condition you mention, “psychosis” needs an understanding of how the brain works.
Most of us experience a broad range of things during any normal day.
Our brains experience through sight, hearing, smell and touch and “learn and remember what we have experienced so that we respond to most of life more or less on automatic pilot using past “learning” as a guide.
If we focus too much on one area of experience, the memories and learning we store away will reflect that and our lives start to spiral in to a very restricted set of thoughts that excludes 90% of regular life. This drives us mad because we have excluded reality.
Defining and recognising Abnormal states is not easy and the system of classification is not perfect but it does help in working with people who are running on “overload” in their lives.
But I don’t think you were asking that, I was just having my morning mental exercise to write something.
Maybe he is, since he has obviously restricted intake of info about AGW to a set if sources that exclude Mainstream Science; then the pot gets stirred with mutual reinforcement about the reality and dangers of “Climate” and we might just have a winner, who qualifies under DSM4 or whatever it is now as the holder of the title.
Sometimes I think I spend too much time here obsessing about the lack of balance displayed by “Warmers”.
What does that make me?
KK 🙂
20
One could say that Lewindopey et al have dropped another log, and its the same colour and smell of the first one.
Flush it before it matures. !
80
Thanks but no thanks.
All one needs in order to understand the failings of “the science that supports climate change” is the ability read a simple graph of time series data.
120
What is the ‘climate change’ he refers to? Is he using code for CAGW, or is he referring to the axiomatic climate change of eons? Perhaps he is merely being disingenuous and implying any putative anthropogenic influence on any aspect of climate and the environment?
Or is it all quite literally so ‘fiendishly complicated’ that not only does he not ‘get it’ himself but he feels the need to bolster the authority that argues from authority?
So help me, where and from whom do these people get their funding and how on earth do they keep their jobs?
120
He’d be referring to the rather rapid climate change of the last 40 odd years. The bit we are causing.
013
“The bit that we are causing” is a close to zero as makes no nevermind, although it is probably measurably > 0 by a bit… which truly makes it a bit player in the overall climate.
51
John Brookes
Can you give any evidence supporting your claim?
10
You beat me to it.
10
Yes JB, but the IPCC says that we could not have had any affect on the climate before 1990. Are they talking baloney? Whence the 40 years?
00
LOO LOGIC
Hey, I just love this stuff.
Will Lew out himself as the new “Alan Sokal”?
His next paper:
“Transgressing the Boundaries of Bunkum:Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Conspiracist Debiasing”?
Alice
170
It will be more lewpaper like this one.
60
Beautiful pun, that!
20
I may have missed it, but Jeff at the Air Vent had this to say:
cheers,
gary
20
Oops!
s/b I may have missed it here
gt
00
Hurry up and comment, Mike. You know how us rednecks love us some patronisin’ by folks with hyphenated names.
And do not forget to say IDEATION. It’s the babble word of the decade.
Oh, don’t forget the Kahneman quote. Patronising skeptics without a Kahneman reference is like bringing a butter-knife to a gunfight. Studies have shown that just the words “As Kahneman says” can induce a trance-like state in hipster intellectuals whereby no further thought or understanding is required. (Me et al. 2013.)
80
Don’t forget to say the science of Ideation is Ideatic... – Jo
120
Is the science of Ideation settled?
120
Stop this before I die from laughing! 🙂
20
WE have virtually no time left.
Ideation has already reached critical mass and any further disturbance could lead to a catastrophic Meltdown unless it is contained.
It is one minute to midnight.
We could be left in the dark, holding the baby.
Which we must be sure not to throw out with the bathwater.
We need to divert every resource possible to determine the answers to the above before it is too late.
Just what is Ideation? Is it Ideatic or just Idiotic?
Is it harmful or can it be inhaled with other atmospheric gases like the suspect Argon and Xenon?
A full and thorough study can give the answers but this can only be started if everybody pulls together to support the Intensive Ideation Analysis Study.
Only when this study is completed can we begin to feel safe again.
KK 🙂
40
Some of you might know that I spent most of my career in mining and exploration. We grew a very successful company or more, but over time I had to shift my workload from scientific to administrative, because more and more people and bodies from outside the industry were making comments about mining from the position of onlookers. The main groups were, not unexpectedly, firstly finance journalists, then general media, then then TV in general, then TV current affairs. I was in a 1984 “Four Corners” extravaganza, with K.O’B., whose prior knowledge of the topic was miniscule, as shown by his questions. Developing alongside were unusual University courses like media studies; topics fit for Technical Colleges became incorporated into universities. Soon we had unsolicited University studies into mining. Then came the pre-conditioned economists, what a batch of whacky baccies! Economic analysis done properly is absolutely essential to mining, but speculation about what it would do to employment rates in Turkmenistan was less relevant, though reported. The NGOs like Greenpeace, FOE, ACF, Sierra Club, all decided that mining was to be demonised to one degree or another. And so an and so on. Now we have the blog, with its often gratuitous articles on teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Naturally, there was no development of political commentary in this scenario either \sarc.
It started to look like all and sundry knew more about mining than the miners themselves, especially people with a background in soft topics like art, poetry, human compassion, intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle and other weak stuff like a cup of tea made from used tea leaves.
The unwanted intrusion of psychology into the industry is really the last straw. Can you think of a way of life more remote from the hard actuality of mining than psychology? If you can, do tell. You might also ponder if the start point of the psychological analysis is a discernible hatred for the mining industry.
[SNIP]
120
When you look at the study material University students are given there is obviously an agenda. Who controls the agenda and what is their planned outcome?
20
U. N. WATCH THE WOMEN’S INTERNATIONAL MEDIA GROUP, INC.
http://www.womensgroup.org/998NEWLT.html
“Helping you to connect the Global to the Local”
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC IS TRANSFORMING THE WORLD TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER
“The Hegelian Dialectic is being used and is part of the Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education.”
Problem Reaction Solution.
20
That is so well put Geoff, inspired writing from the heart
These last two paragraphs could have been mining’s epitaph, if it weren’t so good at making real wealth.
Talking sense to ideation 🙂
30
“Climate Realities Research”
I can’t think of a more idiotic and meaningless name.
It just screams propoganda doesn’t it?
What about
“Climate Illusions Research”?
120
I actually LOVE the name “climate realities research”. The very name itself implies that there is more than one reality, which demonstrates just exactly how scientific the person(s) who came up with that claptrap truly are.
40
Yeah, just like ‘Real ‘ Climat e an all.
Beware those who speak and profess more about truth than truth itself.
30
Clearly its something he just made up. It doesn’t actually exist in any shape or form as far as I can find.
As for the man himself, from his blog:
Ok, so he is a clerk. Don’t you just love the way people glorify themselves?
Why is his name tacked onto this supposedly scientific paper?
20
I guess someone has to check out the authority of the sources, and who better for bolstering the author’s egos than a fawning worshiper in awe of authority.
20
Correcting the 2+2 puzzle.
There has been a lot of confusion about what 2+2 equals
Our study was started with the general thought that 2+2 equals some number between 3 and 9 .
This range is in the 95% confidence level.
The 2s in this study were found to be lacking a time constant monitoring, (henceforth the TCM) introducing slight changes in their observed value. A smoothing algorithm program was developed and applied to the suspect 2’s.
While the resulting 2+2=6 was felt to be an excellent result, it was believed a more robust answer could be achieved by subtracting the “loneliest” number from the sum.
This gives us 2+2=5.
While we have confidence our figures are accurate to within 20%, we strongly advise against using them to build bridges, airplanes, dams, roads, in space exploration (unless converted to feet) and for heavens sake NOT your taxes.
Study of preschool children. Lew N. Dowsky et al.
It couldn’t be less than 2, that’s one of the numbers we are adding, more than 9 struck us as too big.
We added 1 to the number.
Three dog night. et al.
140
Lets call a spade a spade. These people are thick. They are too insecure to test their own beliefs and motives and not smart enough to realize why that would be the most life affirming thing to do. I guess they live in a comfortable bubble and they want to keep it that way. The real problem as I’ve said before lies with our politicians and our supine media, in other words, the pillars of our democracy. They are supposed to be the gate keepers and as long as they are asleep at the helm or the match has been fixed then we are at the mercy of the Lewandowsky’s of the world. What a thoroughly disreputable twat!. Apologies mod.
70
Ceetee, you are being too harsh on the denizens of this blog!
18
Me, harsh??!!
20
Perhaps we can just call a heart a heart then? Would that be a little less harsh?
20
This actually makes sense to me.
But it won’t make sense to the Alarmists since its not linked to some other anti-human agenda
20
I think the authors ought to thank you guys for your continued participation.
21
Cymbal clash…
12
I wonder why Lewandowsky cites this Mike as co-author. Can’t he find anybody better qualified?
40
There are probably not many others as well qualified to work with Lewindopey and cartoon Cook. This guy is a perfect companion for them.
11
Compare:
❝ Question: How do people decide whether global warming is for real?
Answer: They poke their noses outside their doors or watch the weather report on television.
If they’re reminded that the weather has been unseasonably warm of late, the public tends to fret over dire consequences of global warming; if the weather has been on the cool side, the public tends to scoff at the fear mongering.
In polls on global warming, Gallup data shows a swing of almost 10% for each degree Celsius that one year differs from another.
This finding and others appear in ‘The influence of national temperature fluctuations on opinions about climate change in the U.S. since 1990,’
a University of British Columbia study published this week in Climatic Change. ❞
Public opinion won’t change as long as temperatures don’t
●
❝ This study, then, will deeply discourage the global warming elites, and leave them with ironic results.
Before governments can get the public support they need to attempt to control the weather of the future, they must first control the weather of today. Look outside — governments can’t do it. ❞
50
The last time the world,s average monthly temperatures were falling was in February 1985.Since then there have been 333 consecutive months of rising average temperatures globally states Professor Jeremy Williams of Griffith University in Brisbane. As reported by AAP in news rereleases in January 2013.With a minimum 1/10 C per month this has increased the average world temperature by 33.3C since 1985.The average world temperatures in the last 50 years according to the NASA satellites was 14C.But Jeremy who is a Professor wants us to believe that it has increased to 47.3C and we have all fried up .The Climate Commission is given money to this important research. God help us.But keep the grants going
22
You may have gotten some of your facts wrong. I’m quite sure that no one other than you said that temperatures have been increasing at 0.1C per month!
27
Look it does!
30
This ‘Mike” guy sounds like just another guy who doesn’t know the difference between being “an intellectual” and “being intelligent”.
30
Morning all.
Most of us know the difference between being smart and being wise.
Or that being unable to recognise your own stupidity does not make you a genius.
Cheers,
Speedy
50
“There is a great deal of difference between being smart and being wise.
However, there is very little difference between being a smart-ass and being a wise-ass”
— Charles H. Carlin, former professor of Organic Chemistry, Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA.
50
An ass may be just an ass, though isn’t the wise one more commonly used for after the event, as for …an expert in hindsight … for instance, whereas the smart one, the smart anything is the one that usually ends up hurting ?
20
When I was in college, many of us used to say, “The people majoring in psychology are the ones who need it the most!”. If you have met very many psychologists, I am sure that you can find a great deal of agreement with that sentiment.
80
When I was a teenager, I saw a psychologist to help me with stress. When I saw the picture of Sai Babba sitting on his desk I walked straight back out again.
40
Somehow, I don’t think this would be the Mike Marriott that was in my Engineering class decades ago.
30
In his post of February 5 announcing his coauthorship of “Recursive Fury,” Michael M-H or H-M says:
In the weeks following the publication of the original paper I was invited to participate in a study of the sceptic response. To have had the opportunity to work with people such as Stephen Lewandowsky, John Cook and Klaus Oberauer was a real privilege. My gratitude towards these individuals is enormous.
I assume he means in the weeks following the acceptance for publication of LOG12…
The comment threat following that post is dominated by some of the dopiest bigots I’ve encountered at any online site.
30
I meant to write comment thread.
But comment threat isn’t a bad way to describe it.
What with declarations to the effect that LOG12 was sucker bait and subsequent Lewandowskian publications will “harpoon” anyone who criticized it.
10
does a person defame another person by making a truthful allegation…
40
Perfectly possible, but fame is such a transitory thing. What matters is the substance (or not) of the allegation.
20
IANAL, but… In Australia a defamation claim cannot be defended simply by proving the allegation about the plaintiff was true, you also have to argue that it is in the public’s interest to know that particular truth.
So the answer in theory is “yes it can happen”, but I can’t recall any actual cases that prove it. Your jurisdiction may differ.
20
Lewandowsky, Gleick, “Mike”, Gore…… the list of AGW hypesters and hoaxers and frauds and fools is long and growing.
They all play their part and we should applaud them.
10
My response is on my blog (Watching the Watcher of Deniers) which I started after finding the Watching the Deniers site. Click on my name to get there. I’m just starting out and suggestions are welcome.
30
Meanwhile, over at Frontiers of Psychology, “Recursive Fury” has acquired another reviewer.
Prathiba Natesan is an educational statistician at North Texas University.
Dr. Natesan might have had something to contribute, reviewing Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac.
“Recursive Fury” is nearly all qualitative…
20
[…] and his practice of inferring motivations by using quotes made by other people entirely. See here, and this post on compulsive […]
00
[…] here, and this post on compulsive […]
00
[…] here, and this post on compulsive […]
00
[…] […]
00