|
|
Bloggers' Hall of Amnesia
The publication of my paper
on conspiracist ideation was met with several nearly-instant
accusations. First out of the gate was the claim that I did not contact 5
“skeptic” or “skeptic-leaning” blogs to link to the survey.
I initially did not release those names because I was concerned about the privacy issues involved, as I explained here.
Because a release of names cannot be undone—whereas a delayed release
harms no one—I decided to seek guidance from various institutions,
foremost among them my own university, before deciding whether or not to
release those names.
Shortly thereafter, the first of the 5 bloggers, Mr McIntyre, found his misplaced email.
This leaves us with 4 bloggers whose identity had to remain confidential until now.
I am pleased to report that I received advice from executives of the
University of Western Australia earlier today, that no legal or privacy
issues or matters of research ethics prevent publication of the names of
those bloggers.
So here they are:
- Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
- Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
- Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
- Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.
At this juncture one might consider a few intriguing questions:
1. When will an apology be forthcoming for the accusations
launched against me? And how many individuals should now be issuing a
public apology?
To explore the magnitude of this question we must take stock of
public statements that have been made about my research. For example, one blogger considered it “highly suspect” whether I had contacted any "skeptic" sites.
Mr McIntyre expended time to locate and then publicize the name of the person within my university
to whom complaints about my research should be addressed; time that we
now know would have been better spent searching his inbox.
Another individual surmised that "the allegations will be widened to include a clear and deliberate intention to commit academic fraud."
Finally, another individual opined that "the lack of evidence that he tried to contact skeptic blogs" warranted the inference that none had been contacted—we now know that the presumed lack of evidence was actually evidence for a measure of carelessness or shoddy record keeping among the individuals contacted.
In light of such massive, and massively false, allegations numerous apologies ought to be forthcoming.
However, the fact-free echo machines of the internet sit awkwardly
with the notion of civility and conversation of which apologies are an
integral part. I therefore doubt that any such apologies will be
forthcoming.
Instead, I predict that attention will now focus on some of the other accusations and theories.
After all, what better way to avoid learning from one’s errors than by chasing down another rabbit hole.
2. Why would the people who were contacted publically fail to acknowledge this fact?
Several hypotheses could be entertained but I prefer to settle for the simplest explanation.
It's called “human error.” It simply means the 4 bloggers couldn’t
find the email, didn’t know what to search for, or their inboxes were
corrupted by a move into another building, to name but a few
possibilities.
The only fly in the ointment in that hypothesis is that I provided search keys and exact dates and times of some correspondence.
3. Where do we go from here?
That’s easy. On to the next theory, of course.
130 Comments
1 2 3 Next
Comments 1 to 50 out of 131:
-
I have no theories. I have many questions.
Professor Lewandowsky, when will you post a topline summary wit frequencies?
I'm interested in your theory of counterbalancing. It normally refers to
having half the Likert questions order preference with highest
preference at the top of the scale and half at the bottom. You
apparently mean something different. What do you think it is?
When will we be able to view the different iterations of the survey?
When will we be able to see how many respondents filled out each version?
Why would you send invitations to bloggers to post the survey without attaching your name to it?
Why would you discuss the objectives of a survey with potential respondents while the survey was still in the field?
Why do you not attach numbers of respondents, as is customary, to your discussion of results in your paper?
Are you aware that your study essentially focuses on respondents who
failed a rare items test and whose responses would normally be excluded
from collected data? Or do you actually think that people who believe
there was more than one reason the U.S. invaded Iraq are highly likely
to believe that the U.S. faked a moon landing?
Why did you exclude 5 questions from your analysis? What were the questions and what did the data show for these questions?
-
Let the Gong Show resume!
Presumably contestants are aware this paper represents just one of many
similar investigations? The briefest search effort yields some 500
publications concerning what might be termed cognitive refraction of
climate change through various lenses; doubtless a more concerted effort
would find more papers on the topic.
Good luck batting 'em all away.
-
As I've mentioned at Climate Audit, the substantive issue with your paper is the reliance on (-Snip-) data in the survey.
This is a substantive issue that I raise without "profanity or inflammatory tone."
An answer is overdue.
Moderator Response: Please refrain from accusations of dishonesty (snipped) in this venue. This pertains to all parties.
-
Stephan, how did you guard against experimenter bias? Was
experimenter bias ever a consideration? Whilst it may be an oversight
for the skeptics to have missed the communication from your assistant
Charles Hanich and not posted the survey, it seems at least 3 of the
"pro-science" blogs did know the ostensible purpose and/or your own
involvement as these introductions indicate:
A Few Things Ill Considered
Your answers are desired as the reader of a “pro-science” blog, they are confidential and will be used for a research project.
Deltoid
Stephan Lewandowsky is conducting a survey on attitudes
towards climate science and related issues and is interested in
responses from readers of pro-science blogs.
Hot-Topic (NZ)
The Cognitive Science Lab at the University of Western
Australia has put together an internet survey to test people’s attitudes
to science. Prof Stephan Lewandowsky describes it thus: “the rationale
behind the survey is to draw linkages between attitudes to climate
science and other scientific propositions (eg HIV/AIDS) and to look at
what skepticism might mean (in terms of endorsing a variety of
propositions made in the media)”.
I would expect the blog authors knew the origin by other means than you
communicating it to them, however can I ask if you remember at the time
seeing those introductions, if it gave you second thoughts about the
likely possibility of contamination of the eventual survey results?
-
Professor Lewandowsky
You say above "First out of the gate was the claim that I did not
contact 5 “skeptic” or “skeptic-leaning” blogs to link to the survey."
The people you list have now confirmed that they received emails from
your research assistant Charles Hanich which included no reference to
your name or any inkling that the emails were anything to do with you.
You may be excused for not anticipating, at the time you asked for the
emails to be sent, that the recipients would not connect them with you -
but you cannot now castigate the recipient by claiming they were
untruthful.
"You" did not contact the sceptic blogs as you claim.
In any case, this elaborate pantomime about revealing the names of the five blogs seems to be a complete distraction.
Why don't you answer the questions you have been repeatedly asked about the methodology of the survey?
-
(-Snip-)
Moderator Response: Future instances of
accusations of dishonesty/impropriety (snipped above) will result in a
revocation of posting privileges, as all comments are now audited.
-
The substantive issue with this paper seems to be as much as
anything else the provocative title, judging from silence concerning
other work dealing with the topic of the climate science rejection
phenomenon. But I'm not the first to notice that. :-)
As a diagnostic of the depth of scrutiny applied to Prof. Lewandowsky's
paper versus what appears to outrage fueled mostly by being connected
with the "moon landing hoax," I'm amazed that nobody mentions let alone
appears exercised by literature cited by Dr. Lewandowsky in the work
being discussed here.
If there's some hope that the tsunami of scrutiny applied to a weird
social phenomenon is going to be turned back by a general beat-up on
Lewandowsky, forget it. The horse is long out of the barn; read the
references and weep.
-
The "skeptic" community of bloggers joined together when you made
the claim they had been contacted and did not reply, and each searched
extensively for contact from you.
You failed to note that it was an assistant that sent these emails
making that search more difficult. And that by all appearances, at least
some of these emails from your assistant contained no reference or
association with you - again making their search essentially impossible.
When it became apparent you did not send the email, they all searched
more broadly, including on the uwa.edu.au domain and several did find
emails from your assistant and so noted.
In like of your withholding the names of the skeptic sites you say you
contacted, the group continued to search and try to identify who might
have been recipients of your 5 emails. This was a needle in a haystack
approach, thanks to your silence on the issue.
Over the last weekend the 3rd and 4th site found evidence of your
assistants emails, and they were so noted earlier today at Steve
McIntyre's Climate Audit.
Followed shortly thereafter by your release here of the 5 sites you contacted.
(-Snip-)
If you felt input from skeptic sites users was important, and frankly - as your entire premise was regarding skeptics attitudes about science - I can not understand why you felt it not highly important to gain data
(-snip-) skeptics, then you or your staff should have made a more
concerted effort, to at least keep contacting until you made sure they
had the information on the survey. If they then had turned you down you
might have had a leg to stand on.
From what it appears we know Junk Science acknowledged receipt of your email and (-snip-) post your link. So your claim no skeptic site participated is false.
We also appear to know that Pielke Jr. has found emails that he did
receive the original email, and did correspond, but subsequently decided
not to participate.
You only submitted to 5 skeptic sites vs 8 known pro-AGW sites, all of whom posted the survey link.
We also know that pro-AGW sites were contacted it appears almost a month
before you sent emails to the skeptic sites. In fact, we know you were
already publicly discussing both the data/results, and the number of
responses (N=1100) prior to or at same time you finally sent the emails
to skeptic sites.
No professional publicly discusses survey data and results while the
survey is underway. Your public presentation shows you had received
virtually all the responses you eventually used and had already analyzed
it, and that the attempt to contact skeptic sites came at or after the
same time - by all appearances an after thought.
That you did not attempt to engage the skeptic community near the
beginning of the survey, and that you or your staff made little or no
effective effort to affirmatively insure that each of the skeptic sites (-snip-) receive your messages seems highly suspect.
Last, to your claim of "counter balancing." Counter balancing, according
to most readings, is more sophisticated - and important - than mere
randomization. Counter balancing is as I understand it, to manage
questions to balance and such order effect, where the answer to one
question may effect subsequent answers.
Randomization blindly mixes the questions, which may be some help, but does little, except by chance, regarding order effect.
You say you used 4 different survey versions with different question
order within pages. Presumably you might have addressed order effect
thru counter-balancing, but we cannot know that as you have not included
copies of each survey within the data - making any review impossible.
Even given the benefit of the doubt, that you did a wonderful job of
counter-balancing, you admit however, that you pretty much completely
negated any value by your "quasi-random" distribution of the different
versions.
Thru the "crowd sourced" research of the blogging community, and no thanks to you or your paper, we appear to know that
there was no true random distribution. The "pro-AGW" sites received 2
of the versions exclusively, and the "skeptic" sites were offered the
other 2 versions.
As you claim no skeptic sites responded, which we can largely confirm by
your public statements at the time - where you identified N=1100 on
appx same date you sent skeptic site emails, we can surmise then that
essentially all responses were from 2 of the 4 versions.
I personally think randomization and counter balance were unlikely to
have significantly skewed results here - however that is a laymans
common sense perspective. Your job as a professional is to use the
industr standards and show that order effect was or was not an issue,
and if so how you addressed it.
(-Snip-)
Regardless of what we might like, professional ethics and standards indicate a response is required.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory language, tone and all-caps usage snipped. Please conform all comments to comply with the comments policy.
-
A. Scott: +1
-
This is for Tom Fuller - if there wasn't ample evidence even on these threads in the past few days:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126152134.htm
-
Suggest redo of 08:33 AM on 11 September, 2012 comment with a meticulous approach to internal consistency.
-
Mr. Moderator (-Moderation complaints snipped-)
Moderator Response: As an FYI, compliance
with the Comments Policy of this site is non-negotiable; moderation
policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of
abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a
change of venues is in the offing.
-
All those who don't know how to run a survey - I wish they'd just
take a course or two, or even read a few books on the topic, instead of
clogging up this board with silly assertions and demanding answers to
questions.
-
I've been following the developments here with some interest. Very
curious as to how Junk Science came to post the survey, if they were not
invited to participate. They must have sourced it from somewhere else.
Presumably, any survey results originating from them were discarded?
-
An author of the paper Sou mentions (an author also cited in paper being discussed here):
"The conviction that the "official story" is untrue can lead people to
believe several alternative theories-despite contradictions among them."
That sounds eerily familiar. "It's not happening/cooling/the sun," many
features of the alternate, imaginary world that's been thrown together
to explain away mainstream research and observations.
As well, we see the emergence of several competing "theories" about the
Moon Hoax paper, some of which don't really seem compatible. Shouldn't
the proponents of these ideas fight it out among themselves and figure
out what's going to fly, before (Snip) presenting various demands ranging from completely trivial to possibly legitimate?
There's a slowly emerging consensus among deniers that simply pretending
anything's possible isn't very useful; why not apply the same standard
learned so painfully, now that the center of activity is moving from
studying physics to studying outsider beliefs?
Moderator Response: inflammatory snipped
-
Perhaps this will be more acceptable - please feel free to snip as you feel necessary:
Mr. McIntyre's question comes from his (-snip-) detailed review of the data
(-snip-). A read of his review shows it is not an ad-hominem attack,
but rather a factually supported observation based on detailed analysis
of the survey data. His conclusions and findings are well documented in
his review.
This was also first pointed out by Tom Curtis at Skeptical science - certainly not a usual critic - whose review of the data finds the same issue that the data shows a (-snip-) the survey data.
Steve McIntyre notes, as does Curtis, that the data in the paper includes these (-snip-) responses. And that when this (-snip-) data is properly excluded, there is no longer factual support for the paper's conclusions.
Additionally, a number of sites have documented open discussion of this
attempt to manipulate the survey results at several pro-AGW sites.
One "skeptic" and one "pro-AGW" reviewer have come to same conclusions
based on a detailed examination of the data. These appear to be
legitimate, well documented, fair questions.
As the paper's conclusions are being widely disseminated publicly, if in
fact there are legitimate issues with the data, asking for these issues
to be addressed by the authors seems reasonable and appropriate.
Moderator Response: The words of Mr. Curtis:
"I believe that Lewandowsky has no recourse but to rewrite, withdraw or correct if he agrees with my analysis"
Until addressed in peer-review, this claim by Mr. McIntyre is not
proven and remains assertion. Furthermore, guidance provided by
"skeptic" sites on how to concertedly manipulate future surveys is
utterly reprehensible.
-
Foxgoose @5:
1) The fact that Lewandowsky's name was not mentioned has no bearing at
all on the decisions of those blogs to not post the survey. In fact,
on the contrary, because of Professor Lewandowsky's reputation, it would
have been less likely rather than more likely that they would have
cooperated if his name had been mentioned (a sufficient reason to not
mention his name).
2) Given that the various bloggers were not just saying that they could
not find a request, but also making insinuations of fraud and
dishonesty by Prof Lewandowsky, a cursory search under his name only was
not an adequate basis for the accusation. Had they searched under UWA,
a natural secondary search term, they would have found the emails.
IMO, the desperate attempts to beat the failure of various skeptical
bloggers to know the contents of their own inbox into a case of fraud by
Lewandowsky shows the poverty of their intellectual position.
-
"Additionally, a number of sites have documented open discussion of
this attempt to manipulate the survey results at several pro-AGW
sites."
That's pretty vague, so much so as to be impossible to discern what you're trying to convey. Where's the documentation?
One other thing: by "manipulation" you mean the type Tom Curtis
mentions, namely respondents gaming the survey, right? Better be more
specific lest anybody think you mean something worse.
-
A couple of things.
It is clear emotions are running high.
It is clear that the conclusions of the paper 'insult' many people.
It is clear Dr. Lewandowsky also feels insulted.
BUT the issue that one side is upset about is the research and its methods, while
on Dr. Lewandowsky's side that people are accusing him of scamming and deceit.
So:
let the data, paper and reviewers have a go.
let the personalities involved hopefully come to terms
But me thinks:
regardless of who feels what about whom (allusion to Monty Python
intentional), it is clear that Dr. Lewandowsky has a tough 'road to
hoe' defending the papers methods and data.
Someone getting upset in this arena seems a forgone conclusion.
Dr. Lewandowsky has and continues to use 'abusive' wording: denier, yelp
etc... and does not expect a bit of emotion? Egging them on?
I suspect defending your paper trumps waiting for an apology. Followed
getting upset with a single request to explain the methodology used and
what has been done to handle 'disingenuous respondent' data?
Hovering over things like 'when will I receive an apology' tell many of
us who are more than willing to argue the scientific and mathematical
basis of Anthroprogenic Global Warming that you have a limited scope in
understanding our dislike of computer models, IPCC grey literature
citations, magazines and newspapers trumpetting (-snip-), social scientist alluding to us being 'wackos' etc...
But lastly, Dr Lewandowsky seems to cherish his accusatory paper and position.
FYI: Feynman has an excellent hurtful interview on your general subject area.
Moderator Response: All-caps usage snipped.
-
An online survey? Get serious. You might as well have painted a big target on your work.
The day we stop handing skeptics ammunition can't come soon enough.
-
Timothyso's remarks were interesting until they suddenly ran into
the ditch of ritualized chanting, beginning approximately with "dislike
of computer models." Falling back on Python, "...it's dull, it's so
desperately dull and tedious..."
"Rational discourse?" Irony.
-
Sou:
All those who don't know how to run a survey - I
wish they'd just take a course or two, or even read a few books on the
topic, instead of clogging up this board with silly assertions and
demanding answers to questions.
Thomas Fuller does it for a living.
You think he might know something about it. >.<
-
Tom Curtis @17
“ because of Professor Lewandowsky's reputation, it would have been less
likely rather than more likely that they would have cooperated if his
name had been mentioned”
In September of 2010? Outside of Australia, I doubt many sceptics had
even heard of him then. In fact, contrary to your belief, if they were
aware of him and his reputation, contacting them directly himself would
have made a response much more likely. Even if, on seeing the quality of
the survey, the answer was thanks but no thanks.
By the way, if he really wanted sceptics to complete the survey in any number, why no contact with Anthony Watts?
-
@Doug Bostrom: Doug as a Ph.d. in mathematics and having read many
papers from the journals my issues are narrowly defined. If my dislike
of climate models that are used to set policy bothers you that is ok,
and the fact that you want to 'shut off' the discussion is your
perogative. I joined the anti-save-the-world bandwagon because of
certain errors I perceive. But apparently the use of 'tedious'
indicates you see nothing wrong with computer models. Let me cite a few
model failures:
(-snip-)
Now my argument with AGW and CAGW is narrow. (-Snip-)
I may use sarcasm but a well thought out argument with back up never
deserves such blatant disregard for the other people. It is the
uneducated bloggers on both sides that hurt the real arguments.
(-Snip-)
I personally feel that it looks bad for Dr. Lewandowsky to defend his work with no regard to who insulted whom.
Moderator Response: Off-topic and inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Doug Bostrom:
"Rational discourse?" Irony.
You doubly so, I'd think. As timothyso says, emotions are running high.
Lewandowsky is under a microscope. I've been there, it's not very pleasant.
On the other hand, it was said above: "Until addressed in peer-review,
this claim by Mr. McIntyre is not proven and remains assertion."
Look---If a thing is true, it is true regardless of who said it or where it appears.
Getting something through peer review is often just a step in getting it
accepted by the scientific community. Many profound things are said
without being written up, many dull and tiresome things published
without being meaningful.
Sometimes somebody says something profound at a conference, and it is
game changing. People modify their research programs without the work
going through peer review first. I would hope Lewandowsky has had the
please of experiencing this, it can be quite a trip.
But as to McIntyre's comments. THey stand on their own weight. If they
are false, that means they can be demonstrated to be false without
resorting to cantraps like "it hasn't been peer reviewed yet" . If
people disagree with McIntyre's analysis, they can appeal to authority,
Monte Carol analysis or whatever. To simply brush it off because it
isn't peer reviewed yet?
That said, I do not agree with the title of Steve McIntyre's
post. As I have commented on a previous post, I do not think using the
word "hoax" in the title of your post, even as a play on the title of
somebody else's paper is productive here. With Steve, you have to get
past the acerbic nature of some of his articles before you can find any
meat. Sarcasm is not helpful in scientific discourse. Just because
one person engages in it, doesn't mean we all should.
-
Carrick: "Thomas Fuller does it for a living."
I see a reference by Pielke Sr. to a survey done by a Tom Fuller,
seemingly nothing on Google Scholar but probably because I'm doing a
naive search. Do you happen to know what cognomen he publishes under? "T
Fuller?"
Also now my curiosity is piqued re the survey Pielke mentions. Is anybody familiar with that? Links seem to be dead.
Hold on, is this the Fuller who coauthored the "CRUTape" Letters" thing
yet also testified before US legislators offering advice on climate
change policy but even so criticizes others for political axe-grinding
re climate?
Google: our hippocampus. Never mind.
-
Doug, I said he does them for a living. Try googling "for a living". ;-)
No idea what you're on about with the CruTapes. Same author yes, no
clue what your point was. Maybe expand it past the word salad stage?
-
I'm right here if you want to ask, Mr. Bostrom.
-
Actually, Mr. Bostrom, as Professor Lewandowsky might consider it
off topic, feel free to drop a comment over at my weblog,
http://3000quads.com/
-
Let me just ask just for calibration purposes (and I'm "no" across
the board), are there -any- academics on this thread specializing in
cognitive psychology, or even practicing social scientists in a vaguely
related field?
In other words, do any of us really have any justifiable confidence in
whatever wisdom we're volunteering regarding survey methods or the rest
of whatever it is we don't like about Lewandowsky's work, or are we just
flinging darts with the outside chance one of 'em might find a
bullseye?
Ask yourself honestly. As far as I know, there's only one author on this
page who's got the chops to talk about this and he's not down here in
the peanut gallery.
People who actually know what they're talking about, please step
forward. If we're suitably humble and circumspect, the rest of us can
certainly quibble about semantics of the title etc. but frankly anything
we say concerning methods needs to be recognized for what it is, noisy
babble.
Elsewhere I suggested that people offering criticisms of Lewandowsky
should avail themselves of a research methods syllabus for a PhD level
social sciences program and follow the readings therein. Ideally-- given
the subject under discussion here-- that program would be something to
do w/social aspects of psychology.
-
As is often the case, the actions of Mr. McIntyre are beyond
contempt and are nothing more than an attempt to hide his ongoing
vendetta against scientists under a thin veneer of statistics.
McIntyre loves to make accusations of wrong doing, while somehow failing
to actually publish some independent, original science.
(-Snip-) Has McIntyre sent a letter apologizing to the university for
wasting everyone's time? Has he apologized to Lewandowsky?
But these ridiculous self-serving acts is what Mr. McIntyre has been
doing for some time now to keep the imaginations of the fringe elements
in overdrive. It is also for this reason that Mr. McIntyre has not yet
published his very own and original reconstruction of paleo
temperatures, because if he did it would be game over. So instead we
have this ongoing scheme to keep the "skeptics' " imaginations well
nourished. McIntyre, the man who cried wolf, yet the "skeptics" still keep running.
The "skeptics" here are again openly exposing their bias. They are incredibly suspicious,
(-snip-), about Dr. Lewandowsky's work, but for the antagonists and
naysayers we get nonsense like "But as to McIntyre's comments. THey
stand on their own weight". Uh, no.
Dr. Lewandowsky must be wondering what to do with all this research material.... ;)
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
-
My question should be fairly simple - the "fake moon landing"
conspiracy is tied for the fewest number of "agree/strongly agree"
responses in the survey. Why did that particular conspiracy theory
become the title of the article? Just curious, thanks.
-
Mr. Bostrom, I may be willing to defer to Professor Lewandowsky
regarding cognitive psychology. Nonetheless, if his data collection
procedures are flawed, he will be frustrated in his attempts to further
the understanding of the belief systems of those he is attempting to
study.
The worst case scenario is that he will reach conclusions that are false
to fact because of errors in conducting primary research. Far better to
find that out now, don't you think?
-
Thanks Thomas but I've got the picture now.
-
Doug, isn't this just a form of appeal to authority, a type of
logical fallacy? If people offer criticisms, if they are reasonable ones
they should be addressable.
This goes back to the "no question is a bad question". Good criticism
sharpens a work, and one's understanding of it, not lessons it.
Regarding being a cognitive psychologist, unless I'm missing something important here, this was a sociological survey, so based on your logic, Lewandowsky himself should be dismissed from the discussion.
That's were these appeals to authorities go... pretty soon nobody's left to talk.
I've written IRB proposals, had NIH funded research that involved human
subjects, performed surveys (even designed a computer based one,
ironically, however, it wasn't web-administered), dealt with many of the
same core issues that Lewandowsky dealt with here, performed population
assays. Why should I be disqualified for not having exactly the same
degree that Lewandowsky has. More importantly what is it that he is
doing that makes a Ph.D. in cognitive psych a prerequisite for
understanding him?
Seriously this isn't rocket science.
-
tyger:
But these ridiculous self-serving acts is what
Mr. McIntyre has been doing for some time now to keep the imaginations
of the fringe elements in overdrive. It is also for this reason that Mr.
McIntyre has not yet published his very own and original reconstruction
of paleo temperatures, because if he did it would be game over. So
instead we have this ongoing scheme to keep the "skeptics' "
imaginations well nourished. McIntyre, the man who cried wolf, yet the
"skeptics" still keep running.
You don't have to perform a temperature reconstruction in order to point out the flaws in other people's attempts at it.
BTW, aren't you assuming motive here?
-
Terry:
My question should be fairly simple - the "fake
moon landing" conspiracy is tied for the fewest number of
"agree/strongly agree" responses in the survey. Why did that particular
conspiracy theory become the title of the article? Just curious, thanks.
If it hadn't nobody would have read the paper. ;-)
Seriously, zippy titles attract attention. I'm not a cognitive psychologist and I know that.
-
Tyger - I'd like to propose a wager that this paper either won't be
published, or will be retracted within 2 months of its publication.
Leaving aside all of the personalities on both sides of the issue, it's
my opinion that it is flawed enough that it won't stand. Would you like
to propose stakes?
-
Just stating the reality Carrick-- it is all there for one to see.
However, the "skeptics" just keep running; they never learn from their
mistakes. That is one of the primary reasons McIntyre has managed keep
up this gig.
Oh, and I fixed some errors for you:
"You don't have to perform a temperature reconstruction in order to point out the [inconsequential] flaws in other people's attempts at it research".
Mr. McIntyre does not find inconsequential flaws to advance the science,
he does it to caste doubt, to undermine scientists' credibility, to
feed peoples biases. Must be a nice job harassing and ridiculing
scientists for a hobby and (somehow) remaining beyond reproach.
Will you join me in asking McIntyre to apologize to the university and Stephan?
-
One important conclusion of the study is that skeptics do not respond to emails about surveys.
(Does this make me a skeptic?)
-
Tyger, sorry, the flaws McIntyre (and other people on his blog) found were substantive.
* Mann's uncentered PCA was a major gaffe.
* Failure to validate
* The use of proxies "upside down"
* Gergis et al. was withdrawn after it was exposed their actually methodology did not follow that described in the paper.
* Substantive error in GISTEMP that eventually led to GISS "freeing the code".
Tyger: Mr. McIntyre does not find inconsequential flaws to
advance the science, he does it to caste doubt, to undermine scientists'
credibility
I will have to take exception with people like yourself assuming you can
read other peoples' minds, which is effectively what you are doing here
by the assumption of motive.
Complaining about McIntyre's behavior while engaging in this type of
egregious behavior on your own is like the pot calling the kettle black.
-
zt, I would suggest an alternative hypothesis: People don't respond to survey requests from people they don't know.
Of course RP, Jr did respond. He said "no". Is there a link to where he denies remembering?
-
To follow up briefly on my comment with Tyger, I don't find
anything substantively wrong with McIntyre's work. I just think he would
do himself and the rest of the community a service by toning down the
rhetoric. It devalues the positive contributions he does have to offer.
-
Stephan, do you accept that of the > 1000 responses collected,
that some will have been submitted by individuals who attempted to skew
the results with dishonest answers?
And if you do accept that, what phrasing would you consider to be acceptable to describe such submissions?
Steve McIntyre used (-Snip-)* but as we can see you have deemed such phrasing to be in contravention of your comments policy.
* Self-snip.
-
Thomas, my point in referring to the relative lack of skills on
exhibit here was specifically made to suggest that we're highly unlikely
to discover anything useful to Dr. Lewandowsky "now" and particularly
-here-, given our general inadequacy for the job.
Carrick, you're right in identifying it's a fine line to walk between
substituting demands for an official qualification versus insisting on
an argument requiring domain-specific expertise. Not to pick on you but
only because it's illustrative of the problem that "we can't know what
we don't know," you say "...unless I'm missing something important here,
this was a sociological survey, so based on your logic, Lewandowsky
himself should be dismissed from the discussion." That statement in
itself suggests that you're insufficiently versed in Lewandowsky's field
to help him improve his work.
Carrick goes on to ask "More importantly what is it that he is doing
that makes a Ph.D. in cognitive psych a prerequisite for understanding
him?" That's what we'd discover in the syllabus I mentioned. Short of
knowing that we're guessing and likely won't even have enough possible
guesses to choose from.
In some ways this is -more- complicated than rocket science. The
behavior of rockets is governed by physical principles we understand
better in many ways than we do the impulses and actions of people,
whether as individuals or as populations. The individual behaviors of
members of a collection of rockets (those on a production basis, anyway)
are more faithful to their aggregate statistical behavior than are the
characteristics of any individual person as a sample against the
statistics describing a population.
I've found myself wondering if part of the problem here is an underlying
contempt or at least patronizing dismissal for social science that's
supposedly a characteristic of many people who practice or are amateur
enthusiasts of "hard" science. I'm not a social scientist myself but
I've had occasion to hear a fair number of complaints along those lines
coming from social scientists engaged in interdisciplinary efforts with
engineers and the like. It's something probably worth reflecting on.
-
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: This is the subject of the
study, not the survey. The reactions of the skeptic community to a
controlled publication with obvious flaws, presented as caustically as
possible and with red herrings presented for them to grasp at.
To date, my conspiracy theory makes more sense than what we've seen of
the primary research that informed Professor Lewandowsky's paper.
I really hope that I'm wrong, as I will be extremely unhappy if research is used as bait. But it makes a weird kind of sense...
-
For starters Carrick, how McIntyre defines a "lukewarmer" is highly problematic.
As for your other "failings" I am more than happy to address each and
everyone and show how it was either inconsequential, or a non-issue or
that McIntyre himself made an error. You are also completely
misrepresenting the Gergis fiasco.
The moderators will be within their rights to delete my response and I
do not feel like spending time refuting your claims only to have them
deleted-- unfortunately, it is a lot easier for your to make an
unsubstantiated and misleading assertion than it is for others to refute
it. That is a classic debating technique used by the creationists in
the evolution wars.
Maybe they will permit me to address one or two of your allegations?
"I will have to take exception with people like yourself assuming you
can read other peoples' minds, which is effectively what you are doing
here by the assumption of motive."
I am not reading people's minds Carrick, I am calling a spade a spade,
very different from your stated belief/opinon. I am going what is on
the pubic record, evidence that you seem blind to. Have you already
forgotten:
"I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got
on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by
paleoclimatologists" [Mr. Stephen McIntyre]
No,no that was not McIntyre not trying to undermine scientists' credibility at all is it. /sarc.
What is more, independent reconstructions that do not even use Yamal
series show a Hockey stick. Heck, there are multiple temperature hockey
sticks derived using data and methods independent of those used by
Mann et al. But don't let inconvenient facts trouble you...
-
Tyger, how do you define a lukewarmer? I ask as a lukewarmer...
-
Doug, you probably should be aware that Carrick is as far away from
an amateur enthusiast for hard science as you're likely to find.
-
@Carrick - I note you left out reference to A Scott, who says he is
not expert in doing surveys (as is apparent from his posts here and
elsewhere).
Tom Fuller may have done 1000 surveys however he has said he's not an
expert in this particular field. In any case, he should know that you
can't leave out responses just because you find them puzzling. The
research paper describes responses omitted from the analysis and
explains why (page 8). His paper also discusses the impact of what
people here are referring to as 'gamed' responses (page 13).
1 2 3 Next
Post a CommentYou need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account. |
|
Relevant events (mainly in Australia) will be announced here as they become available.
|
|
About Us 
