|
|
Climate denial a “warmist” hoax?
Understanding people means to have a Theory of Mind. A model of other people’s thinking.
This may come as a surprise to some who mistakenly consider models to
be something science should do without. Not only are models central to
all scientific inquiry—ever heard of the heliocentric model of the solar
system?—but without a model we could not understand other people, and
not even ourselves.
This Theory of Mind is a collection of beliefs of what other people
believe or know, what they want, and how they most likely will act. If
you have ever sat next to someone on a plane who’s telling you all about
Barney’s last summer holiday, oblivious to the fact that you’ve never
met or heard of Barney before, then you will understand the importance
of a Theory of Mind and how its integrity is central to human
interaction.
What does this have to do with our recent paper on the motivated rejection of science?
Everything.
We already established
that if potentially “suspect” outlying observations are removed from
our data, the correlations of greatest interest, between conspiracist
ideation and rejection of science, retains its significance. So far, so
good, but now we need to discuss the far-from-trivial issue of why
anyone would consider those observations “suspect” (other than by their
magnitude alone).
This brings us to the issue of “scamming”, the hypothesis that people completed our survey by “faking” their responses.
It turns out that any decision about “scamming” is a cognitive choice
that rests on a model in one’s mind about other people’s behavior.
Let’s consider this hypothetical response profile:
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 … 1 1 1 1 1,
where the 4’s stand for endorsement of conspiracy theories and the 1’s for rejection of climate-related items.
One might be tempted to conclude that this respondent was a “warmist”
who “scammed” our survey by faking endorsement of conspiracy theories,
perhaps in order to make “deniers” look like “nutters” (I am using
caricaturizing labels in quotation marks, such as “warmist”, for
succinctness; the discussion is impossible without succinct labels.)
Crucially, we must recognize that the judgment just made was a cognitive judgment that relies on a model—a
model of what a response pattern would look like if someone faked the
data. This cognitive model rests on (a) the tacit premise that no one
could possibly be serious when endorsing all conspiracy
theories, and it would include (b) the further deduction that anyone who
does this must be faking the response. A further deduction (c) could be
added that this faking was done in order to cast aspersions on people
who reject (climate) science.
So, a cognitive model with one premise and at least one auxiliary
assumption indeed suggests that this response pattern represents a
“scammer.”
The crucial point is this: Identification of presumed scammers is a
model-based inference, and there is no escaping that fact (e.g., trap
questions don’t help because they could equally be scammed).
Moreover, because identification of “scammers” rests on a model-based
inference, it should come as no surprise that there are multiple other
cognitive models of at least equal plausibility that would lead to
different conclusions: For example, the above response pattern is
equally compatible with the model that (a) no one in their right mind
would endorse all conspiracy theories, and therefore (b) some “deniers”
are really “nutters” (again, caricaturizing labels are used for
succinctness.).
We therefore come to opposing conclusions about the putative
“scamming” responses based on two opposing models of what respondents
were thinking while they were completing the survey.
There is no easy way to adjudicate between the two models.
It is for that reason that we removed all those responses to which
one or the other of those cognitive models might apply. Given that the
removal of “scammers” (or true “nutters”, on the alternative model)
makes no difference to the significance of our correlations, we
fortunately do not have to expend much further energy on this issue
within the narrow context of our survey.
However, it is worth taking a broader view at the notion of
“scamming” and the implications of various different cognitive models by
considering other manifestations of climate denial (or endorsement) on
the internet. Blog comments, after all, are potentially as anonymous as
survey responses and they are therefore subject to precisely the same
model-based interpretation as the response patterns in our data.
So let’s apply the above models to a few comments and other material harvested from the internet.
We begin with this one, reproduced verbatim below:
“Here is some photographic analysis for Apollo 11 showing that
the moonwalking was in fact staged. There is nothing to oppose this
analysis and no getting around it. If it conflicts with your irrational
beliefs see a psychiatrist. But don't be getting about running cover for
the criminals that push these fraudulent and expensive undertakings on
the public. These networks haven't gone away and they are busier then
ever. The CO2-warming scam is scientific fraud. And its a far bigger,
more ambitious, and more expensive scam then the moon hoax ever
was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ”
Applying the same cognitive model that suggests that participants
scammed our survey, this comment was clearly written by a “warmist” who
“scammed” the comment to make “deniers” look like “nutters.”
Some instances of climate denial, by the same logic that some have applied to our survey responses, are a “warmist” hoax.
Moving from comments to blog posts, here we have a certain Oliver Manuel:
“In 1972 I became uneasy about the politicalization of science,
but I could not grasp the problem until Climategate emails and documents
were released in November of 2009. … I have tentatively traced this
back to secret, fear-driven agreements by the winners of the Second
World War in 1945 and later by Kissinger, Zhou En-Lai, Chairman Mao,
Brezhnev and Nixon in 1971.”
The same individual also recently sent me an email, which opened with: “On The Eleventh Anniversary of the 9-11-2011 Tragedy — Events leading to Climategate in Nov 2009.”
(Disclaimer: O. Manuel did not design our survey items.)
So is this individual a “nutter,” or is he a “warmist” posing as a
“nutter” to make “deniers” look bad? On the cognitive model that some
people have applied to our survey responses, the latter possibility
should be favored.
Lest one think that Oliver Manuel is just a lone individual of
questionable mental competence, it must be noted that climate “skeptic”
Ian Plimer relies on Manuel’s bizarre theory, that the sun is largely
composed of iron, in his principal work of fiction Heaven and Earth. This recent article opens up a door to a sordid and bizarre network of Manuel and associates whose responses to our survey are readily predicted.
Of course, they are all just “warmists” doing their stuff to make “deniers” look bad.
But why stop at blog posts?
Let’s examine some public utterances of well-known alleged climate
deniers and see if they might be warmist scammers in disguise, doing
their best to make deniers look like nutters.
A leading candidate for scammer-in-chief is Lord Christopher
Monckton. Although he is commonly perceived to be the Vaudevillian
poster boy of climate denial, some very serious questions about his true
identity have been raised on Australian national TV.
Those questions hint at the possibility that Mr Monckton might be a scammer, an impression buttressed by his public concerns about President Obama’s place of birth.
Further evidence for Mr Monckton’s warmist mission to pose as scammer
is provided by his public claim that NASA blew up its own satellite to prevent the climate hoax from being uncovered. This seems likely, given that NASA has had ample opportunity to hone its skills with the so-called “moon landing.”
We conclude that there is clear evidence that Mr Monckton is a warmist scammer trying to make climate denial look nuts.
And Mr Monckton is not alone; there appears to be a considerable
number of such scammers out there, given that
warmists-faking-nutty-denial-theories of exploding satellites can be found elsewhere.
Looks like they all scammed our survey.
We are convinced now.
Climate denial is a warmist hoax, perpetrated by the same scammers who faked our survey.
69 Comments
1 2 Next
Comments 1 to 50 out of 84:
-
These educational articles are also fun and entertaining.
-
Of course, the droves of contrarians that will inevitably show up
here will complain that people like Monckton aren't representative of
the views of all those who oppose mainstream climate science in some
way. Well, of course they aren't. But the fact is that Monckton has
been invited to testify multiple times as a climate expert before
committees of the U.S. Congress, is an invited speaker every single year
at the Heartland conference, and contrarian climate scientists like
Dick Lindzen routinely appear on panels with him, and will even vouch
for his credibility. It appears to me that the climate change
contrarian community, "big tent" though it may be, hasn't been trying
too hard to shove Uncle Monckton back in the attic.
The other side of this issue has a nutter problem, too, but it doesn't
seem to be as pervasive. They exist, but these nutters aren't the ones
who show up to testify to Congress, after all.
-
Well, that certainly explains this clip! Nobody could wear that outfit for real...
-
The 'journal' 21st Century Science and Technology is another nexus between conspiracy theory and GW denial.
https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html
This impressive-sounding title is in fact an organ of Lyndon H.
LaRouche, convicted mail fraudster who believes that British royal
family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry
Kissinger is a communist agent and the British government is controlled
by Jewish bankers.
WattsUpWithThat.com is self-described as 'the world's most-viewed site
on Global Warming', and takes a distinctly contrarian stance. Contrary
to the hypothesis, discussion of conspiracy theories (other than the
global hoax perpetrated by climate scientists) seems rare at that venue.
However this may be because the proprietor has wisely and pre-emptively
banned them as a Site Policy:
"Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will
be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of
barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers,
Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, mysticism, and other topics not
directly related to the thread."
I am not aware of any other site that is so specific in its banned topics ....
-
You see, here's where you lose me intellectually, practically and morally.
Intellectually, you seem to be lumping together everyone who rejects
climate science - those who are genuine conspiracy nuts along with
otherwise rational and moral people who just have a ideological blind
spot on this issue. (Yes, this is based on a subjective theory of mind
constructed informally from of my interactions with climate skeptics.)
Practically, you seem to be deliberately fanning the flames of the
culture war: Anyone who doesn't accept the consensus is a conspiracy nut
(c.f. Bush: anyone who isn't with us is with the terrorists). That's
not what your paper says, but it seems to be the response that you are
aiming for when you transition from exposition to ridicule in this post
and others.
In doing so you risk encouraging consensus community members to develop a
dehumanised view of skeptics ('they can't help it because they are
nutters' seen at Eli's and elsewhere), which I would speculate will
serve to decrease our effectiveness in communicating with skeptics, and
indeed anyone who doesn't obviously accept the consensus position. So
there is a danger that you are also radicalising the less
rationally-founded elements of the consensus community, reducing their
credibility with the undecideds.
If that is correct and a conscious decision (rather than a misguided bit
of fun), then you have made a decision about the sociology: That it is
more effective to further radicalise skeptics in order to decrease their
credibility with the undecided, than to leave them unradicalised with
the expectation that as impacts become more apparent more of them will
drift quietly towards the consensus position. That's not impossible, but
I'd like to see some compelling evidence, because it's an approach that
I am very uncomfortable with on moral grounds. (And I don't think it
worked for Bush either.)
-
it is worth pointing out perhaps the Oliver OManuel is banned at a
number of sceptic blogs as tediously going on about his iron sun
theories, whatever the topic..
so focussing on him, is really a bit pointless.
you might as well point to comments, to a blog that is very convinced about climate change, yet is also a 9/11 conspiracy blog
"Stop Driving, The 911 boycott" is a call to action to reduce auto use
and the enormous impacts driving is having on global climate change.
http://www.stopdriving.org/boycott.html
they say 9-11 was an inside job
-
(-snip-) Peter Gleick - (-snip-).
Curiously, Professor Lewandowsky wrote an impassioned defence of Gleick's behaviour - even comparing him to Winston Churchill.
Clearly Stephan can adjust his own "Theory of Mind" as necessary where his emotional & political beliefs are concerned.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
-
We therefore come to opposing conclusions about the
putative “scamming” responses based on two opposing models of what
respondents were thinking while they were completing the survey.
Mmmmm. Knowing what people where thinking is indeed a hard question to answer.
Maybe we need more information on the initial conditions when analysing the model output?
We have little evidence skeptics even had a chance to think at all since there were no overt entry points offered them.
However we do know that some "pro-science" blogs did offer their readers more food for thought:
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)”.
BTW. Thanks for showing some selected examples showing denier/conspiracy
ideation practiced by individuals. Encouraged by this I think I too can
dig out some moon landing hoax comments posted on the Guardian by
leftist types if you want? I saw a few (very few but enough)
moon-landing denier statements from leftist Guardian readers recently
too on the Neil Armstrong obituary pages.;)
-
@ 5 Kevin C
Your distaste for dehumanising tactics does you credit Kevin.
Beware that even phrases you use innocently—"everyone who rejects climate science"—are loaded and pejorative.
The "skeptics" don't reject climate science and never have.
What they argue (rightly or wrongly) is that:
- not everything passed off as climate science is actually scientific (e.g. MBH98)
- nothing that is actually scientific has come up with evidence for alarm
They certainly don't reject science sensu lato!
(-snip-)
Skeptics deny that science says X. So in rejecting X, they're not rejecting science. They're just rejecting X.
Moderator Response: Pejorative tone snipped.
-
@7: My "impassioned defense" of Gleick was no such thing. I raised
questions and analogies with precedents, nothing further. I encourage
people to read the piece
[http://theconversation.edu.au/the-morality-of-unmasking-heartland-5494]
-
@5 Kevin C
If I can make one further appeal to your obvious moral decency Kevin,
please take note every time someone misnames people who disagree. Every
time someone says "climate denier", please take note. No matter how many
times you hear it, don't let it become normal to your ears. Certainly
don't let yourself adopt the language. That's how good people lose their
moral sense. They become inured. You still have yours. Don't let it
become a casualty to the climate debate.
PS thanks for that excellent comment on the other thread—I've replied to the first half!
-
@10
Professor Lewandowsky, just noticed a correction to your Gleick piece—it
refers passim to "leaked documents" and documents "that were leaked
from the Heartland Institute," but (as the article itself goes on to say) these were later admitted to be stolen, so the word "leaked" needs to be amended.
"Stolen documents" would be correct.
Moderator Response: Incorrect; the article does not say that.
-
My cognitive model differs from that of some of the commenters
here. For example, I find it absurd that anyone would have a moral
objection to the authors of a cognitive science study responding to
specific questions/accusations from so-called 'skeptics', using examples
of what is often seen on blogs. More particularly so as the responses
are also giving us some insight into the field of cognitive science.
Nor did I read the article as suggesting that all 'skeptics', fake or
otherwise, are 'nutters'. I read it as a response to the speculation
about the outlier responses to the survey, presenting two different
models that might explain the outliers. (It's pretty obvious that
pro-science blogs, in addition to the main audience, also attract a
small number of people with unusual views. On the other hand, some
comments on blogs are Poes = you can't always tell who's faking it and
who's for real.)
I expect there will be more comments to this article, which will
demonstrate the different cognitive models that shape the thinking of
different people.
-
Professor Lewandowsky
I have already made this point for you a couple of times in comments to
this series of articles, without the irony. There are undoubtedly weird
people out there, and there is no obvious reason that they should be
excluded from your survey. They may well make up (say) 1 or 2% of the
population. Your survey is designed to find them, first by asking weird
questions to which only they will give a positive answer, and secondly
by excluding the “don’t know” option, thus excluding anyone who doesn’t
have total knowledge of Rosewell, the Oklahoma bombing, etc, and isn’t
prepared to lie. You have designed an anonymous, easily gamed survey in
which normal sceptical human beings cannot participate without lying.
And you have managed to demonstrate, based on 2, 3 or 5% of your sample,
that people who believe that the government is lying to them about one
thing will also tend to believe that they are lying about another thing.
That’s all.
-
8 titlib -- "Encouraged by this I think I too can dig out some
moon landing hoax comments posted on the Guardian by leftist types if
you want?"
The problem is your generalised caricaturish mental model of Guardian
commenters BTL. Very many are overtly rightwing but, unfortunately for
them, many of their preferred news outlets have put their articles
behind paywalls which they seemingly prefer not to pay to get past. Many
others also regularly visit the Guardian to have a go at "those
lefties".
-
Professor Lewandowsky
Since you are here and reading comments, when will you be answering the
very many simple questions about your survey, it’s design, the timing,
and the source of respondents? When will you be releasing the
demographics and data for the questions not analysed in the paper? Do
you have, and will you release, material to allowthe source blogs to be
matched with individual respondents, or, failing that, a simple list of
the source blogs with numbers of respondents from each blog, includng
respondents eliminated for inapprooriate answers or duplicate IPs?
-
@10
You're quite right. The article doesn't say they were stolen; I was thinking of most of the other articles about the event.
However, the article says they were obtained by an outsider (Gleick) by deception.
So they weren't "leaked," and that needs to be corrected.
-
Brad Keyes,
The "skeptics" don't reject climate science and never have.
What they argue (rightly or wrongly) is that:
- not everything passed off as climate science is actually scientific (e.g. MBH98)
- nothing that is actually scientific has come up with evidence for alarm
They certainly don't reject science sensu lato!
The problem is found in the basis for which "skeptics" judge evidence to
be "actually scientific". Your second point could very easily be a form
of No True Scotsman fallacy.
As an example from another field, Intelligent Design advocates do accept
some aspects of conventional thinking on evolutionary biology but
reject others, often on the basis that they consider such evidence to be
"unscientific" (e.g here). Should we then conclude that intelligent design is not fundamentally a rejection of evolutionary biological science?
-
@15. J Bowers at 00:11 AM on 14 September, 2012
The
problem is your generalised caricaturish mental model of Guardian
commenters BTL. Very many are overtly rightwing but, unfortunately for
them, many of their preferred news outlets have put their articles
behind paywalls which they seemingly prefer not to pay to get past. Many
others also regularly visit the Guardian to have a go at "those
lefties".
I wasn't offering anything so crude as merely my mental model but rather
evidence such as offered in the piece above. E.g. Showing a quote from a
CiF contributor that indicated "moon-landing hoax" ideation and and
then showing another quote from same person which suggests "leftish" or
even pro-AGW leanings. I am too busy to find them now but I was only
offering since I remembered seeing them at the time when being curious
enough to tracked some of the commenters history (I think because this
paper was recently in the news). I think a few may have been deleted
from CiF since so I may not be able to find them.
I can try and look later if you want - and comment policy permits?
-
The problem is that your mental model (perhaps you should think of
it as a Mental Trap of Preconception) caught more warmists believing in
conspiracies than skeptics.
More people on your side of the fence believe in conspiracies than do skeptics.
-
Decades ago I read Frank Herbert's "Dune". Quite an interesting book, actually...
At one point in the book Lady Jessica is speaking to a group of men at a
table, and she makes an imputation. One of the assembled men rises and
responds angrily, to which Jessica responds with something to the
effect of:
All I did was to hold up a jacket. It was you who stood and claimed that it was your size.
Time and again I am reminded of that scene as I read the responses to
Lewendowsky's paper. It's as if Herbert scripted the last few weeks'
worth of fulmination himself...
(And if anyone can give an off-the-cuff reference for the chapter in the
book where the scene occurs, or indeed the actual quote itself, I'd be
much obliged.)
-
thomaswfuller @20, I didn't believe anybody would fall into this trap, but apparently someone did.
Yes, more warmists believing in conspiracies than skeptics - because
there are more warmists overall. When you look at proportions (which is
what the correlations do), skeptics are more likely to believe in
conspiracies, at least according to SL's data (even after various
filtering for extreme responses).
-
thomaswfuller said:
"More people on your side of the fence believe in conspiracies than do skeptics."
From this I can only surmise that you have never read any of the
comments at bishophill, wattsupwiththat, climateaudit, climateetc, et.
al. You have *got* to be joking.
-
Brad Keyes' remarks about skeptics not rejecting science remind me of Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman."
Brad's making a semantic Hail Mary pass.
To Paul S' response to Brad at 00:31 AM on 14 September, 2012, I'll add
that rejection of one research finding frequently has ripple effects.
Denying the validity of one result frequently means denying other work,
sometimes leading to very absurd positions. This knock-on problem can
reach the scale of carpet-bombing. An example of a little skirmish
turning into total war is the stubborn insistence that a sensibly cool
atmosphere cannot "warm" the planet, a skirmish that is -still- being
vigorously fought in some circles and which inherently rejects a broad
swath of "science."
-
How many of the responses in the survey came from your own University?
-
@25 Doug, if science denial reminds you of sex denial, what do you want me to say?
I don't know what a semantic Hail Mary pass is, so I doubt I'm making it.
-
Dr. Lewandowsky,
In performing studies of self-selected groups (in this case skeptics and
adherents of AGW), there is always considerable value in comparing the
in-groups to a control population. For example, you might want to be
able to show that skeptics are more likely that the general public to
believe outlandish conspiracy theories, and of course to rule out the
possiblity that BOTH skeptics and adherents are nutters (i.e. both score
much higher on belief in conspiracies than the general public). Did
you also survey a control population, and if so, what were the results?
Thanks in advance for considering my question.
-
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: Please note that
posting comments here is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can
and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat
adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating comments is a tiresome chore, particularly when
commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. Please
understand that 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 store for
you.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure that any future
comments you make are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your
understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
geoffchambers at 00:19 AM on 14 September, 2012
Professor Lewandowsky
Since you are here and reading comments, when will you be answering the
very many simple questions about your survey, it’s design, the timing,
and the source of respondents? When will you be releasing the
demographics and data for the questions not analysed in the paper? Do
you have, and will you release, material to allowthe source blogs to be
matched with individual respondents, or, failing that, a simple list of
the source blogs with numbers of respondents from each blog, includng
respondents eliminated for inapprooriate answers or duplicate IPs?
################
There is demographic data on 9-11 truthers, so it would be
interesting to compare the "truthers" in this survey to the demographic
data collected by other studies. I do wonder how many people would be
willing to adjust their beliefs in the face of that evidence. Also
interesting would be the country of orgin for the conspiracy holders,
which you can get from the IP.
For me the most interesting data would be the data on the 71 subjects
who had multiple entries from the same IP. Just for analytical purity I
would, as a reviewer, ask the author to present his results with and
without those 71 respondents.
It seems arguable that multiple entries from the same IP can be a sign
of "ballot stuffing" and one should look at how robust your results are
WRT to proceedural decisions on these entries. Here again, I would
expect that if throwing out those 71 changed the conclusions, that some
people would not change their minds. Since refusing to change your mind
is the hallmark of conspiritorial thinking, and since Dr. Lew is not a
conspiritorial thinker, I will predict that Dr. Lew will look at this
question. What happens if you adopt a different rule toward those 71? (Snip)
Moderator Response: Provocative tone snipped.
-
@18 Paul S,
sorry for the late reply, are you still around?
Thanks for your reminder about colloquial vs proper “skepticism.” Doh!
I've been forgetting that lately. Rather than using quotes around
"skepticism" I'll just say what I mean: disbelievers.
You put the problem of judging scientificness aptly.
How do we make sure nobody uses a No True Scotsman fallacy? Or conversely, an Every True Scotsman (so to speak)?
Fortunately it's extremely simple. The judgement of scientificness, one way or the other, must be *purely methodological*.
In other words, you can’t object to a paper because you don’t like what
nature did. You can only object to what the scientists did.
So,
I’m only allowed to say a paper is not scientific under 1 condition: they didn’t follow the scientific method.
But also,
I’m only allowed to say a paper is scientific under 1 condition: they followed the scientific method.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: Off-topic snipped.
-
We begin with this one, reproduced verbatim below:
“Here is some photographic analysis for Apollo 11 showing that the
moonwalking was in fact staged. There is nothing to oppose this analysis
and no getting around it. If it conflicts with your irrational beliefs
see a psychiatrist. But don't be getting about running cover for the
criminals that push these fraudulent and expensive undertakings on the
public. These networks haven't gone away and they are busier then ever.
The CO2-warming scam is scientific fraud. And its a far bigger, more
ambitious, and more expensive scam then the moon hoax ever was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ”
Applying the same cognitive model that suggests that participants
scammed our survey, this comment was clearly written by a “warmist” who
“scammed” the comment to make “deniers” look like “nutters.”
Actually, maybe you are on to something here. It seems curious to me
that this guy seems to show up on que (after the kerfuffle over your
paper has already erupted). This comment
from Bird looks like it could be a Freudian slip (refering to
"skeptics" instead of "warmists"). Does anyone know of earlier
(pre-kerfuffle) examples of Similar rants from Bird?
-
(-snip-)
I'll respectfully ask the same as many others - that Mr. Lewandowsky
respond, in a straightforward professional manner, to the many
legitimate questions about this paper being raised.
Perhaps starting with a clear and detailed response on the data and analysis supporting the papers "title" claim.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Doug @ 25,
I don't know the people you're talking about but I'm a "skeptic" and I don't reject science. Or do I?
Try me. Name 1 scientific paper you think I'm going to refuse to recognise. Just your best one—I don't have much reading time.
-
I won't claim to know what responses were "scammed," but I don't
think there is any argument many responses are bad. For example, if a
person claims to disagree with:
I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree.
It is no stretch of the imagination to say something is wrong when they then agree with:
I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the
scale observed over the last 50 years has increased
atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree.
I think it's safe to say results like that aren't accurate reflections of views people hold.
-
I see that I linked to the wrong comment in #31. One more time:
"This comment
from Bird looks like it could be a Freudian slip (refering to
"skeptics" instead of "warmists"). Does anyone know of earlier
(pre-kerfuffle) examples of Similar rants from Bird?"
-
Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller, Steve McIntyre, Tom Curtis and the
like are all skilled in this field. Tom Curtis is anything but a
skeptic. Their criticism is well founded and deserves discussion and
reply.
If Mr. Lewandowsky can answer that criticism the paper and its results
should stand. If he cannot - or will not - then it should be withdrawn
as Tom Curtis has recommended.
A full set of all of the data collected should be provided, including
responses to all questions presented and data on all responses including
those deleted for various reasons, so separate analysis may be made of
the authors conclusions and decisions.
IP data should also be provided including location data. Full IP's can
certainly be partially masked as necessary to protect privacy, however
IP addresses from UWA should be clearly identified.
Also, it has become known that a copy of the survey was distributed by
the authors on campus of UWA. This raises a series of serious and
legitimate questions - how was this information used - is it included in
the study data - if so why was this not disclosed - and even if it was
not used, why wasn't the fact it was pursued disclosed?
These are legitimate professional requests, and deserve a timely and professional response.
-
Brad, how about "On Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse
Effects", Gerlich & Tscheuschner. Do you accept their conclusions,
or do you reject them?
Regarding the parenthetical (Gleick), that's yet another darkly amusing
case of people expounding without bothering to read the literature. Get
up to speed on when lying may be imperative by obtaining a copy of Bok's
"Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life."
-
Steven Mosher, Thomas Fuller, Steve McIntyre, Tom Curtis and the like are all skilled in this field.
Actually none of those people are "skilled in this field," if you're
referring to Lewandowsky's area of expertise. That's a fact that seems
to escape readers almost without fail. Fuller is said to have expertise
in surveys but he's practicing outside of his domain in this case.
So they're asking questions but not making professional requests. The
professional response will mostly happen in the literature, as we
already know. What's happening here is sideshow circus, trivia, though
it's deflating to our sense of self-importance to know that.
Have -any- authentic professionals in Lewandowsky's field showed up here in Backwater, Blogistan?
-
Doug, I'm not arguing cognitive psychology. I'm arguing data
collection. Practicing cognitive psychology on bad data will not advance
the sum of human knowledge. Even someone inexpert in cognitive
psychology can say that safely.
-
The more you know about cognitive psychology, the better informed
you're likely to be on collecting and interpreting data from human
subjects. It's an "ipso facto" kind of thing.
-
(-snip-). A cognitive
psychologist should not be expected to know or understand what is
essentially a subordinate, specialist craft. At pit stops, drivers don't
get out and work on the car. Specialists handle that. They're called
the pit crew. But if the pit crew says something's wrong with the car,
the driver listens.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Perhaps you should look more closely at how cognitive psychologists
practice, Thomas. I'm a fan of analogies in general but yours fails at
the level you refer to. A better choice would be track racing at the
level where the driver is the same fellow who rebuilds his engines, the
"one pickup and a trailer" model.
-
Well Doug, you're entitled to that opinion. Doesn't make it correct.
All of these individuals are skilled in data collection and analysis, and that's the discussion here.
Important, relevant and legitimate questions have been raised. And continue to be raised.
For example, its also come to light that the authors, in addition to the
UWA on campus request for respondents, also made a "Studies Recruiting
Participants" request on the "Recruiting Psychology Research
Participants" on an psychology site.
By all appearances neither were disclosed by the authors in this paper.
Wouldn't you agree this is relevant information that should have been
disclosed - whether they used the data or not?
Mr. Lewandowsky can certainly continue to write amusing stories about
this. He can ignore responding to the legitimate questions and criticism
as well. But neither help address the legitimate questions being asked
about this paper.
I agree with Thomas - its pretty foolish to be dismissive of folks with
strong credentials, asking relevant, legitimate questions about a
professional paper.
-
Doug Bostrom:
I'm a fan of analogies in general but yours fails at the
level you refer to. A better choice would be track racing at the level
where the driver is the same fellow who rebuilds his engines, the "one
pickup and a trailer" model.
(-snip-)
By the way, I've been involved in motorsports at all levels, from building my own motors, to Indy 500 winning teams. (-snip-).
Moderator Response: Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
I don't know, Mr. Bostrom. In other discussions about climate
change I have frequently heard the saying, 'by all means ask the
experts--but listen to their answers.'
Maybe that doesn't hold here. But if not, it's not because the saying is inappropriate.
-
(-SNIP-)
Moderator Response: Please note that
posting comments here is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can
and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat
adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating comments is a tiresome chore, particularly when
commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. Please
understand that 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 store for
you.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure that any future
comments you make are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your
understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
@37
Doug, good—I'll look at it and let you know.
Who expounded on what without bothering to read what?
If you mean the parenthetical, oh, don't worry, I read it before
expounding. I understood. I described accurately, I think. I only
retracted because I'd used what I thought was an obvious periphrasis
instead of a quote, apparently falling foul of literalist sensibilities.
But can you think of a better word than the one I used? If I read your
book about lying, is it going to tell me what to call documents obtained
by lying? "The scammed documents? The phished documents?"
-
@37 ...
".. socially-engineered, illegally hacked"? I'm open to increasing my vocab if you've got something.
-
(snip)
Moderator Response: Inflammatory tone snipped
-
...and a bit on-topic; Tom seems to be suggesting he is (snip) expert
He could point us to some published material of his that would l (snip)et us assess his claims?
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped
1 2 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 
