|
|
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.
55 Comments
Prev 1 2
Comments 51 to 71 out of 71:
-
An honest question ...
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.
How is the above, in response to this:
ThomasFuller: 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.
... not considered an ad-hominem attack, no matter how veiled?
Relating the highly competent people asking legitimate questions to
'back yard mechanic' status certainly doesn't seem to be either fair, or
accurate.
-
Again - feel free to delete - but it is an honest question trying to get guidance on
Moderator Response: Compare again Tom's analogy to Doug's.
The first implies a more refined degree of specialization; the latter,
coarser. They are different. At no point is there denigration in the
2nd comment compared to the 1st.
Looking for fouls where none are intended detracts from the dialogue,
if the intent is indeed to ask legitimate questions. Also, please
review the examples given in the Comments policy about what is, or
isn't, ad hominem.
-
Lots of self-proclaimed 'experts' have posted here demanding
immediate responses to their particular questions. I've seen scant
evidence of their expertise, more evidence of the dearth of same.
-
re 9
-
Dr. Lewandowsky, in one of your information posts could you clarify
the reason for choosing a four point scale in your survey. The absence
of a box for "do not know" would appear to require respondents to make a
statement about conspiracies to which they may have no knowledge. My
knowledge of JFK, MLK and New Coke are limited by my age and nationality
and frankly I had never even heard of the Coke conspiracy. Were I to
have answered your survey my opinion on those questions would have been
less than useless since it would have been completely uninformed.
-
As a longtime racer, that has been thru all of the ranks noted, one
example implies a top tier professional effort - the other a nominally
skilled "backyard mechanic" amateur level skill set.
I agree yours is a valid alternative view, although still think its
simply a veiled way of saying the same - one skilled and specialized,
the other unskilled and more amateur. When one labels skilled folks as
something less, it is rarely ever a positive :-)
I still disagree with your finding in that I know most of those
referenced are professionals with relevant expertise and experience. I
don't think labeling them as something less is accurate or fair.
However, I'll admit one can't prove intent thru a single internet post,
and absent intent hard to call a foul. So I'll agree your position is
valid in the instant case.
Hopefully you can understand why I see the issue differently.
Regardless - thanks for the response and direction.
-
re: 55 Blair
This was a *voluntary* survey.
-
Sou at 53, citation for those demanding immediate action? What I
believe we've asked for is a timeline for disclosure of necessary
information to evaluate Professor Lewandowsky's work and a description
of what he will be revealing to the world.
If he's shown as much as he intends to then we don't need to waste time
on it. If he intends to act like other researchers, it would be
courteous to say what he intends to do and when.
-
A Scott, the full extent of my qualifications other than a host of
self taught knowledge in a very wide variety of fields is a BA in
philosophy. I have taken two courses in psychology at university, and
none on statistics. I can reason, but I am not an expert. Neither, in
this field are anybody else that you quoted. Stop inflating credentials
on the basis that it suites your argument.
-
Would a moderator edit my post at 59 to read, "I have taken two courses in psychology at university"
-
@ Tom Fuller - now you are demanding a timeline - is it for these items?
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySouljah.html
And when you've been handed the rest of the responses that the authors
have indicated they will deliver, what will be your next lot of demands?
(Shifting goal posts, no acknowledgement or thanks for the effort - nothing new there.)
-
Sou,
Didn't you know? - Tom Fuller's every demand must be met.
Prof L. surely has no greater priority
-
Yes, people should supply information, especially when they
promised it to a US Congressman 6 years ago and told untruths about why
they couldn't provide it then.
See Ed Wegman Promised Data to Rep. Henry Waxman Six Years Ago - Where Is It?.
I assume those bugging Lewandowsky will recognize that it is far more
important to get the data behind a report to the US Congress and will
contact Wegman to ask him to deliver it.
-
Numerous posts here are using demanding that Prof. L take the time
to provide them what they want when they want it, drop everything and
gimme, gimme, gimme. A bunch of rent seekers. To paraphrase the Idiot
Tracker about Mosher, Fuller and other, they are trying to force the
good Prof. L
to give them, gratis, the fruits of his labor.
They are, of course, quite happy to use the coervsive power of the
government to try and force Prof. L to give them what they want by
abusing freedom of information laws, writing to administrators at his
university and posting abusive messages, both here (good work
administrator) and on their own blogs.
-
Thomasawfuller:
I am just asking what any researcher would ask of another researcher.
Hmmm, that's curious - I thought that you were a journalist. I didn't
realise that you are actually an academic, with equivalent bona fides
and experience to Stephan Lewendowsky. Could you please supply some
background describing your field of investigation that employs the
scientific method and that results in new knowledge?
There's no urgency. Any time at your convenience will do.
-
Tom Curtis - you have shown you are more than capable through the
work you've on this. That you have reached the same basic conclusion as
others should be evidence of that.
(-snip-)
Your willingness to say what you believe, even if uncomfortable, is a commendable quality.
We need more people willing to engage and challenge - to follow the
science and the data and not political ideologies and beliefs. Don't apologize and don't belittle your efforts and skills.
Like you, while I suspect there's a fair amount of confirmation bias
involved, I don't think there is any intent towards fraud here. And that
should be made clear.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
-
Brings to mind a 1999 paper from a different but related journal.
-
And Tom Curtis, my apologies for using you as the example when I
suspect you'd rather not. But your work is important and well documented
and provides important context and support.
You dare to stand up and raise valuable points, most importantly to me,
the bigger picture ones ... that need to be seen - and addressed. By
both sides.
If I might risk my own paraphrase of your message to Mr. Lewandowsky:
'if you want to be taken seriously then act seriously, address the
science, and not the sensationalizing'
Again, I think yours is an excellent message that all sides would be well served to hear.
-
Questions continue to be raised for further information relating to this paper. My response is threefold:
1. I see little merit in treading over ground that is already clearly
stated in the paper (e.g., the elimination of duplicate IP numbers).
2. Several questions concern material that is presently subject to an
FOI request. I will let that process run to completion rather than
pre-empt it.
3. The supplementary online material for the article is being extended
to contain additional information (e.g., the outlier analysis from the
preceding post). The online supplement will be released when the
typesetting of the article is complete.
Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.
-
What Eli Rabett said @64, and it's about time it was said. What the
whole recent 'blog science' movement fails to appreciate is that
replication of other scientist's results is not accomplished by
borrowing their data and running your own analysis on it. That's not the
way our knowledge in a particular field is advanced.
Rather, you do the hard graft to gather your own data, write your own
paper, and get it published in a reputable journal. *Then* you are doing
science, as opposed to the 'armchair science' as evidenced by some of
the commenters here. But admittedly, reading these comments has been
good for the lolz, so do carry on.
-
Dr. Lewandowsky,
It's been noted at several blogs that the survey was circulated at your
university and elsewhere on two psychology related websites. This was
unreported in the paper as far as I could discern.
You were kind enough to explain your counterbalancing procedure when
blog speculation ran rampant. I wonder if you might also explain how
this data fits into the methodology.
Or if I could ask, was it incorporated into the full data set? Is it
used as some sort of control? Did you collect it and then decide not to
use it? Or maybe you intend to publish another paper based on these
results?
Thanks in advance.
Prev 1 2
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 
