rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:


And we know how foolproof the peer review process don't we 

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:


Yes.  That is exactly what he said in his book, and elsewhere.

Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p. 328)
massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a years’
human CO2 emissions in a few days. (p 472)
Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p 328)

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf


On the Today programme Justin Webb allowed him get away with some extraordinary claims. Plimer maintained, for example, that "we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ia...

Plimer did say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? Yes.
Did I respond as if he did? Yes.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:


Rabbitoh,
I have modified your website access points, so they are active.

In order to make access easier for others trying to follow what you are saying, highlight the website address then hit the top left icon (the Globe) and that should enable others to simply click onto a live website address, in your post.

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:15pm:

OK.  Thanks.  Didn't know that.

This thread started out with

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science?

Well, I am sure Lewandowsky and Cook from skeptical science can answer this for themselves and am pretty sure they could have well before this thread.

Anything to do with AGW is BS pseudo. Manipulation. Deceitful.

-----------
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science.

“Motivated” is the key word here, as it appears there were hidden motivations for this paper. It seems though, once you scratch the surface of Lewandowsky’s paper, that it is nothing more than a journal sanctioned smear of climate skeptics based on not only faulty data, but data gathered with a built in bias.

more at link... then we go on to

Next there’s the who got what version of what survey problem, Jo notes this:

Leopard on the Bishop Hill thread has noted that Steve McIntyre is asking Lewandowsky why there are two or even three different forms of the survey? Why indeed?

Paul follows them up:

The Deltoid, Tamino, Mandia and Hot-Topic blogs were sent the survey number surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415 on about August 29th. That survey is on the archive, and starts with 6 questions about free markets.

Bickmore and Few Things had the survey number surveyID=HKMKNG_ee191483 also about Aug 29, but this one doesn’t seem to be on the archive.

Steve Mc was sent survey number surveyID=HKMKNI_9a13984 on Sept 6th. This survey is on the archive, and it starts with 5 completely different questions! About how happy you are with life.

This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.

more at link... then we go on to this

The striking thing is that we have John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog listed as presenting both the original as well as the most recent survey. It as been discovered that Cook is a co-author with Levandowsky on a similar paper:


Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (in press). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LewandowskyEcker.IP2012.PSPI.pdf

One wonders how much Cook contributed to the questions, based on his understanding of his readers likely responses. It is strange irony indeed that the paper discusses “debiasing”, when so many potential biases in Lewandowsky’s methods are clearly obvious to even the casual reader. Wikipedia even cites them for this paper in a section on “debunker“


Australian Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky[5] and John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (and author at SkepticalScience.com)[6] both warn about “backfire effects” in their Debunking Handbook.[2] Backfire effects occur when science communicators accidentally reinforce false beliefs by trying to correct them. For instance, a speaker about global warming may end up reinforcing the crowd’s beliefs that global warming is not happening.

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-sc...

MOTR wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 5:40am:

Keep your wywa on the prize as it reveals itself.

MOTR wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 5:54am:

It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing.

A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 6:47am:

To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth.

You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is)