Click to buy!
Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Shub Niggurath has done some number crunching on Stephan Lewandowsky's Moon Hoax paper and discovered that "it's even more risible than we thought".
The story is at WUWT.
View Printer Friendly Version
It's like finding holes in an Emmental with most of the cheese removed.
A very old cheese that stinks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319837/Royal-Society-scientists-open-revolt-Prince-Andrews-election-fellowship-colourful-past.html The supreme irony.Fellows of the royal society up in arms
I've reproduced my complaint to UWA in the WUWT comments, and the fob off.
I totally agree with you. And most likely you will not be successful with your complaint. However, the points will still be received, and the faculty will be aware of them, and be more cautious in the future. All this might not change a single jota in this instance, but in the long run, it very well might make a difference.
Reasonable people are not insensitive to idiocy, even if they'd rather not ge near it by themselves. But when people start putting distance between themselves and the likes of Lewandowsky, others will notice. It will take time, but this is how such a process starts. You are a pawn sacrifice in the greater struggle, on that Lew got away with. Take this 'nomination' with pride and be prepared to rub it in for all future eternity. To be painted a 'denier' by one of the worst and obvious scientific failures on the CAGW-train is quite an accomplishment and something to be proud of. And I don't even know why I use the word 'scientific' in the same sentence as Lew ... He is so far from it that I wish for nothing more than that he'd stay inte center of climate media attention for some more time ..
The urgent need to fight global warming seems to be replaced with the urgent need to fight people with independent thoughts, aka "skeptics", and including "critics".
"Everywhere the climatism army marches on... each one a dedicated follower of bashing"
(sorry, Ray Davies)
Meanwhile, many around the skeptic web are laughing at John Cook's latest survey. I took it out of curiosity, although I would not encourage skeptic/realist participation. However, I noticed what seems to be a fatal ambiguity in what exactly a survey participant is supposed to rate about "AGW" --
CA on Cook's survey
Most of the papers seem to assume some degree of "AGW" but very few of the abstracts I saw described papers which could contribute to ANY general evidence of AGW. They were usually in the vein of "assume AGW is true (CAGW really), what might possibly happen in this or that little ecosystem?" Nothing to provide widespread evidence FOR any argument about AGW per se.
John Cook's new survey is a complete waste of time.
Cook's 'survey' is most likely not a survey. It is not what you think - it is not about what you think. Cook has gotten his skepticalscience tree hut forum members to classify abstracts toward his publication. There are likely lots of neutral, difficult-to-classify papers, as the total is 12,000. These are being farmed out via the survey, likely in a tie-breaking exercise.
You may have missed Steve McIntyre's mischievous irony, Junk.
Belief disconfirmation paradigm
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially it the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenous defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devatating attacks. But mans resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has commitment to his belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
Leon Festinger and his co-authors concluded that the following conditions lead to increased conviction in beliefs following disconfirmation:1. The belief must be held with deep conviction and be relevant to the believer's actions or behavior.2. The belief must have produced actions that are difficult to undo.3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and concerned with the real world such that it can be clearly disconfirmed.4. The disconfirmatory evidence must be recognized by the believer.5. The believer must have social support from other believers.
Jonus N and Bob W,
I doubt the university will have taken any notice what so ever. They are all of the sane cut abd you challenging on their their lot will be akin to you challenging them all.
May 6, 2013 at 7:35 AM Martyn
Is there any way the cycle can be broken?
I've commented in the past that I can well believe that, 500 years from now, the CAGW religion will have gone from strength to strength. The fact that temperatures have not risen will simply be taken as confirming the need to continue measures against Big C and his demons.
'"it's even more risible than we thought".'Give Lewandowsky some credit to be that bad you really got to work at it .
Sure there is.Kill off the money tree or at least cut off the tops and large branches to leave a stub or two.
There has been, and it has not yet subsided, an almighty panic over carbon dioxide.
The problem with a panic is that it empowers all sorts of incompetent people to rush about issuing advice at the tops of their voices.
We calmer ones have to endure quite a din, and quite a rushing about of people around us (e.g. drafting silly legislation, promoting windfarms, scaring the children). Loopy is just one of those people, with his bits of flapping paper held aloft being spectacularly silly studies.
Well done Shub and others for getting hold of them, and patiently pointing out the flaws. That will not be enough to stop the wailing and the gnashing of teeth which is now on such a large scale that it is hard to conceive of any single action that could stop it.
But, slowly and surely, the flames lit by irresponsible or deluded ones under the collective backside of the political class are being put out, and the prospect of more of that class calming down a bit and giving more weight to evidence rather than speculation remains a credible one.
'But, slowly and surely, the flames lit by irresponsible or deluded ones under the collective backside of the political class are being put out, and the prospect of more of that class calming down a bit and giving more weight to evidence rather than speculation remains a credible one.'
You are right indeed. IMO CAGW alarmism overall will not go out with a bang ..but will just fade away with a whimper.
Day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month, year-by -year interest will die. Grants will be shaved or not renewed. That new windmill proposal will not be pursued...the school lesson on climate change toned down...the subsidies have just another 1/2p taken off it...the Green Fair will get just a few fewer stallholders and attendees......'green studies' courses will get fewer applicants and no budget increase ..and the current generation of academic alarmists will retire or otherwise fall silent.
The big question in UK is what response the incumbent parties will make to UKIP's success. They cannot have failed to notice that Farrage mentions wind power as one of this top three concerns. The tide there was already turning ..but he is giving it an almighty shove. It would be a brave or foolish politician (or Ed Davey who is just a mindless muppet) to nail his colours firmly to the windy mast today. I think it will be the first plank of greenism that actually crumbles...and within the next couple of years.
Interesting times. I hope somebody of a literary bent and with a forensic mind is taking notes to eventually write the definitive history of 'The Death of Alarmism - Why Did So Many Believe Such Crap for So Long' Rupert? Andrew? .
Badly-collected mysterious material with dubious attempts at reaching out to skeptics and an easy-to-spot Big-Brother-style watching out of participants. Lew's fingerprints are all over "Cook's" crowdsourcing effort and a new pseudoremotepsychology paper is already being written, DEMONSTRATING skeptics won't cooperate even if asked.
NB: no Lew this is not conspiracy theorism...this is a re-statement of fraudulency.
"A very old cheese that stinks." May 5, 2013 at 10:35 PM John Silver
I hope, for the sensitivities of our host, that it is not Stinking Bishop!! (groan)
Here's part that Barry is referring to:
Several other criticisms have been made in relation to the methodology used in the study and these have been referred back to the journals for peer assessment and are not part of the University investigation into responsible research practice.The policy and procedure required to consider the issues has been appropriately followed and there are no further internal processes available. The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed.
The policy and procedure required to consider the issues has been appropriately followed and there are no further internal processes available. The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed.
After my word association football test cricket they said I made several Freudian gymslips.
It occurred to me that Steve McIntyre might have been encouraging people to provide bogus responses to a bogus survey.
But since there are genuine surveys, which deserve genuine responses, I don't recommend making bogus responses. If the survey is bogus, just avoid it.
Brandon Shollenberger's latest revelation makes it even more obvious what a waste of time Cook's exercise is.
'The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed'
Isn't this oddly reminiscent of the hubristic reply that Joelle Gergis gave to McSteve about twenty minutes before her career-making paper publicly unravelled before her eyes and disappeared without trace? And shortly before she did the same?
Her actual closing was
'We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter'
And then the s..t hit the fan.............
Sigh... today's Scientific American blog 'The Curious Wavefunction' shows a distinct lack of curiosity...
That's truly awful Ruth. But thanks.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.