Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Shale blithe spirit | Main | Some model thoughts »
Tuesday
Jun182013

Lew deconstruction

Ben Pile has written an excellent deconstruction of the Lewandowsky papers for Spiked! It's good to have the failings of Lew's work summarised in this way, but the article is particularly interesting for what the academy's celebration of this kind of nonsense tells us about their standards.

Lewandowsky demonstrates that the academic institutions do not produce dialogue that has any more merit than the petty exchanges — flame wars –that the internet is famous for. Dressing political arguments up in scientific terminology risks the value of science being lost to society — its potential squandered for an edge in a political fight. After all, if Lewandowsky’s work is representative of the quality of scientific research in general and the standards the academy expects of academics, what does that say about climate science and the quality of the scientific consensus on climate change? If the scientific argument about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is only as good as Lewandowsky’s claim that ‘Rejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets’, then perhaps climate sceptics should be taken more seriously.

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (49)

"But this attempt to form a pathological view of a complex debate says much more about the researchers than the objects of their study."

How true.

Totalitarians find it very difficult to restrain their tendency to medicalize opposing thought.

Jun 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas Hallam

I think Ben Pile's article could do with some severe trimming - I doubt that many people will make it all the way though so find the salient points of Lew's misdeeds ;(

Jun 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

It is a pity that allegedly august institutions did not come 'in defence of science' when groups such as Greenpeace were (as they still are) spreading public disinformation about, say, nuclear power or genetically modified organisms.

There is certainly room for disagreement on these topics, and it is true they preceded the creation of the www. But I can't recall hearing or reading any opinions repeatedly expressed about them by, say, the Royal Society.

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

‘Rejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets’,

He's unfortunately right.

My summary of the truth .

From Prof. David F. Noble The Corporate Climate Coup

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-corporate-climate-coup/5568


The oil companies were members of an anti global warming organisation called the Global Change Coalition until just before Kyoto was signed . Many jumped ship after the Americans managed to insert cap and trade into article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol on the insistence of Enron and BP, even though the Senate was complete against it and voted 95-0 against ratification. The Global Change Coalition eventually disbanded in 2000, four years before Kyoto was ratified.

Then

'Defections from the GCC began in 1997 and within three years had come to include such major players as Dupont, BP, Shell, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, and Texaco.

Those who split off from the GCC quickly coalesced in new organizations. Among the first of these was the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. funded by the philanthropic offering of the Sun Oil/Sunoco fortune.'


Yes, the Pews are the people who own Sunoco Oil reputed to be the most right wing family in American history. Gore was owned by Occidental Oil, Thatcher's husband was a director of Burmah (oil) and Rajendra Pachauri was a director of the Indian Oil Corporation at the same time as he was head of the IPCC.

Corporate politicians like Blair and corporate newspapers like The Guardian and Times went right along with it.

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Pharos gave a fine quote from John Bignell on another thread here, and that led me to revisit the Numberwatch site. I stumbled across this which seems relevant to the above post:


In the modern age almost everything is political; not just party-political, but also driven by sometimes covert, extra-parliamentary interest groups.

Science has come under total political control and so has lost much of its raison d’être, which is human curiosity. In common parlance the very word “science” has changed its meaning. A repeated observation is that the existence of a consensus (a concept alien to science) in any field results in the suppression of research into alternative hypotheses.

Politicians and bureaucrats nurture research that confirms their prejudices. That promotes a consensus, which inevitably becomes self-reinforcing by the exclusion of alternatives, so alleged scientific progress becomes merely the expression of Government policy.

The EU, USA, Britain and Australia all have left-leaning, authoritarian governments and bureaucracies, who believe it is their right and duty to exercise control over every detail of their victims’ lives. Powerful monolithic media organisations, such as the BBC and ABC, ruthlessly exercise rigorous censorship and selectivity to magnify the apparent weight of zealot causes favoured by the contemporary establishment. Scientific matters are discussed in terms of political ideology rather than the natural language of science, which is predominantly mathematics.

The looseness of trendy modern statistical procedures provides a ready response to political requirements. Results can be virtually manufactured to order. These are then used, with the cooperation of the establishment media, to bludgeon the population into obedience.

John Brignell
February 2013

‘results manufactured to order’ provides a reasonable perspective on the otherwise bizarre survey practices of Loopy and his co-workers.

Now, I’m off to read the Ben Pile piece. He, by way of contrast, is his own man, and a deep thinker on political matters. I expect the piece to demand a lot of the reader, me especially, but I’m also confident it will be worth the effort.

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Delingpole on big business

Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

But who is it that sponsors the Guardian's Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)

And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)

And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.

And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There?s a clue in this line here: ?Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.?

And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)

And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild's bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the 'new world order' (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading.

Or why not try this blog, in which a German Green party MP is revealed being given hefty donations by a solar power company?

Or how about this tiny $70 million donation to the climate change industry from the Rockefeller Foundation?

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

And this is the man touted by The Royal Society as a valuable scientist in need of a cash grant to keep him sweet and by Bristol University as a great addition to their academic team.
I hope both organisations read Ben's article and realise just how stupid they have been!

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Carter

Lewandowsky’s thinking lies exposed by such phrases dismissing “unregulated free markets”. Being “unregulated” makes it a “free market” – duh! It is the ever-growing regulation of the market that is stifling growth in the West; if even I, more left-wing than even I thought I was, can see that, why can’t he? Perhaps he is of the opinion that all people are free, so long as they stay within the limits of their chains. That is emblematic of the oxymoronic views of a depressingly large number of “intellectuals”: “Do only what we tell you to do, and you will be free.”

As for equating climate sceptics with conspiracy theorists, can he not see that that is exactly what his logic is – his paper is, in itself, one huge conspiracy theory!

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

John Carter "I hope both organisations read Ben's article and realise just how stupid they have been!" Why question people and papers (Lew) when they say what you want them to and why listen to detractors (Ben) no matter how sensible?

Sigh, it's all very dispiriting.

Lew's work and the support for it reminds me of an argument for conceptual art - 'what makes a pile of rubbish art? Because an artist says it is'. Similarly - what would make a pile of rubbish science? Because a scientist says it is.

Is it only a matter of time becore being sceptical of a scientific paper infringes the author's human rights?

Jun 18, 2013 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

steveta, it's a writing style thing, particularly a difference between those with an arts / science background. An alternative approach, that would be quite worthwhile I think, would be a list of one-sentence bullet points listing what's wrong.

Jun 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Tiny

"what makes a pile of rubbish art? Because an artist says it is"

Indeed. I heard Tracey Emin defending her 'unmade bed' in exactly those terms, and completely straight-faced. As long as nobody laughs, or mentions the Emperor's state of undress, they get away with it.

Jun 18, 2013 at 2:57 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

It is my view that the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute and the GWPF have been funded by the oil industry to make the opposition to AGW look ludicrous..

If you think Monckton, Lawson and particularly Viscount Ridley are valid participants in a debate about science, you have completely lost the plot. A photograph of any of those gentleman is enough to make the average Guardian reader fall on the floor laughing. Lawson is old and has open connections to big oil . Monckton is mad and having a bit of a laugh at our expense too. Useless.

Any connection to the loony right invalidates you have to contribute to the debate. Andrew Montford has made a fantastic contribution with real science, but he is tainted by his connection to the nutters. He might also consider staying off the radio because his RP accent is an albatross round his neck in this debate. That isn't reverse snobbery, just (I suspect) a fact.I like Delingpole, but his politics, if they aren't a comic invention have public school 18 year old ultra snob written all over them.

For me, the only sceptic who really matters is Roger Pielke. He's very clever, so clever he is now published in the Groaniad !!

Jun 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

michael hart
Remember, that it was Paul Nurse in that cringe-making programme in which he undermined Delingpole who equated trashers of GM crops with AGW-deniers.
A better example of an own goal or auto-foot shooting I have yet to come across though nobody seemed then or since to challenge him in this piece of idiocy. If I had been a greenie I would have felt more than slightly insulted that my attempts to stave off the disaster of GM crops were being compared to the activities of those evil deniers!

Jun 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Ed Davey- Speaking today in Brussels- ref 'conspiracy theorists" - wanting 50% reduction in GHG's

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/edward-davey-speech-ambitious-and-flexible-europes-2030-framework-for-emissions-reduction

"The science is solid and accepted by pretty much every government on earth.

Of course there will always be those with a vested interest in the status quo.

Who seek to create doubt where there is certainty.

And you will always get crackpots and conspiracy theorists who will deny they have a nose on their face if it suits them."

--------------

he was quoting Cook's 97% the other day, I wonder if he has heard of Lew, or just made that up for himself.. (the latter probably) - but" seeking to create doubt" and "vested interests" seems to indicate he believes in a few conspiracies himself.

Jun 18, 2013 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Jun 18, 2013 at 1:43 PM | John Carter

There is a very good chance he will raise the profile of climate science at Bristol University. Whether the scientists would like their profile raised in this way though....

Jun 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Barry Woods
Ed Davey doesn’t need to have heard of Lewandowsky to evoke conspiracy theorists. Lew’s meme has gone viral. As you and I and a couple of others know, try to insert some facts in a comment at a supposedly serious blog like The Conversation or Point of Inquiry, and you’re just ignored. No flame war - nothing. I’ve pointed out at these two blogs and others that Lewandowsky and Cook are liars and that their research is worthless - on articles by Lewandowsky himself, among others. The comments just sit there - little piles of steaming facts in a landscape of bland self congratulation. We denialists are non-persons.

Jun 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Ben Pile's article is about a lot more than Lewandowsky (although Loo provides a rich fund of examples of what he is talking about).

The distinction he makes between science as a process and science as an institution is absolutely crucial. It is at the heart of all the nonsense about consensus and the demonisation of dissenters. As he points out, science as an institution has been co-opted by political elites seeking validation of their increasingly shaky credibility. Along the way, science as a process (and those who espouse it) get thrown under the bus.

I was interested to read about the UK Science and Technology Select Committee's attempts to divert the discussion from the science and policy issues to working out how to manipulate the public into following the Party line. A classic example of "policy based evidence", surely.

About 20 years ago, when working in the Prime Minister's Department as a policy adviser, I and my colleagues were summoned to attend a series of seminars on "evidence based policy", which was promoted as cutting edge stuff. It struck me at the time as somewhat disrespectful to imply that up till then, policy was something that was thought up in the bath by Ministers and dutifully implemented by robotic public servants. I knew that it just wasn't true.

What was signalled was the movement to take policy out of the public arena and hand it over to unelected experts (carefully chosen) - simultaneously absolving elected representatives from responsibility and reinforcing the authority of the policies they implemented.

I don't know if Ben is interested in the history of public policy, but suspect that he would be surprised to hear that great political leaders and policy initiators never resorted to anything as vulgar as "evidence" until recently.

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Ouch. That is going to leave a mark.....

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing

Whatever truth is in esmiff above is lost in the magnificent example of ad hominem. e is, I'm sure, so aware.
=========

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

That article is an excellent example of remarkably good journalism.

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman

We degrade ourselves by prattling on about Oreskes, Lewandowsky, Cook, et al. They're the worst of the worst and it's an embarrassment to everyone involved that they're so visible.

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

kim - eSmiff's use of the 'average Guardian reader' as his frame of reference pretty much renders his whole argument moot in any case.

Jun 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Kim

All of these people are motivated by politics. Their view is tainted.

As are the views of Monbiot, Mann, Hansen, Blair, Gore, Miliband, the Guardian, the Guardianistas, the Met Office, Greenpeace, the Hadley centre, NASA et al. They are actually a lot worse because they are lying through their teeth.

I was a 100% shoe in for AGW until I investigated the science. New age, Guardian reader, former anarchist, science degree, vegan, very close personal connections to the Green Party. I also watched the corporate rascals at the Guardian banning anyone who understood and disagreed with the science.

Jun 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

I've written to Lewy's boss at Bristol Uni about this charlatan, linking to both Ben's article and Steve McIntyre's destruction of Lewy's use of "statistics". Boss didn't reply, so I have written to the Vice Chancellor of the Uni. I encourage other UK taxpayers to join in, and complain about this grotesque abuse of taxpayer funding.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/governance/constitutionaldocs/universityofficers/senior-staff/vc.html

http://www.bris.ac.uk/contact/organisation/getDetails?organisationCode=PSYC

Jun 18, 2013 at 5:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

JEM, I disagree. Ben Pile did not even mention 2 out of the 3 names you cite - and Lewandowsky was used primarily as an example.

We can't fight junk science by saying that some un-named people out there are doing bad things. That brings us to the level of those who claim that Big Oil is funding anyone they don't agree with, minus the specifics.

Jun 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

JEM, I disagree. Ben Pile did not even mention 2 out of the 3 names you cite - and Lewandowsky was used primarily as an example.

We can't fight junk science by saying that some un-named people out there are doing bad things. That brings us to the level of those who claim that Big Oil is funding anyone they don't agree with, minus the specifics.

Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Quotes from His Eminence Ed Davey's speech
The ice caps are thinning and melting. You have evidence for this, Ed?
Sea levels are rising.And your point is? Are they doing this faster than in the last, say, 100 years?
Extreme weather events are happening with increasing frequency. You have evidence for this, Ed?

And that's just the first page.
For heaven's sake will someone in government p-l-e-a-s-e call this idiot out?
Or better still, throw him out before he destroys UK civilisation single-handed?

Jun 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Johanna
I was struck by your comment “I don't know if Ben is interested in the history of public policy, but suspect that he would be surprised to hear that great political leaders and policy initiators never resorted to anything as vulgar as "evidence" until recently.“, and the fact that you’ve worked in the Cabinet Office (20 years ago).

I commented on a meeting on evidence and science and policy three months ago href=" http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/10/review-of-what-counts-as-good-evidence-for-policy.html">link. Could you contact me? I’d like to have an email conversation about so-called science-based policy. My email is markpiney@hotmail.co.uk Thanks.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Piney

A point of comparison if anyone can explore it (I can't right now): some of us have recently been tempted to apply the term "pathological altruism" to at least some kinds of climate alarmism. See discussion thread at right for more info. Are we (those who think that "pathological altruism" might be a concept worthy of consideration) just doing a mirror image of Lewandowsky, I.e., psychologizing differences of opinion and judgment?

I think the detailed comparisons might illuminate when and how it is relevant (or not) to introduce psychological concepts to intellectual and scientific disagreements. Sorry I can't explore this now, but I put it out here in case anyone finds the comparison of interest.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Mike Jackson - Faith-based science.

It doesn't matter if any of it's true, for that matter it doesn't matter that much of it's demonstrably false, he's preaching the received wisdom of his congregation.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Joanna - I'm very interested. See http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/11/28/against-evidence-based-policy-making/

Please get in touch.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBen Pile

Are we (those who think that "pathological altruism" might be a concept worthy of consideration) just doing a mirror image of Lewandowsky>

Yes.

That was easy.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:36 PM | Registered Commentersteve ta

"Sorry I can't explore this now, but I put it out here in case anyone finds the comparison of interest."

I do, Skiphill.

Many of our beliefs are held on irrational grounds. Idelogical commitments can affect the content and tenacity of our beliefs, and this is as much true of libertarians like me as it is of Marxists or environmentalists. The rationality of science, though, does not depend on the objectivity of any believer but in the ability of scientific hypotheses to stand or fail when put to the scrutiny of critics and of experience. Really this is what both sides of the present debate should be concentrating on.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas Hallam

"Sorry I can't explore this now, but I put it out here in case anyone finds the comparison of interest."

I do, Skiphill.

Many of our beliefs are held on irrational grounds. Ideological commitments can affect the content and tenacity of our beliefs, and this is as much true of libertarians like me as it is of Marxists or environmentalists. The rationality of science, though, does not depend on the objectivity of any believer but in the ability of scientific hypotheses to stand or fail when put to the scrutiny of critics and of experience. Really this is what both sides of the present debate should be concentrating on.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas Hallam

"Britain’s leading science institutions will be told on Monday that they will be stripped of many millions of pounds in research grants if they employ rogue researchers who fake the results of experiments, The Independent has learnt."

http://www.thegwpf.org/britains-bad-science-scandal-uk-research-position-threatened-fact-fabricators/

I say! Hello? Mr Government, we've got one for you.

Jun 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Why keep all these intelligent comments to ourselves, when we can share them with the great man himself at
http://theconversation.com/no-matter-how-strong-the-evidence-on-climate-change-deniers-will-keep-denying-14496
or
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/stephan_lewandowsky_the_mind_of_the_conspiracy_theorist/
Or with his many journalist and scientist friends, for example at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-markman-phd/who-rejects-evidence-of-g_b_3325782.html
http://io9.com/this-is-my-favorite-new-bizarro-science-scandal-on-the-463119408
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-elephant-in-the-room-with-lewandowsky/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/06/conspiracy-theorists-also-doubt-climate-science
or
http://theconversation.com/i-bet-its-biased-one-easy-step-to-squash-expert-opinions-14945

Jun 18, 2013 at 7:05 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

johanna Jun 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM makes highlights two interesting points in Ben Pile's long piece.

First is "the distinction he makes between science as a process and science as an institution is absolutely crucial."
Second is about evidence-based policy making.
Many people are misled into believing that something labelled as "science", and written by a professor is the unique authority. I happen to think that, in principle, evidence-based policy making is a good thing. But, before the "science" is used for policy it needs critical review. Too often we have one-sided opinion funded by government to support what they wish to be told, or what noisy activists wish to promote. There is no checks for quality, robustness, or funding of counter views. In short, no debate.

Jun 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterManicBeancounter

Thanks, all those who picked up on the John Brignell quote. I formerly thought his Numberwatch site was mainly confined to just lighthearted parady and only accidentally discovered his literary prowess and his talent for detecting a broad spectrum of politico-scientific mischief. He's actually been latched on to these mischiefs for a very long time, warning us about abuse of agenda-based statistics and so on. He's a retired Prof and award winning pioneer in industrial instrumentation, got a wiki entry, written a couple of popular books and several essays. He's a fearless dodgy science whistleblower like Christopher Booker unafraid of stepping into the politically correct minefields with guns blazing.

What a corrupt academic and political era this is.

Jun 18, 2013 at 9:19 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

John Brignell is a pioneer of debunking junk science. He is an older Delingpole with the benefit of a strong grounding in maths and science. His health has been poor in the last few years, and his blog has reflected that. If anyone has a few quid to spare for a genuine National Treasure, go to Numberwatch and put something into the meagre kitty

Brignell has compiled possibly the most comprehensive list of bad things allegedly caused by CO2, since he started it many years ago. It has been plundered by arrivistes.

His style is a bit florid and old-fashioned for some - but do not be fooled. When he crunches the numbers, prepare to be instructed, corrected and enlightened.

Jun 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Spiked hit the headlines last month with Barbara Hewson.

Dont suppose they deliberately set out to bring a storm of controversy upon themselves.But their advertising department may have been quietly pleased,

See if they can hit the headlines again in the scientific community with their
Lewandowsky faked Climate Change Denier Conspiracy Theorist survey.(Actually Ben Pile repeating BH and WUWT but its out in the mainstream now)

Jun 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

Bishop thought for the morning .Make Spikedonline one of your links.

Bunch of old 1980s Revoloutioary Communists without the Berlin wall .You will end like the rest us a Tory looking for a revoloution agreeing with most of what they say and maybe even writting for them.

Good night

Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

How many generations of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors are complicit in this? This only goes to show that you can trust Modern Academics as much as you could Monk Scripes.

It also easily explains how so much money is wasted there. High tuition fees, in the US and UK may be where the worm turns.

Of the thousands of senior Academics and Perfumed Professors I can count those with basis common sense and who I can trust on my fingers.

Grüss, omb

Jun 19, 2013 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterombzhch

Ben, there's plenty of good material in there, but I agree with 'steveta' when he suggested that it could have used a ferocious sub-edit.

Not just for length, but for its prolix style which tends to obscure the good points rather than highlight them. Sentences with 9 pronouns in them become hard to follow to the end. Continual use of qualifiers such as 'really','highly','actually','rather',and 'simply' also slow up the action.

Compare: 'Though this [SEM] may be an appropriate tool in some cases, its usefulness to the job of shedding light on what people think about complex political and scientific issues is debatable, and may in fact reveal more about Lewandowsky than sceptics.'

with:

'Lewandowsky's use of SEM to examine complex political and scientific issues is debatable. SEM may be an appropriate tool in some cases, but its use here may reveal more about Lewandowsky than about sceptics.'

Jun 19, 2013 at 4:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

What if, Lewandowsky was put up to this?


What if, Lewlew is just a scumbag post grad student wind up merchant?


He is.


And what if, we never ever give him the oxygen of more publicity?

Jun 19, 2013 at 5:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Mark Pine and Ben Pile, I got in touch as requested. Did you receive my missives?

Jun 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

did anyone else find eSmiff's comments strangely self-contradictory? So oil companies were first against climate change and then pro-climate change...and this endorses Lewandowski's premise? Followed up by a post about clear funding links between oil companies and the Guardian and carbon trading?

I don't get it. are oil companies in favour of the CAGW hypothesis or not? His evidence suggests that they are. Are they in favour of unregulated markets or not? My stance is they are in favour of mutually-beneficial oligopoly rather than pure competition.

Jun 19, 2013 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

The oil companies don't care about AGW.

1) They saw it could cost them a lot of money and opposed it.

2) Later they saw they could make vast amount of money from Enron created carbon trading inserted into the Kyoto Protocol and changed sides.

Since then they have promoted carbon trading. This way.


International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

The biggest lobbying group at Copenhagen was the International Emissions Trading Association which was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.

Its members include :-

BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON (coal power stations owner), EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..

http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19%3Adefault&id=168%3Aour-members&Itemid=82

Jun 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

Oil companies, and any other large commercial concerns, spend considerable resources on analysing government regulation, and trying to work out how to maximise benefits for the company. Anyone whose super fund has shares in these companies should be grateful for that. It's not their fault.

True, a few companies ended up with CEOs who drank the Kool Aid. But rest assured, their ascendancy was and is linked to the bottom line. If it starts to cost them serious money, the Board and shareholders will toss them out in a nanosecond.

Jun 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

To call someone a "conspiracy theorist" is the first line of defence for those hiding the truth.....it shows they have not addressed the issue being discussed or they know they are in trouble.
eg.
1) JFK recoils in two different directions...therefore shots came from two different directions...therefore at least two different guns...therefore two gunmen. Simple enough to understand?
2) 9/11....airspace over Washington is prohibited airspace P56. If a craft flying through it does not have a military transponder it should be shot down automatically by any one of what we understand to be 32 missile launchers. Also passenger jets cannot fly at high speed lower than 60ft due to "ground effect ".....and the "plane" had descended 100 knots faster than the flight envelope of the aircraft...what is more the damage area too narrow too have been hit by a 757.
3) If we were suffering from AGW there would be a warming in the form of hotspots in the Tropical Troposphere....none found. And it is impossible for CO2 to overheat the planet due to it's ability to create heat being logarithmic...and not linear.
All of the above are a mixture of facts and common sense.....the official version of all of the aforementioned is at odds with what I have posted...yet we are the "nutters"?
...

Jun 20, 2013 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterjames griffin

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>