Lew deconstruction
Jun 18, 2013
Bishop Hill in Climate: Sceptics, Climate: other

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.

 

 

Article originally appeared on (http://www.bishop-hill.net/).
See website for complete article licensing information.