Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Lew Roll of Honour

Lewandowsky’s 2nd paper “recursive fury” is now published at
This is the one that looks at comments on the first paper, the famous Moon-landing Deniers paper, (which is still not published, 6 months after first having been revealed by Adam Corner at the Guardian and Pierre Gosselin at Notrickszone) and finds commenters guilty of “conspiracist ideation” “nefarious intention” and other psychological flaws.
Alongside the paper abstract top right under “Article Info” click on “Supplemental Data”, and you’ll find a spreadsheet with all the denialist conspiratist ideation laid out. We’re all there - Foxgoose, Barry Woods, LeopardintheBasement, omnologos, Richard Drake, even Richard Betts!
Have a look and see what you’re guilty of, and report back. I’ve been blogging on it, and Joanna will likely be back on the trail soon.

Mar 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Which one am I? I can't wait!

Mar 20, 2013 at 8:54 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard Drake
You’re under a special heading “SkS conspiracy”, I think because of your reference to “Cookie’s cock-ups”.
If we all wrote a peer-reviewed paper every time someone was rude about us..

Mar 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Well, what a surprise. In the first line of the spreadsheet in which I appear I have Foxgoose's words ascribed to me. Data integrity good as usual, eh Lew?

[Geoff: Yeah, under 'SkS conspiracy'. Boo hoo. My denialist conspiratist ideation didn't even make the grade. The post in question is here. And if you are in the country from tomorrow, as previously advertised, call or text 077952130635 to chat and/or set up meeting.]

Mar 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Absolutely hysterical

I am merely listed in the methodology flaw section...

"someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of
the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject
climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory" – Barry Woods

while Professor Richard Betts (Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC AR4 and AR5 lead author, is in the conspiracy section... !!!

Excerpt Espousing Conspiracy Theory

"The thing I don't understand is, why
didn't they just make a post on sceptic
blogs themselves, rather than
approaching blog owners. They could
have posted as a Discussion topic here
at Bishop Hill without even asking the
host, and I very much doubt that the
Bish would have removed it. Climate
Audit also has very light-touch
moderation and I doubt whether Steve
McIntyre would have removed such an
unsolicited post. Same probably goes
for many of the sceptic blogs, in my
experience. So it does appear to that
they didn't try very hard to solicit views
from the climate sceptic community." – Richard Betts

just spilt my coffee over keyboard, don’t care too funny....

Supplementary data


Mar 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Geoff: Er, for best results remove one 7 from that number. Clever way to avoid spam? No, clumsy fingers.

Barry: You're one of the nicest methodology flaws I've ever met. Congratulations.

Mar 20, 2013 at 9:40 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Seeing such an innocuous comment from Richard Betts caught up in the Lewandowsky/Cook nonsense is good for some uproarious laughter here right now.....

I have to say that I can't spare any time or interest for Lew-crap right now, this all seems too absurd.

I did scan the data sheet to see if any comment of mine was swept up in their net, and I am laughing so hard at what 4th rate losers these clowns proved to be! This is pure unadulterated nonsense posing as pseudo-science.

The comment of mine they have merely notes that mathematician Kevin Judd was working closely with Lew (they were co-founders of the ShapingTomorrowsWorld propaganda blog) and they there was a connection with the SkS treehut clowns.

Let me see..... I noticed some propaganda garbage flowing from the Univ. of Western Australia, I wondered where such garbage originated, and I spent a few moments googling to find the responsible parties. This has now become some kind of "conspiracy ideation" of "Kevin Judd, Puppet Master"???

For the record, I have no idea if Kevin Judd is puppet master of even his own puling ideological incompetence, all I noted was that he was the other co-founder of the STW blog along with Lewspeak.

Lew calls this a "Kevin Judd Puppet Master" (conspiracy ideation, I suppose?)

Let's get clear, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, if you should gather more comments in your net: I don't think you are some grand conspiracy, I think you are inept nutters who have risen far beyond your "Peter Principle" levels of incompetence. I puzzle over how any university worthy of the name ever employed such charlatans. Chew on that for your next paper, guys.

p.s. Their link to my WUWT comment does not seem to work but I can't be bothered tracking down that thread or comment now. I do recognize it as my own comment.


Comment by Skiphil

re: Kevin Judd, he definitely seems to be the other key
player along with Lewandowsky, and they are closely tied
to SkepticalScience


note: the grandiosity of naming their blog "ShapingTomorrowsWorld" with such clowns opining on everything beyond their competence is extreme enough to render any criticism of it a "conspiracy ideation" -- i.e., if you criticize people with such gargantuan mega-maniacal aspirations as "shaping..... tomorrow's...... world......" you are by definition implying that they are in some kind of conspiracy to ..... shape...... tomorrow's ...... world.

Fortunately they seem to lack any of the competences of past revolutionaries they are unlikely to have any actual impact beyond irritating those of us slandered by them.

Mar 20, 2013 at 10:04 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

I hope someone is letting Richard Betts know that he has been sucked into the dark whirlpool of skeptic conspiracy ideation, merely for posting such an innocuous observation. I expect he will be hugely amused.

Mar 20, 2013 at 10:16 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

I have emailed Richard

Mar 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Am in there twice. Let me restate, I do not believe in (grand) conspiracies. I do not even believe CAGW is a conspiracy of watermelons or anything like that.

OTOH it's perfectly non-conspiratorial to consider Lew and Cook's fabricated data as the result of a ...conspiracy of two. Also known as "fraud".

But I may be wrong. Who would have taken Richard Betts as a conspiracy theorist in the skeptics side? Perhaps Lew and Cook are really, really, really thick. On second thought...remove the "perhaps".

Mar 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

WHERE is the Richard Betts original comment?

A comment by Barry Woods including it does not make it so.

Mar 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts

It is listed on page 1 of the supplemental data. He is identified by name.

Mar 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM | Registered Commentershub

Paul Mathews, johanna, AntonyIndia, lurker passing through laughing, steve mcintyre, richard betts, the leopard in the basement, ascott, geoffchambers, omnologos, foxgoose, mickey reno, richard drake, sHx, ROM, skiphil, james - they're all in there.

Mar 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM | Registered Commentershub

Anthony Watts

My original comment is here at Aug 31, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Mar 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Mar 20, 2013 at 11:51 PM | shub

Hey, even I got mentioned - although I would never have known had the indefatigable Geoff Chambers not been kind enough to alert me, earlier today!

Amusing that even daring to mention "methodology flaws" in a Lew-paper can land one on his hit list!

But I found it even more amusing that he and/or his mouse seem to be somewhat challenged in the hyperlinking department if the text of an URL happens to be wrapped within the cell. Many of his carefully gathered posts, comments and webcitations go absolutely nowhere (unless user cares enough to manually copy the full URL and paste into browser ;-)

Mar 21, 2013 at 12:57 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Arise Richard Betts, Master of the Dark Arts of Conspiracy Ideation.

Mar 21, 2013 at 5:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Despite my wish not to waste time with Lewandowsky & co., I have now looked up my quoted comment to review the context of that WUWT thread. If I decide to abandon my web anonymity I may well file a formal charge of scientific misconduct with the journal and the University of Western Australia, because I believe the representation of my comment in that study is egregiously dishonest, misleading, and inept.

For anyone wanting a fresh angle on the Lewandowsky/Cook fiascos, I think that the wrenching out of context of my one brief comment listed in the "Recursive Fury" SI is a clear example of academic and scientific incompetence (or worse) by Lewandowsky/Cook et al.

Sure, I responded to another's comment which noted Kevin Judd's involvement with this UWA-based war on climate doubt, but in that thread I laid out a series of SIX substantive comments which (although at times scornful of the UWA participants, to be sure) were based in facts and arguments about the potential for misuse of academic and scientific auspices for "propaganda" purposes.

Thus, Lewandowsky/Cook's treatment of one brief comment, I submit, is a clear instance of "punitive psychology" and scientific misconduct. Here is a brief overview of my comments, in case anyone cares to review how grossly misleading it is for Lewandowsky/Cook to present one comment ripped out of context as "Kevin Rudd, Puppet Master".

This dismissive approach to "conspiracy ideation" seeks to disparage and discredit those with critical views who engage in reasonable objections to any (alleged) inappropriate behavior by more than one academic or scientist. I.e., it is automatically suspect "conspiracy ideation" even to note various facts about the publicly proclaimed cooperative ventures of people one alleges may be engaging in academic or professional misconduct. There is no "conspiracy" alleged in my comments if "conspiracy" implies anything secret, or anything more than the very PUBLIC cooperative activities that the participants themselves are boasting of and publicizing.


"Climate podcasts by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Judd and other members of the UWA climate science group are licensed..."

Climate Science
In the media

The UWA climate group is reaching out to the public in several ways, including through brief radio broadcasts and opinion pieces in the local and national media.

Radio broadcasts

We broadcast short segments on climate science at fortnightly intervals on RTR FM 92.1 in Perth, as part of their Understorey environmental program on Wednesdays, 11.30 AM WAST.

Our broadcasts are also cross-posted on Skeptical Science, which allows listeners and readers to post comments.

Climate podcasts by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Judd and other members of the UWA climate science group are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Ryan, I think it’s about the purpose(s) of universities and whether any lines can and should be drawn between research and teaching about research vs. propaganda for a cause. Especially with publicly funded operations, taxpayers in any country have every right to monitor and be concerned about potential sectarian, activist, and/or propagandistic uses of their funds. We can be sure there would not be this kind of funding for the “freedom of speech” of “skeptical” bloggers, but it does appear that public funds have found their way to Lewsandowsky’s activist blog for “the cause” and also probably to John Cook and SkS to the extent they are providing support operations….. that is a legitimate public concern for taxpayers of that country. Other observers are free (our freedom of speech) to raise the matter, although of course we do not get a vote on the politicians who are enabling this specific instance.

The six "Skiphil" comments on that same thread:

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Comment 5

Comment 6

Mar 21, 2013 at 5:23 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Consider what "conspiracist ideation" is supposed to be about according to the opening sentences of the "Recursive Fury" paper:

[emphasis added]

"Conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions. Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations...."

But many of the examples Lew/Cook et al. are trying to work from discuss open, public evidence easily found (just a Google search away), not any allegation of a "secret plot." Much of the activity on the threads related to LOG12 aimed at trying to determine how Lewandowsky and friends could be so obviously biased, inept, and publicly committed to prejudicial research methods.

Lew/Cook et al..... malicious or merely incompetent??

How about both?

Mar 21, 2013 at 7:23 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

I am saddened to say I didn't make it into their list. I think that means I must be a conspiracy nut.

Mar 21, 2013 at 7:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrandon Shollenberger

Anyone who feels unfairly left out, remember that Cook only started his data search on 28th August, a full month after discussion of the paper began at the Guardian, Notrickszone, Manicbeancounter, Talkingclimate and here
"Discussion > Grauniad: Are climate change sceptics likel to be conspiracy theorists?"
Because he missed out the first month of our plotting, his whole paper is worthless.

Mar 21, 2013 at 8:01 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

My exclusion from the list must be part of an even larger conspiracy. Or maybe I thought you were all doing OK on that thread so I didn't bother. Anyhow, now I am convinced that the Oxford pub meet is actual evidence of a sceptic conspiracy in progress. Funny how the Exxon bagman never turns up.

Mar 21, 2013 at 8:26 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

I've posted my twopenneth on the Frontiers page.

Mar 21, 2013 at 8:33 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations....

Since many of the ideations revealed in the supplementary materials, including the contribution from Richard Betts, concern the activities of Cook and Lewandowsky themselves, they are clearly implying that they consider themselves to be powerfull individuals involed in some significant event.


Mar 21, 2013 at 8:45 AM | Registered Commentersteveta

Judith Curry is a conspiracist too, see bottom of page 3, for pointing out that the survey was a scam and for mentioniing the leaked SKS forum.

Mar 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Lewandowsky even cherry picked part of my comment!!!

In his supplementay data (url below) he quotes this: Sheet 1.PDF&contentType=Data Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1

"someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory" - Barry Woods

the url provided in the supplementary data didn't work for some reason, so I had had a search for my comment and found he had selected part of it.

MY full comment was actually this, which backs up my statement, whilst linking to an analysis of Lewandowsky's actual data for LOG12)

Barry Woods (Comment #102532)
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:53 am

someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory

Looking at the data, those that most strongly ‘reject’ climate science, ALSO strongly reject ALL the conspiracy theories…

extract below:

So what of the conspiracy theory that most the moon landings were faked? The one in the title “NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science“

45 out of 48 of those who dogmatically reject climate science, also dogmatically emphatically reject the conspiracy theory. The two who score 4 are rogue results.

In fact, the response is pretty emphatic in every group. Consider the abstract.

We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.

Let me be quite clear. The title of the paper makes a false claim from authors with an agenda of silencing opponents. It is entirely without any proper evidence.

The other eleven results are below

well worth a look at the pivot tables in the above link


MY FULL comment is at Lucia's here:

;-) ;-) This is beyond satire, who will psychoanalyse these troublesome activists psychologists.. ;-) ;-) !

Mar 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods