Shaping Tomorrow's World Comments

Comment on Ethics Lost in Translation

Barry Woods

this might be worth a read about ethics..

Spiked Online: The pathologising of climate scepticism
ESSAY: The shoddy science of sceptic-bashing LOG12 attempts to turn criticism into a psychological illness.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13716/

Comment on Ethics Lost in Translation

mbrysonb

It seems they can't even crow clearly (or say what they mean accurately-- they say,

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) will present the two books at a June 15 event in Beijing, a landmark event that puts enormous scientific heft behind the questionable notion that man is responsible for catastrophically warming the planet.

They slip in 'questionable' here as a shot at climate science-- but it seems to me that putting enormous scientific heft behind a questionable notion is a way of adding to its support, not undermining it...

Comment on Ethics Lost in Translation

Anne Young

No confusion indeed, except that which remains after a deliberately misleading non-apology for an outright lie.

Comment on The scientific consensus on climate change: Still pivotal and more pervasive than ever

James In Footscray

Stephan, have you ever argued in favour of any other theory - for example, in psychology - by referring to the percentage of experts who agree with you?

Supeficially it seems to be arguing from authority.

But perhaps there's a problem with the analogy? I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Comment on The scientific consensus on climate change: Still pivotal and more pervasive than ever

Barry Woods

It appears that not everyone is so enamored with this new paper.

Prof Dan Kahan (Yale) has article about it worth reading, inclusing, as he said in a later post, the comments):

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/17/annual-new-study-finds-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-m.html

which prompted this response from a researcher Nottingham University:

Warren Pearce:
"yes, that's good post. Glad someone wrote that, I didn't have the strength. It's a zombie survey..."

http://twitter.com/WarrenPearce/status/336115663489867780

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

James:

"Not hard to imagine ... a conspiracy!"

Not when you're a qualified climate conspiracy theorist, that's for sure. :-)

Never forget: the very same people now flinging the puerile "conspiracist" epithet at climate apathists had no problem with that kind of, ahem, ideation 3 years ago, when Naomi Oreskes' sub-Dan-Brown thriller The Merchant of Doubt hit bookstores.

"A new theory: anyone involved in the climate change debate is likely to be unhinged."

Nice one. You're right to call that a theory, since it lies somewhere between a random guess and a law of nature, though probably closer to the latter.

It stands to reason that there's something wrong with anybody who's still sticking his or her toes in the piranha-churned waters of the climate debate, but the personality disorders probably differ from one "side" to the other. No practical person would enlist on the side that offers only thankless toil in the name of a principle, and no moral person would enlist on the other side, which offers easy money to liars and obfuscators.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

James In Footscray

Hi Darrell again, I love your post #76 - funny!

Posters both pro- and anti- the Cook and Lewandowsky study are writing in CAPITALS and BOLD like crazed angry people.

A new theory: anyone involved in the climate change debate is likely to be unhinged. Good material for a new UWA study perhaps?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

James In Footscray

Hi Darrell

'Itâs not hard to imagine basements full of individuals financed by Koch-funded front groups whose job it is to post climate change disinformation and smears to newsgroups, blog comments, and news article threads.'

Not hard to imagine ... a conspiracy!

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Totally.

For those who've seen Skyfall, it's like Gunkanjima Island (Hashima) in here. Complete with Communist Ozymandias and his toppled head.

Comment on The involvement of conspiracist ideation in science denial

Sou

Will A. Scott be disappointed or elated?

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

It is, though, fascinating that the blog has just stopped as if shot.

Almost as if some adults had finally entered the room, taken a look around and discovered the mess the kiddies had left.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Radical Rodent

Thank you, duckie. You mean the gentlemen do not want to risk reading any possible disagreement with their point of view?!

My, what a surprise! â¦..NOTâ¦.

*whisper* â¦unlessâ¦ they are part of the conspiracyâ¦!

As for shaping tomorrowâs world â I doubt that it will be one individual, one organisation, or one belief; it will be us, the collective us, in our usual stumbling, bumbling way. And if the results are not suitable for our continuing existence, Mother Earth will expunge us, and carry on, regardless.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

Very good post RR.

It's noticeable that, as temperatures refuse to rise and climate "science" starts to unravel; our resident "reality deniers" here - Prof Lew, Cooky and JC the moderator (who definitely isn't John Cook the blog proprietor) have all left the building.

It's a bit like finally storming into a besieged city and finding the defenders have all slunk away in disguise.

Who's going to "shape tomorrow's world" now I wonder.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Radical Rodent

Forget your spats, children. Let us put the argument in perspective:
1. Nefarious Intent: âYou only want the data so you can prove me wrong.â Who said that?
2. Persecuted Victim: âYou only want the data so you can prove me wrong.â It fits bothâ¦
3. Nihilistic Skepticism: âThe 16 years of no temperature increase is only a pause.â
4. Nothing occurs by Accident: âHurricane Sandy proves me right!â
5. Something Must be Wrong: Switching liberally between different, even contradictory theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the observed data. Thus, people may believe that the increasingly severe winters and cool summers are a result of warming.
6. Self-Sealing reasoning: Interpreting any evidence against the theory as evidence for the theory: âAll this snow is caused by heat.â

It is time that the âdenialistâ label was affixed to the correct people. Not to those who are merely unconvinced by the alarm, but to those who deny that this is a science that can be questioned; who deny that the subject is too vast to be able to make conclusive statements with the meagre data gathered so far; who deny that the chief suspect (CO2) is really a very, very small part of the equation; who deny that all the empirical evidence points to there being no correlation between CO2 levels and warming; who deny that there could be another cause; who deny that this could be just a natural cycle over which we have NO CONTROL (probably the biggest reason for their fears?); who deny that the effects so far have not been as dire as they have trumpeted â they even deny the observable facts: there has been no warming for over a decade and a half! It is these âdenialistsâ who are the more frightening, in their insistence that the proles should give up all the comforts of modern existence. Already, there are people dying from hypothermia, from âfuel povertyâ, which is the poverty of the future, as laid out be these âdenialistsâ. They, of course, may continue their carbon-burning ways because it is for the good, all paid for by the same proles that they despise.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

"you sort of negate the respect that would be forthcoming to a normal person"

mandas you are clearly saying I do not deserve the respect due a 'normal' person, because of what I have written...

so says the anonymous - what word should we use.

The title of this post has one word missing, ethics.. let me explain why, a request I sent to the University and the authors:

Please see the concerns and correspondence (attached) that I have raised with the journal about the ethical conduct of the researchers involved in this paper.

I am known to the authors, and a critic of one of the authors earlier work LOG12, and was interacting with the authors of the Recursive Fury paper on their blogs, whilst unbeknownst to me they were researching me and I find have been named in their research (data)

At least one of the researchers (Marriott) is publically hostile towards me, blogging about my articles (at the high profile science blog Watts Up With That) and labelling them/me, as a denier, disinformation and bullshit, of further serious concern, he also uses the tag Dunning-Kruger effect (psychologising opponents by blog posts?) as far as I'm aware Marriott has no relevant qualifications. He headlined his article with a graphic cut from WUWT (copyright?) which he has adulterated by added a red rubber stamp graphic 'Verified Bullshit'.

His co-author runs a high traffic website, which is in partnership with Former Vice President Al Gores' - Climate Reality Project, this co-author endorsed, Marriot's article and his claims about me on his blog.

For example, see a recent article debunked by the blog Watching the Deniers, where somebody had cherry-picked skeptical quotes from a few scientists who responded to the Doran and Zimmerman study (EoS, January 20, 2009). This only reveals that some people confuse consensus with unanimity. â Skeptical Science (SkS)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html

The somebody is of course myself, presumably Marriott stamping âVerified Bullshitâ on an adulterated graphic of my WUWT article, is the standard appropriate enough for Al Gore, and SkS readers, but perhaps not that of professional academics, of course this was on their private blogs. But clearly shows the researchers of this paper are hostile to their human research subject, so is quite relevant to my concerns.

My article questioned how politicians and activists use / misuse a 'sound bite of 97% of scientists say' which is taken from research, this article questions The Skeptical Science position on this quotation from the Doran Paper (and Anderegg and other papers), it is a key reference for Al Gores Climate Reality Project:

The Deniers: Climate Reality Project
"But 97 per cent of climate scientists understand that climate change is a reality. The scientists are not confused. And we shouldnât be either." (which links to SkS)
http://climaterealityproject.org/the-deniers/

So we have a very clear motive and need to 'claim' they debunked my WUWT article. I say claim they debunked my article, as the rely on the debunking of my WUWT article, by linking to Marriotts blog - with the shall we say unprofessional
http://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html

This adulterated WUWT graphic has also been used on more than one occasion.

Thus, as a named unwilling/unwitting (well known) participant in the research conducted by Professor Lewandowsky et al. I say well known - quoting Marriott's blog here (with the tags and graphic):
âThis post is authored by well-known climate âscepticâ Barry Woods: â Watching the Deniers (Marriot)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth

In these circumstances, please advice me, of any and or all information I am entitled to know, according to the national guidelines with respect to this research and the universityâs guidelines that this research operated under. I am not aware of everything I am entitled to know, so please provide it all.

Not least of which is, the ethics clearance this paper went through and under what funding grant and justification this research came under.

In the circumstance described, I have asked the authors, publically, via their blogs and via the journal (I have no desire to communicate directly now) to remove my name and comment from the supplementary data to this research (as far as I can see the paper does not depend on it in anyway).

I have received no acknowledgement or response to date from the authors (most recent url).
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html#3018

My expectations are, in the first instance that the university first verify my concerns, (I will endeavour to assist in any way I can) and then I would hope the university react accordingly to the ethics issues raised without formal complaint (in the interests of the university, the human subjects studied, and this niche of the field of psychology)

That is my hope, I will also consider the option of a more formal complaint if necessary.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

Darrell,

Here you go :
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1779226

Comment on Frankenstorm Sandy and Tobacco

twolf

testing

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

An interesting poll here for anyone interested:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Barry @58

What makes you think that 'mandas' is not my real name (it is by the way - or at least it is a derivation of my real name)? And how do I know that 'Barry Woods' is yours?

Oh - and by the way, when did I call you 'not a normal person'? Go back and check the post again (#15). What I said was this:

"When you fill up blog threads with the sort of long rambling posts that you make, and demand a response, you sort of negate the respect that would be forthcoming to a normal person.

That clearly is focussing on your behaviour, not you as a person. Therefore it is not even an ad hominen attack - you need to understand the difference.

And what makes you think that posting on a public blog using a pseudonym is not behaving like an adult? Do you really believe that the name that someone uses in any way influences the quality of their posts? How about, instead of criticising me for supposedly not acting like an adult, you act like an adult yourself and focus on the contents of the posts, rather than concerning yourself with who (or what - I may be a different species, you never know) is posting them.

But then, who knows - I might just happen to be a sock puppet for John Cook. That would blow a conspiracy ideating mind wouldn't it?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

You're a very naughty boy - Barry.

Are you hinting that "mandas" may be none other than that eminent professor of climatalogical folklore and scourge of the disbelieving deniers......

SUPERMANDIA

...... quick...quick....run......run..... before he strikes us down with fatal heart attacks caused by uncontrollable laughter!

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

I've got an expenses paid trip to the UK Met Office lined up. Courtesy of Prof Richard Betts.
http://www.myclimateandme.com/2013/04/05/richard-betts-invites-last-weeks-winner-barry-woods-into-the-met-office/

should proof I'm real, unlike a random girl or boy, say using the name like Scott or Mandy ;-)

Does that invite mean' I'm in the pay of 'Big Climate' ? ;-)

Who when he discovered his name in the data for the Recursive Fury paper (as 'Richard Betts' commenting at sceptic blog Bishop Hill) said this on twitter:

Betts even has an article of his at Bishop Hill:
http://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/314522325909377024

and said their would be a few laughs in the 'Office'

That is the UK Met Office, lots of real climate scientist's work there (ie atmospheric physicists, etc) Lots of climate scientists laughing at Recursive Fury....
http://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/314529513524568064

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

MangoChutney,

Don't you get it?

Only deniers believe in conspiracies.

Believalists believe in organised, well-funded campaigns invisible to the public, which only a few gifted individuals (Naomi Oreskes, Ross Gelbspan, Michael Mann, etc.) can see. Not the same thing at all!

Allow me to quote John Mashey, who has the aforementioned Gift:

There is a very well-organized disinformation machinery designed to obscure science, at least in part inherited from the tobacco industry, the best marketeers in the world. The tactics are the same, the thinktanks are the same, even the some of the people are the same. It is always easier to generate confusion, such as the various arguments debunked at Skeptical Science.

And of course, visible scientists get hassled, sent death threats, hate mail, threatened by people in Congress, have paid attack ads run against them in school newspapers, etc, etc. It's well organized.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

MangoChutney

Is Pachauri a conspiracy theorist if he sees "powerful vested interests" every where he looks and climate sceptics "joining hands to attack him"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/04/climate-change-delay-denial

It is a well-known fact that powerful vested interests and those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.

â¦powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010â¦

â¦given the slow pace of progress and the power that vested interests exercise over legislative and policy initiativesâ¦

â¦thwarting the efforts of skeptics and vested interests, who will do everything possible to maintain the status quo.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

MangoChutney

Is seeing BIG OIL behind everything that sceptics do or say a conspiracy theory?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Thanks mct... If you remember exactly where that Bishop Hill discussion is, please share the link!

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

Darrell,

There was a good discussion of this issue at bishop hill a year or less ago.

I think Barry frames it wrongly, however.

If Barry chooses to provide a name (which may or may not be real, let us realise), that is his choice. I choose to use a moniker by which anyone who knows me could identify me, but which is otherwise relatively anonymous. I could just as easily call myself "Paul Johnson" and pretend that was real.

The ultimate reality is that the Interwebs are - at the superficial level - anonymous.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Barry:

mandas - I use my real name, I am not anonymous...

Hmm. Iâd overlooked that difference (among a forest thereof) between you and mandas.

I suspect you have a point there, Barry. It does present a potential complication for speech codes, I think, if some of us put our real names (and thus our reputations) in play, while other participants choose not to emerge from the arras of pseudonymity.

When only one âsideâ is reputationally accountable to the outcome, uncensored debateâcomplete with the free flow of insultsâdoes indeed seem to involve âan asymmetry of harm.â

Has anyone else thought this problem through a bit more? I donât have the answers; Iâm writing this merely to acknowledge that my previous answer probably needs some qualifications, exceptions and special cases.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

... would then be 'inapropriate' - oops

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

mandas - I use my real name, I am not anonymous, you called me not a normal person, I complained to th emoderators twice..

I then responded I think approriatley in the circumstances to an 'anonymous' person. If your comment was attributed to a real person, that might be called to account for the inappropriate comment, then my response would then be appropriate.

I've just noticed a comment or 2 above (ref superman).. why not back that 'not a normal person' remark up with your real name and behave like an adult.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

This is the sort of give and take that should be the norm.

Interestingly, the twats who moderate around here appear to have been, errm, distracted by the fact that their 'scholarly' nonsense has been so exposed as just that.

And, all of a sudden, the standard of discourse has, IMHO, risen. In that there is actual conversation, rather than ad homs to the max, cheerleading or the like.

More of it, I say!

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

mct / Darrell

I am glad that we agree on the moderation issue. I would rather there be little to no moderation - the only exception I make is for obvious trolls who hijack a thread with dozens of pointless posts so that any rational discussion is lost. This hasn't happened here. My call at post #48 to moderate Barry's post was strictly in order to point out his hypocrisy at asking for me to be moderated, while at the same time using ad homs against me.

I am perfectly happy for banter to occur and to be called names etc, and am more than willing to give as good as I get.

And Darrell - No conspiracy between you and mct? It was not my suggestion that there was a conspiracy, just a meeting of similar minds. But now that I think about it (and I have you to thank for putting the thought into my mind), I think your protests reveal a guilty conscience. A great thinker (well - mediocre anyway) once said..... just because you're conspirationally ideating, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

"Oh no - it looks as though Darrell and mct have teamed up to attack me and my posts."

Nope. Hate to disappoint you, but there's no conspiracy at this end!

Nevertheless that's some interesting, ahem, ideation, mandas.

:-)

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

Precisely, mandas, on this we are on the same side. And I don't think there was any "teaming up". At least not against you. Perhaps against the idiot moderators here. Who, as they are also SkS by and large... Anyway...

Happy to have the argument / discussion / debate / banter.

Loathe and detest censorship of same. Especially when it is so retrospective.

I fully understand the right of the blog owner to set the rules, and some editing is nearly always required. But editing the guts out of a week old set of postings is madness.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Oh no - it looks as though Darrell and mct have teamed up to attack me and my posts. But not being satisfied with little old me, Darrell wants to continue his assault on SkS as well.

Yes, you have my measure Darrell. I am being 'puerile' and my invective is 'playground'-like in nature. Of course, one would have to question why you feel the continued need to engage in a debate with someone like me who is obviously beneath your level of integrity and your ability to focus your razor-like intellect on the issue. I mean, I have looked back over your posts and I have to admit that I am impressed with your contributions to the discussion to date. I love post #38:

âHey Foxgoose, mct etc.âever notice how our catastrophist cousins have a mortal aversion to open debate? The ref has to be in their corner (Ã la the sheltered workshop that is SkepicalScience) or they won't even show their faces, will they? The dawn of glasnost at STW must have sent them scurrying :-)â¦â¦Cowards and Untermenschen, one and allâ¦.

Insightful!!

Post #42:

âIt's just in their nature, mctâ¦.Don't look for any kind of instrumental or psychological rhyme or reason to it, just take screenshots. The SS kidz are the Phil Jones of blog curationâthe Big Tobacco of evidence preservationânothing moreâ¦.

Wonderful!!

Post #44:
âUntermenschen doesn't begin to describe it, really it doesn'tâ¦.Sorry mct, I'm trying my best ;-) ... how about Morlocks?â

Brilliant!!

So despite the fact that you and mct obviously don't like my comments, I have to admit that I do agree with you about censorship and your proposed solution to stupid speech.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

mct,

well said.

What climate deletionists will never grasp is that the solution to stupid speech is more, not less, speech.

Instead their response, at least at SkS, is typically to leave ad hominem believalist insults in place while deleting deniers' objections, which the moderators invariably label "false claims of ad hominem."

Far better than calling for mandas to be censored, I think, we should hold his/her right to degrade him/herself with playground invective sacred, along with Barry's right to point out how puerile mandas is being.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

I agree, too, mandas. But even more strongly.

You should be entirely free to make your case on a blog without fear of moderation unless you are defamatory or wildly obscene. Neither of which, IMHO, you were. There was, thus, no valid reason for your comments to have been so "dissappeared".

My objection is to the fact that (Superman suit firmly in place) your beclowning of yourself is then stricken from the record.

Which is exactly why I bemoaned the "moderation"...

Ponder that.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Why thank you Darrell,

It is my goal in life to bring joy and happiness into the lives of those who are less fortunate than myself.

But I fear you are mistaken with some of your assertions. You suggest that it was a gambit of mine to 'delegtimise' Barry. On the contrary, he requires no assistance from me at all.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

I agree, mandas. You're not an 'anonymous coward.'

You're

1. pseudonymous and not particularly creative about it ("mandas")

2. a coward who insults people as an excuse not to grapple with their ideas ("No Barry, you are not "due" any courtesy at all. When you fill up blog threads with the sort of long rambling posts that you make, and demand a response, you sort of negate the respect that would be forthcoming to a normal person.")

The implication of these data is that you are a pseudonymous coward. Note to moderators: this is not an argumentum ad hominem (bad person -> bad argument) but an inference from the evidence (dishonorable comments -> dishonorable person).

I quite like you though, mandasâyou brought the Harb family great mirth by constructing and promptly falling into your own pompous trap in your gambit to delegitimise Barry: "How about - if you have issues with the paper - you do what a scientists does; write to the journal in question."

ROFL

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Moderators

Many people on this and other websites use pseudonyms for a range of reasons. To be called an 'anonymous coward' for doing so is unacceptable and is contrary to the moderation policy which prohibits ad hominem attacks.

I respectively request that Barry Woods post #47 be moderated.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

question to the moderators - do you find mandas (an anonymous coward) statement, that I'm not a normal person acceptable. I have complained once, and coming back to look after Easter with my kids, I find it still present, despite my complaints.

"When you fill up blog threads with the sort of long rambling posts that you make, and demand a response, you sort of negate the respect that would be forthcoming to a normal person."

I am named identifiable person, well known in the climate debate, and this is unacceptable, by your own comments policy..

my wife family and friends consider me 'normal' for this to be allowed here, of all places is unacceptable, (a publically funded website.)

please moderate.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

Love your work.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Untermenschen doesn't begin to describe it, really it doesn't.

Sorry mct, I'm trying my best ;-) ... how about Morlocks?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

I feel you, mct!

:-)

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

I would have done so had it been important to me, but really it isn't.

I just despair of the immaturity of the whole thing, I really do. Every now and then I have to let the frustration at seeing grown men act like complete idiots out.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

mct:

"This thread now makes little sense, because a good quarter of the comments have been disappeared."

You sound surprised. JC and his disciples are notorious climate deletionistsâyou seriously didn't know this?

"Why on Earth - given said comments have been public for days now - would you bother to do that?"

It's just in their nature, mct.

Don't look for any kind of instrumental or psychological rhyme or reason to it, just take screenshots. The SS kidz are the Phil Jones of blog curationâthe Big Tobacco of evidence preservationânothing more.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

This thread now makes little sense, because a good quarter of the comments have been disappeared. Why on Earth - given said comments have been public for days now - would you bother to do that?

And the idiocy that it's the "other" JC moderating, not John Cook. Again, why insult people's intelligence like that?

Untermenschen doesn't begin to describe it, really it doesn't.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

So, John, if you don't moderate this site, who is the "JC" moderating today?

"J.C."? It's an Easter Sunday miracle!

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

John Cook

You moderated a comment above thus:-

Barry Woods at 22:16 PM on 27 March, 2013
Hi moderators
anonymous user mandas seems to be running foul of your comments and moderation policy.

Moderator Response: [JC] Mandas' comment that contained an ad hominem remark has been moderated. I have also moderated a number of comments featuring accusation of deception or inflammatory remarks.

But, a few months ago an anonymous moderator moderated a post of mine thus:-

Foxgoose at 22:29 PM on 11 September, 2012
J Bowers at 21:57 PM on 11 September, 2012

By popping up as a commenter at a site he is actually operating and moderating without revealing the fact maybe?

I did say "new dimension to the concept".

Just imagine the furore if Climate Audit, WUWT and Bishop Hill all turned out to be registered to the same guy.

Prof Lew & Gleick would have to be given intravenous sedation.

Moderator Response: John Cook does not moderate at this site. Cease with that particular conspiracy theory; it is now OT.

So, John, if you don't moderate this site, who is the "JC" moderating today?

Or have we caught you out in yet another of the "little white lies" that seem so necessary to oil the wheels of "climate science"?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Yawn.

Where are you, True Believers?

Hello?

Hey Foxgoose, mct etc.âever notice how our catastrophist cousins have a mortal aversion to open debate? The ref has to be in their corner (Ã la the sheltered workshop that is SkepicalScience) or they won't even show their faces, will they? The dawn of glasnost at STW must have sent them scurrying :-).

Cowards and Untermenschen, one and all.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

I think that might be "recursive prophylaxis".

Oh, and Darrell gets a big tick...

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Foxgoose,

Surely you don't......... you can't... mean the disturbed individual who wrote -

.....for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic âpersonasâ each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise

...was himself a distinguished professor in the field of climate psychology

I'm afraid so. In the climate movement, it seems the inmates are running the asylum!

that would surely overload all our irony meters beyond hope of repair.

They say Antarctic explorers and International Space Station caretakers get their vermiform appendices removed before embarkation, as prophylaxis. Likewise, it may be advisable to leave your sense of irony behind when venturing into the remote vastness of the climate blogosphere, lest it become inflamed and cause agony of the right iliac fossa.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

Darrell Harb at 20:58 PM on 30 March, 2013

Foxgoose,

They obviously need immediate help - perhaps we could put them in touch with a specialist in the field.

Tell us who wrote it and we'll all do our best to help.

I fear the lewnatic in question is beyond help.

Surely you don't......... you can't... mean the disturbed individual who wrote -

.....for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic âpersonasâ each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise

...was himself a distinguished professor in the field of climate psychology - that would surely overload all our irony meters beyond hope of repair.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

GrantB

Foxgoose et al - this is getting ridiculous. The number of climate infidels posting here is making the peer reviewed proportion of 20.00% look rather flakey. However, I'm afraid I'm going to add to the conspiracy ideation metric.

There are serious issues of academic misconduct that need to be addressed here. Not to mention invasion of privacy and defamation. Jonova has an excellent summary of the (rather sordid) play to date. And stumps are a long way from being drawn.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

Darrell

.....for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic âpersonasâ each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise

Gosh - whoever wrote that must have been in the final throes of terminal "conspiracy ideation".

They obviously need immediate help - perhaps we could put them in touch with a specialist in the field.

Tell us who wrote it and we'll all do our best to help.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

mct,

The quotee for CONSPIRACY THEORY 1 ("They dealt with every aspect of our life and they influence every aspect of our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world..." etc.) is Australia's Chief Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery.

The quotee for CONSPIRACY THEORY 2 ("Man muÃ sich von der Illusion freimachen, daÃ die Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist..." to quote the original German) was Ottmar Edenhofer, who's not only an alarmist economist chappie but an IPCC heavy-hitter.

I had to cheat by googling your question... the answer is Osama's less-well-adjusted cousin, right? :-)

Here's one you may recognise:

CONSPIRACY THEORY 3. As far as your blog is concerned, bear in mind that it is yours and that you can shut down any comment and run any moderation policy that you want. That still doesnât make it easier to receive those hateful utterances in the first place, but at least it gives you some sense of control to shut them down. Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic âpersonasâ each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.

Whose Ideation Is Thatâ¢? Any guesses? :-p

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

Darrell,

This is fun, I agree!

No idea on the first one (and google would be cheating) but the second one is some European economist chappie I think... Dellers quoted him at some point perhaps?

As I've only got (at best) half a point out of two, I offer up a gimme...

Whose Ideation Is That^tm

"Anthony Watts has responded on his blog but if I put a link to it he will discover that Iâve written about him and instruct his winged monkeys to fill my comment section with hate"

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

mct,

d'oh! I should have guessed.

This is a fun game! Your turn... A two-parter:

CONSPIRACY THEORY 1. We all too often mistake the nature of UNFCCC negotiations. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations that led to the Copenhagen agreement were in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They dealt with every aspect of our life and they influence every aspect of our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.

Whose Ideation Is Thatâ¢?

CONSPIRACY THEORY 2. Someone needs to say this clearly: they're redistributing the world's wealth de facto via climate politics. You have to free yourself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. It has almost nothing to do with environmental policy (problems like deforestation and the ozone hole) any more.

Whose Ideation Is Thatâ¢?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

That would be Michael Mann.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

Messrs Lewandowsky & Cook

Encoreâ¦â¦

I understand this blog is a publicly financed, UWA endorsed forum and both of you have used it extensively to promote and explain your work and attack your critics.

You are now being openly accused, throughout the blogosphere, of telling lies to people who have enquired about the methodology of your original LOG12 paper and of fraudulent data in the paper itself.

In a nutshell - you have implied that the vast majority of responses to your questionnaire came from John Cook's climate activist blog, Skeptical Science - and you have used statistics from visitors there to estimate the number of sceptics who may have seen it.

Meanwhile, multiple lines of evidence from internet archives, FOIA requests and direct email correspondence seem to prove conclusively that the relevant questionnaire was never posted on the SkS website.

Jo Nova gives a neat summary of your predicament here -

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/lewandowsky-cook-claim-78000-skeptics-could-see-conspiracy-survey-at-cooks-site-where-he-didnt-even-put-up-a-link/

It seems to me you both now have a simple choice, either -

1. Produce some evidence that a link to the questionnaire was posted at SkS.

2. Withdraw the paper, apologise for the lies and consider a career change - I'm sure your many followers here will be able to supply some appropriate suggestions.

Your fans are waiting - don't let them down

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

"It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised email threats to discourage alarmist climate scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio."

Oopsâforgot to cite my source: Professor David Karoly, a serious climate scientist at the University of Melbourne. He was speaking to the staunchly consensualist ABC. From the same article:

Australia's peak body for science has also condemned the campaign of death threats.

The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies' CEO, Anna-Maria Arabia, says the extreme behaviour represents a worrying trend and political leaders must put a stop to the misinformation campaign.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235810.htm?site=canberra

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mct

How about this... is this Conspiracist Ideation, would you think?

"...is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by fossil fuel companies, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort to discredit the science ..."

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Les Johnson

And I second Foxgoose. Any response to the allegations made by CA, Geoff or WUWT? And that Frontiers has taken the paper down once again?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Les Johnson

Does the following count as a Conspiracist Ideation, or simple delusional thinking?

It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised email threats to discourage alarmist climate scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

mandas

Helen,

You might be interested in this essay in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which is along the same lines as your article:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

Hi moderators
anonymous user mandas seems to be running foul of your comments and moderation policy.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

mandas

Thanks for that paper Brian Wilson (are you any relation to THE Brian Wilson, and are you just as drugged addled?).

For the others who don't have the time to read the paper, here is an example of the "science" from the paper:

"....The stabilization of the global Earth temperature in 1998â2005 and its downward tendency in 2006â2008 is an irrefutable evidence of the fact that our Sun is no longer able to warm the Earth the same way as in the past and that an anthropogenic global warming is a big myth.......The fall of temperature will least affect the equatorial region of the Earth and will mostly influence the temperate climate regions. In whole, climate changes are not under the control of humans. A reasonable way to combat these changes is to maintain an economic growth in order to get prepared to alternating coolings and warmings...."

So ummmmm, gee, thanks for that. I think I will stick to real science thanks.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

B. Wilson

Caution...there is SCIENCE in this paper.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

So, you see: just because you're conspirationally ideating, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

:-)

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

It's inevitable that the owners of coal and oil aren't thrilled about this.

Their strategy has always been to attack the messenger, discredit the science and scientists, and fool the public. We've seen this for decades. Its the same playbook that for example the tobacco industry, the chemical industry, and the pharmaceutical industry have all used to try to discredit science demonstrating potential adverse effects from the use of their product. The fossil fuel industry has taken it to a whole other level however.

We literally have the most powerful industry that ever existed on earth using much of their resources to smear the science and confuse the public about the adverse effects to our world of fossil fuel burning. History will look back most unkindly on industry-funded individuals and groups Â who sought to intentionally mislead the public about the reality and threat of human-caused climate change.

But I do think that there has been such a concerted, well-funded smear campaign against climate science and climate scientists byÂ industry front groups and the far right, that even some reasonable people may be rather confused now about the facts. That of course is the intent of the industry-funded disinformation campaign. Itâs not hard to imagine basements full of individuals financed by Koch-funded front groups whose job it is to post climate change disinformation and smears to newsgroups, blog comments, and news article threads. In fact, we know this sort of thing is going up (google "HB Gary"). Sometimes it difficult to distinguish real commenters from the ringers/hired hands.

It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised email threats to discourage alarmist climate scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

Some "conspiration :-) theories" are true.

For example, we all too often mistake the nature of UNFCCC negotiations. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations that led to the Copenhagen agreement were in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They dealt with every aspect of our life and they influence every aspect of our economy, our society, our relationship with the developing world, our relationship with the environment as well.

Someone needs to say this clearly: they're redistributing the world's wealth de facto via climate politics. You have to free yourself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. It has almost nothing to do with environmental policy (problems like deforestation and the ozone hole) any more.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

layzej:

So you agree their findings - that there is a link between contrarianism and conspirational thinking - just not their methods?

Conspirational?! ROFL

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Darrell Harb

mandas:

I think it was because the authors and I are involed in a conspiracy to subvert the peer review process.

Even if you have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

mandas at 09:38 AM on 26 March, 2013
Barry Woods @13

"....Marriot does not seem to like Jo Nova, Anthony Watts,Marc Morano, Lord Moncton or Andrew Bolt...."

No scientist likes them .....

Message from planet earth to mandas - Marriott isn't a scientist - he's a paper pusher at a Melbourne law firm.

The "Climate Realities Research" institution he quotes in his credentials for the paper doesn't exist - he made it up.

Read the personal information on his "Watching the Deniers' blog - it's all there.

Assuming you can Google and read on your planet.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

18#

I have asked the authors a question and expressed my concerns, to give them an opportunity to respond. Which they have not acknowledged or responded too.

I have also contacted the journal.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Barry Woods @13

"....Marriot does not seem to like Jo Nova, Anthony Watts,Marc Morano, Lord Moncton or Andrew Bolt...."

No scientist likes them - they are demonstrated liars who misrepresent the science for ideological reasons.

@17
"....I have made my concerns known to the authors via, twitter, Frontiers, and the authors articles on Skeptical Science and this article on Professor Lewandowsky's blog......They have made no response or acknowledgement to me, I believe I am due the same courtesy..."

No Barry, you are not "due" any courtesy at all. When you fill up blog threads with the sort of long rambling posts that you make, and demand a response, you sort of negate the respect that would be forthcoming to a normal person. How about - if you have issues with the paper - you do what a scientists does; write to the journal in question.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

I have made my concerns known to the authors via, twitter, Frontiers, and the authors articles on Skeptical Science and this article on Professor Lewandowsky's blog.. and presumably they have been read... just not yet addressed or acknowledged.

I believe I have given the author every opportunity to respond and time to address my minimal concerns listed earlier.

The authors were very quick to respond to Richard Betts queries. They have made no response or acknowledgement to me, I believe I am due the same courtesy

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

layzej

Hi Foxgoose,

Ok. He underwent re-education. I'm not inclined to argue - although it would be interesting to hear who may have engineered the re-education and why they failed to muzzle him in the first place.

Regarding your other points about what you did or did not say and whether Tom should reread posts. I'm not sure why I should take issue with either one.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

layzej

Nuance "a small degree of difference or shade in meaning"

I don't think calling for a paper to be withdrawn one day and supporting it six months later is nuance layze - not even under hockeystick rules.

I note you didn't take issue with the main points of my comment - which is encouraging.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

layzej

Hi Foxgoose,

Regarding your comment: "I hope his re-education wasn't too traumatic"

It is somewhat surprising that you would speculate on re-education programmes in response to a paper linking contrarianism with conspiratorial thinking. There are certainly more plausible reasons that Tom Curtis may both defend and criticize the paper - including the possibility that his views are nuanced.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Keen

A great, informative weekly rundown of climate and energy news:

http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Keen

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is seeking credentialed
individuals who are willing to serve as reviewers of the forthcoming NIPCC report Climate
Change Reconsidered-2. Reviewers will be needed between April and August 2013 for various
chapters and sub-chapters of the report. A list of topics addressed in the report, and for which
reviews will be needed, can be found under the links and sub-links listed on the NIPCC Web
siteâs Topical Archive page. To volunteer as a reviewer, or for more information, please send an
email to NIPCC_contact@nipccreport.org.
Thank you, your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Barry Woods

A coauthor of this paper
Marriot write as the blogger - Watching the Deniers -

Whilst researching this paper, MArriot was also writing article about LOG12 in defence of Lewandowsky et al (LOG12) and articles against the critics of LOG 12. in quite disparaging terms (as is his right)

I am known to him, prior and durring the research period

I commented here, politely on his first article: (pointing out only antis-sceptic blogs surveyed)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/conspircism-and-climate-scepticism-empirical-research-confrims-what-we-all-know-and-some-predictions/#comments
August 31, 2012 at 12-33 pm

more articles by Marriot â Watching the Deniers, about Lewandowsky LOG12 (attacking everybody)

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/climate-deniers-object-to-being-called-conspiracy-theorists-propose-conspiracy-to-explain-why-labelled-such/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/climate-deniers-fail-to-check-in-boxes-hilarity-and-fake-scandal-ensures-in-box-gate-anyone/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/denial-101-the-academic-study-of-climate-scepticism-as-diagnostic-and-risk-management-tool-first-draft/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/dear-marc-morano-we-say-climate-change-you-say-nasa-moon-walkers-nasa-moon-walkers-nasa-hoax/

The one below about Lewandosky LOG12 and Watts response,note the graphic my named WUWT article, stamped âVerified bullshitâ

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/watts-explains-why-lewandowsky-paper-on-conspiracy-theories-is-wrong-its-a-conspiracy-between-john-cook-and-the-prof/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/inboxgate-names-of-sceptic-bloggers-contacted-revealed-for-nasa-paper-sceptics-still-not-happy/

In the article below, (in Comments) Marriot says he tracking the comments of high profile sceptics

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/a-cabal-of-bankers-and-sister-souljah-lewandowsky-versus-the-extreme-sceptic-fringe/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/stormy-teacups-misrepresenting-recursive-fury/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/versiongate-inboxgate-and-now-niwagate-or-when-denial-echo-chambers-implode/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/inbox-gate-ok-now-its-getting-just-plain-silly/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/inbox-gate-continues-desmogblog-notes-sceptic-blogs-responded-to-lewandowsky-request/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/climate-deniers-fail-to-check-in-boxes-hilarity-and-fake-scandal-ensures-in-box-gate-anyone/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/lewandowsky-et-al-versus-the-were-not-conspiracy-theorists-but-brigade-part-1/

Marriot does not seem to like Jo Nova, Anthony Watts,Marc Morano, Lord Moncton or Andrew Bolt.

In the article below, I have (or try to) a polite exchange, saying perhaps his blog name is atagonistic, and discuss how Iâd changed my my blog name, so as to make it easier to engage. (heâs not buying it)

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/psa-community-and-discussion-guidelines-published-under-about-wtd/#comment-14661

Iâve made a number of comments on his blog, anyone can see that I have been civil and polite and attempted to engage, he states he has been tracking people, and is clearly not a neutral party to this debate.

Just for fun.. (non Lewandowsky) another article of his, with his now favourite graphic,my article at WUWT stamped â Verified Bullshit

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/anthony-watts-cherry-picks-quote-about-record-greenland-melt-surprised-hardly/

The orginal article with my WUWT post (which I only came across this weekend) stamped verified bullshit, and accusations of âmisinformationâ, cherry picking: tagged BULLSHIT, DENIER, DISINFORMATION

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/

âThis post is authored by well-known climate âscepticâ Barry Woods: â Watching the Deniers (Marriot)

I might ask both the universities involved the ethics committee, is this really an appropriate researcher for this paper

I might ask the journal the same, and ask the authors, please remove my name and my quote from this paper and maybe a statement that my name appearing in the suplemntary data does not mean I conspiracy theorist. (as they have perfomed this action with Professor Richard Betts)

Professor Richard Betts response to his name being included, was was refreshing.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Zacariah

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=crickets+chirping&view=detail&mid=D43F32B7E1DCF1A0E99AD43F32B7E1DCF1A0E99A&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Zacariah

Mandas this is not science. You engage in ad hominem. Goodbye. may God be with you.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

mandas

Zacariah @22
"......It is sad to read people here and on other websites actually agreeing with it. That is scary. That is why I own guns. But, otherwise, it came off as a disturbing example of the type of cultism that could possibly end humanity. It should be seen as a terrorist threat. Certainly the FBI should be notified of her mental unsustainability...."

And you say that I'm a fruitcake?

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Zacariah

Wow, you are a fruitcake.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

mandas

Excellent Poe Zacharia.

I particularly love how you use foolish quotes from fundamentalist Republican politicians to show how deluded they really are (drilling holes in the Earth indeed - hilarious!). And you also discredit gun nuts (that's why you own guns - masterpiece!!), religion, the tea-party (Agenda 21 - wonderful!), climate change deniers and just about every right-wing wingnut view in one post.

Great job! It takes real skill to write Poe like that.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

I think I should become a professional psychic.

It took virtally no time at all for my prediction at post #1 to be fulfilled. I think it was because the authors and I are involed in a conspiracy to subvert the peer review process.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

Zacariah

This article struck a nerve as it typifies the contemporary cognitive disconnect our acadmeia have with reality. They scold us and make us feel bad about living on this fabulous planet. This holier-than-thou attitude has spread unsustainably. Helen's article will be preserved and kept on the caches of Al Gore's interweb here and other blogs where the article has been panned and praised by fellow parishioners and it will be archived for future generations, hopefully preserved as a warning of the unsustainable ideology that religious radicals swarmed to, completely smothering the good name and cause of true environmentalism and reasoned thought. The Modern Environmental Religion perpetuates the belief that carbon dioxide that we exhale is destroying the planet - even after presented and faced with facts that carbon dioxide isn't causing the warming. The icecaps are just fine. Polar bear population should be controlled. Reverand Jim Hansen at NASA GISS adjust the temperature record. Everything these motherf'rs say has been false. Arguing with facts won't help here, since there is no science in the entire piece. It has assumptions that are false and are clung to like a child that won't give up a blanket.

The author may have intended this piece to be a joke, to be a parody of the current thought process occuring in this field. If so, it is spot on. It is sad to read people here and on other websites actually agreeing with it. That is scary. That is why I own guns. But, otherwise, it came off as a disturbing example of the type of cultism that could possibly end humanity. It should be seen as a terrorist threat. Certainly the FBI should be notified of her mental unsustainability. The tenets of the religion call for the congregation to be culturally, economically, and environmentally sustainable. What does that mean? Well, it is similar to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of course. There are other religions with 3's as well. It is hard to explain with science, isn't it? UN Agenda 21 created something for people wanting to belong to a movement. Schools of sustainability have sprung up everywhere. Unfortunately, Architects have fallen victim to LEED and other unsustainable sustainability fads. Take your LEED certifications, your PhDs in Sustainability and give them back. You have been taken. The ignorance in our modern day is worrisome. Nothing is sustainable. Not a damn thing.

I find it fascinating that if you drill a hole almost anywhere on this planet, strangley enough, pressurized petroleum wants to spew out of the earth, begging for us to use it. Continuous and spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons at great pressure and temperature is an idea that none of the clergy want to hear. Whether true or false, the theory gives hope for a bright future and proves that we humans don't know jack squat. Stay warm, enjoy the interglacial, because, the cold really sucks. There could be a day that we'll be looking at these useless academics as a source of food when the crops freeze and the electricity runs out. Eat well, please.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

John Cook/Stephan Lewandowsky

I am reduced to posting here once more because commenters at Cook's Skeptical Science site are dissecting comments of mine without me being able to correct untruthful statements.

John Cook should contemplate the ethics of his site, where he locks out dissenting commentators while giving free reign to his regulars to continue to attack them - is this the conduct of an academic researcher or an activist?

Tom Curtis recently said there:-

10:57 AM on 24 March, 2013

Further to Geoff Chambers @40:

1) Â I note that you do not find Foxgoose's suggestion that Lewandowsky and co-authors had determined the survey results before the conducted the survey absurd. Â Also noted that you don't think that that would invovle any sort of conspiracy (despite the fact that at least three would be involved.

2) Â I am aware that Shollenberger found three misquotations, which as I understand it are being corrected prior to publication. Â I am unaware of his finding quotes in the paper that are not in the "raw data" and doubt that is relevant.

Two blatant untruths there:-

1) I never alleged that Lewandowsky had "determined the survey results before he conducted the survey". I did observe that he presented the preliminary results on September 23rd - the very same day he sent invitations, inviting sceptic groups to participate. Since the subjects he was seeking were more likely to be found on their own sceptic blogs rather than hostile consensus blogs - this anomaly pointed to a biased methodology and a meaningless result.

2) Tom should try reading the links in the stuff he ploughs through before making his verbose pronouncements. If he did, he would know that the fraudulent quotation attributed to me WAS left in the online final published version of the paper (although removed from the pdf). Malice or incompetence? - hard to say where both are to be found in such rich abundance.

Perhaps you could do the fair thing and repost this at SkS to correct the record - although I won't hold my breath.

I am also puzzled by Tom's conversion from being the public scourge of your original paper when it was first announced (I almost forgot and said "published") to being one it its more vocal defenders. I recall in September 2012 when Tom said at SkS:-

Given the low number of âskepÂticalâ respondÂents overall; these two scammed responses sigÂniÂficÂantly affect the resÂults regarding conÂspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interÂpretÂaÂtion of weakly agreed responses (see preÂvious post), this paper has no data worth interÂpreting with regard to conÂspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its pubÂlicÂaÂtion delayed while underÂgoing a subÂstanÂtial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate expliÂcitly why the responses regarding conÂspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthÂless, and conÂcenÂtrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salÂvageÂable). If this is not posÂsible, it should simply be withdrawn.

Six months is obviously a long time in climate politics - I hope his re-education wasn't too traumatic.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

layzej

Hi geoffchambers,

So you agree their findings - that there is a link between contrarianism and conspirational thinking - just not their methods?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

geoffchambers

layzej at 01:15 AM on 24 March, 2013

âWhat I don't understand is why there is such a concentration of this kind of thinking on the contrarian side. Is contrarianism attractive to the conspiratorial mind?â

Of course it is, almost by definition. People who doubt the consensus view on one subject are likely to doubt the consensus view on another.

The problem is that LOG12 was so sloppily designed and carried out that it fails to establish this very unsurprising finding. Questions about the Oklahoma bombing and the death of Lady Di, with no possibility of ticking âdonât knowâ; no quality control; an age range of 10 to 95; no demographics; no results in percentage terms in the paper - itâs unbelievably bad research.

Criticise the research and the paper and youâre a conspiracy theorist. Well, of course we are. If three people getting together in private to do something wrong is a conspiracy, then LOG12 was one, and Recursive Fury was another.

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

layzej

Wow! I did a quick search on Geoff chambers after reading his protestations above. He has a blog. On it he notes that the first few comments at the journal include:

"Michael Ashley (05 Feb 2013 at 11:25am) Interestingâ¦ the first two comments are positive ones and within a minute of each otherâ¦ Coincidence? I sense a conspiracy! Iâm sure that this will convince the climate deniers that Lewandowsky et al have instructed their friends to comment."

From this he concludes:

"Be clear what's going on here...

The authors of the second paper plot together with three of their colleagues (two professors and a university official) arranging for them to be the first to comment on the paper on the journalâs website. The comments ridicule anyone who might comment on the paper, pre-empting their criticisms by accusing them of conspiratorial thinking."

Mind boggling!

What I don't understand is why there is such a concentration of this kind of thinking on the contrarian side. Is contrarianism attractive to the conspiratorial mind?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

geoffchambers

corrections to my comment 3 above:
For âLucia Lindgrenâ read âLucia Liljegrenâ
For:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists
19 July 2012Â (400+ comments)
read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/climate-change-denial-_b_1686437.html
19 July 2012 (400+ comments)

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

geoffchambers

This is the letter Iâve been trying to post at

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract

To the editors, Frontiers in Personality Science:

In table 3 of this paper, I am mentioned by name and identified as having been the first to have mentioned in public Recursive Conspiracist Hypothesis number 4 - namely that Sceptic blogs were only contacted after a delay. This hypothesis is quite true, as Professor Lewandowsky has admitted. Nonetheless, the fact of having been the first to make this accusation leads to me being accused of exhibiting the following symptoms of conspiracist ideation: nefarious intent, nihilistic skepticism, âmust be wrongâ; âno accidentâ, and unreflexive counterfactual thinking.

From the definitions of these criteria given in the paper I extract the following:

Nefarious Intent: ââ¦ A corollary of the first criterion is the pervasive self-perception and self-presentation among conspiracy theorists as the victims of organized persecution. The theorist typically considers herself, at least tacitly, to be the brave antagonist of the nefarious intentions of the conspiracy; that is, the victim is also a potential hero.â

Nihilistic Skepticism: âThe conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not fit into the conspiracy theory. Thus, nothing is at it seems, and all evidence points to hidden agendas or some other meaning that only the conspiracy theorist is aware of.â

âMust be Wrongâ: âThe underlying lack of trust and exaggerated suspicion contribute to a cognitive pattern whereby specific hypotheses may be abandoned when they become unsustainable, but those corrections do not impinge on the overall abstraction that `something must be wrongâ and the `officialâ account must be based on deception.â

âNo Accidentâ: âTo the conspiracy theorist, nothing happens by accident â¦ Thus, small random events are woven into a conspiracy narrative and reinterpreted as indisputable evidence for the theory.â

Unreflexive Counterfactual Thinking: âContrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy [...] the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events.â

These definitions clearly identify me as being irrational and paranoid, and are therefore defamatory. I therefore request that you withdraw this paper.

I note further that, in the section on hypothesis (4) (âSkepticâ blogs contacted after delay) in which I am named, only one piece of evidence is produced, and that is a quote from Lucia Lindgren. If you donât withdraw the paper, you might at least correct it and replace my name with that of Ms Lindgren.

However, that wonât absolve the authors of having defamed me. If we turn to hypothesis (3) âPresentation of intermediate dataâ, we see that the person accused of having been the first to pronounce it is Steve McIntyre. Despite the fact that this hypothesis also turned out to be true, it leads him to being accused of exhibiting the same irrational and paranoid tendencies as me, (except for âNo Accidentâ).

The link provided

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html#22

leads to a comment by Dr McIntyre (comment 8) on an article by Professor Lewandowsky. However, Dr McIntyreâs comment is not about the presentation of intermediate data, but about four entirely different subjects. The reference to the presentation of intermediate data is in two previous comments by me to the same article (comments 3 and 6). In Comment 5, a commenter notes that I had already made the same point in a comment at SkepticalScience, a blog run by second author John Cook, which for some reason was not included among the blogs analysed, despite being one of the âPrincipal web sites involved in blogosphereâs response to the publication of LOG12â (title of table 2).

One reason for not considering SkepticalScience, despite the fact that this blog is widely regarded as one of the leading blogs commenting on climate scepticism, can perhaps be found in the paper, where, under the heading of âPotential Limitationsâ, it is explained why the content analysis of blogs was entrusted to authors Cook and Marriott:

âTwo of the present authors also contributed to LOG12, and the present analysis may therefore be biased by a potential conflict of interest. This possibility cannot be ruled out [...]. [B]ecause data collection (via internet search) was conducted by two authors who were not involved in analysis or report of LOG12, the resulting ârawâ data â available in the online supplementary material â cannot reflect a conflict of interest involving the LOG12 authors.â

It might have been wise to indicate that:

1) the two authors whose data collection âcannot reflect a conflict of interestâ both run blogs which concentrate on countering the views of sceptics (SkepticalScience and WatchingtheDeniers)

2) John Cook of Skeptical Science is coauthor with first author Stephan Lewandowsky of âDebunking Skepticismâ; and

3)SkepticalScience was the scene of some of the most lively debates about(LOG12) and of at least one of the first occurrences of a conspiracist hypothesis.

I therefore suggest that, in the interest of accuracy, the authors replace the name of Dr McIntyre with mine, (since I do believe that my comment at Skeptical Science was the first to raise this hypothesis, the truth of which has been confirmed by Professor Lewandowsky) and my name with that of Lucia Lindgren.

I havenât looked at the attributions of earliest mention to the other hypotheses mentioned in table 3. However, I noticed that a quote attributed to me is false, and it wouldnât surprise me if there are other errors.

Finally, I would like to point out that by the time Cook and Marriott began their content analysis (August 28), the paper (LOG12) had already been the subject of numerous comments on blogs for at least five weeks, beginning with

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/climate-change-denial-_b_1686437.html

19 July 2012 (400+ comments)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists

29 July 2012 (1300+ comments)

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1904675

30 July 2012 (70 comments)

http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/30/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-1/

http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/30/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-2/

30 July 2012

http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/.

(August 2 2012)

The claim to have identified the earliest occurrences of the conspiracist ideation starting on 28 August is therefore moot.

I therefore respectfully suggest that the wisest course might be to withdraw this paper.

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

B. Wilson

Fascinating bit of history below. Subject 'matter' is fitting. Life on our beautiful planet will only get better...trust in our engineers...ignore Helen and her fellow "academic'' jobless windblowers who contribute nothing. Nothing is sustainable. Get over it. Go out and spend time with your children. Teach them. Dont depress them.

http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

B. Wilson

Hi Mandas! The article is a masterpiece. I will let it speak for itself. Is everything ok?

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

Foxgoose

Thanks guys!

The fact that you're continuing digging this collapsing hole will provide the sceptic community with more satisfaction than you can possibly imagine.

I think you've missed the point that "recursive fury" seems to trigger massive seratonin release in it's victims - keeping us in a continual state of hilarity.

Now, on a more important note. I made a serious complaint here, and direct to both your universities, about fraudulent falsification in your paper of a quotation I made here.

You twisted a remark I made suggesting Prof Lewandowsky had not contacted sceptic blog proprietors - to suggest that I believed no "human subjects" had taken your survey.

This appears to be one of many calamitous errors in your work based on your clumsy attempt at an apology to Richard Betts above.

My complaint was obvious taken seriously by somebody, since the offending sentence and link have disappeared from the pdf version of the "final published paper" on the Frontiers website.

Sadly, the incompetence that has characterised all your work has prevailed and the offensive material still remains in "full text" online version of the paper on the website.

This raises several issues:-

1. The fact that the fraudulent and offensive statement has been removed from the pdf (and presumably print) version shows that you have acknowledged wrongdoing.

2. The fact that it still appears in the final, published online text means that you have compounded the offence by continuing to publish material you know is wrong and offensive.

3. The fact that there are now at least two current and different versions of the "final published paper" in circulation seems to make it worthless as a contribution to the peer reviewed academic literature.

I will of course continue to pursue my complaint, and potential legal action, with your universities - until such time as a get a public retraction and apology in writing and on this blog.

Meanwhile, I strongly suggest you withdraw this worthless paper, which is really just a mish-mash of its authors' hysterical prejudices wrapped up in an unconvincing tissue of pseudo-acdemic jargon.

Foxgoose

Comment on Don't trust your Stone Age brain: it's unsustainable

mandas

Based on what you are saying Brian, you appear to be suggesting that I am NOT ok, but you are.

Interesting...........

Comment on Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations

mandas

Thanks once again John and Dr Lewandowsky.

I especially love the last paragraph before the conclusion, regarding some of the discussion that has taken place on this blog and elsewhere (disclosure - I have been involved in some of them).

Can I make a prediction? You have suggested that: "It will be interesting to see whether this commenter resists the "Something Must Be Wrong" urge......:

I predict that he won't - and will post his usual long diatribes and he will be completely immune to any evidence or rationality that he may be incorrect. Anyone want to bet against me?