Home About Us Our Authors Us In The Media Links to Data I'm New To This Site Contact Us

Climate denial a “warmist” hoax?

By Stephan Lewandowsky
Winthrop Professor, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
Posted on 13 September 2012
Filed under Cognition
and Klaus Oberauer

Understanding people means to have a Theory of Mind. A model of other people’s thinking.

This may come as a surprise to some who mistakenly consider models to be something science should do without. Not only are models central to all scientific inquiry—ever heard of the heliocentric model of the solar system?—but without a model we could not understand other people, and not even ourselves.  

This Theory of Mind is a collection of beliefs of what other people believe or know, what they want, and how they most likely will act. If you have ever sat next to someone on a plane who’s telling you all about Barney’s last summer holiday, oblivious to the fact that you’ve never met or heard of Barney before, then you will understand the importance of a Theory of Mind and how its integrity is central to human interaction.

What does this have to do with our recent paper on the motivated rejection of science?

Everything.

We already established that if potentially “suspect” outlying observations are removed from our data, the correlations of greatest interest, between conspiracist ideation and rejection of science, retains its significance. So far, so good, but now we need to discuss the far-from-trivial issue of why anyone would consider those observations “suspect” (other than by their magnitude alone).

This brings us to the issue of “scamming”, the hypothesis that people completed our survey by “faking” their responses.

It turns out that any decision about “scamming” is a cognitive choice that rests on a model in one’s mind about other people’s behavior.

Let’s consider this hypothetical response profile:

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4  … 1 1 1 1 1,

where the 4’s stand for endorsement  of conspiracy theories and the 1’s for rejection of climate-related items.

One might be tempted to conclude that this respondent was a “warmist” who “scammed” our survey by faking endorsement of conspiracy theories, perhaps in order to make “deniers” look like “nutters” (I am using caricaturizing labels in quotation marks, such as “warmist”, for succinctness; the discussion is impossible without succinct labels.)

Crucially, we must recognize that the judgment just made was a cognitive judgment that relies on a model—a model of what a response pattern would look like if someone faked the data. This cognitive model rests on (a) the tacit premise that no one could possibly be serious when endorsing all conspiracy theories, and it would include (b) the further deduction that anyone who does this must be faking the response. A further deduction (c) could be added that this faking was done in order to cast aspersions on people who reject (climate) science.

So, a cognitive model with one premise and at least one auxiliary assumption indeed suggests that this response pattern represents a “scammer.”

The crucial point is this: Identification of presumed scammers is a model-based inference, and there is no escaping that fact (e.g., trap questions don’t help because they could equally be scammed).

Moreover, because identification of “scammers” rests on a model-based inference, it should come as no surprise that there are multiple other cognitive models of at least equal plausibility that would lead to different conclusions: For example, the above response pattern is equally compatible with the model that (a) no one in their right mind would endorse all conspiracy theories, and therefore (b) some “deniers” are really “nutters” (again, caricaturizing labels are used for succinctness.).

We therefore come to opposing conclusions about the putative “scamming” responses based on two opposing models of what respondents were thinking while they were completing the survey.

There is no easy way to adjudicate between the two models.

It is for that reason that we removed all those responses to which one or the other of those cognitive models might apply. Given that the removal of “scammers” (or true “nutters”, on the alternative model) makes no difference to the significance of our correlations, we fortunately do not have to expend much further energy on this issue within the narrow context of our survey.

However, it is worth taking a broader view at the notion of “scamming” and the implications of various different cognitive models by considering other manifestations of climate denial (or endorsement) on the internet. Blog comments, after all, are potentially as anonymous as survey responses and they are therefore subject to precisely the same model-based interpretation as the response patterns in our data.

So let’s apply the above models to a few comments and other material harvested from the internet.

We begin with this one, reproduced verbatim below:

“Here is some photographic analysis for Apollo 11 showing that the moonwalking was in fact staged. There is nothing to oppose this analysis and no getting around it. If it conflicts with your irrational beliefs see a psychiatrist. But don't be getting about running cover for the criminals that push these fraudulent and expensive undertakings on the public. These networks haven't gone away and they are busier then ever. The CO2-warming scam is scientific fraud. And its a far bigger, more ambitious, and more expensive scam then the moon hoax ever was. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ”

Applying the same cognitive model that suggests that participants scammed our survey, this comment was clearly written by a “warmist” who “scammed” the comment to make “deniers” look like “nutters.”

Some instances of climate denial, by the same logic that some have applied to our survey responses, are a “warmist” hoax.

Moving from comments to blog posts, here we have a certain Oliver Manuel:

“In 1972 I became uneasy about the politicalization of science, but I could not grasp the problem until Climategate emails and documents were released in November of 2009. … I have tentatively traced this back to secret, fear-driven agreements by the winners of the Second World War in 1945 and later by Kissinger, Zhou En-Lai, Chairman Mao, Brezhnev and Nixon in 1971.”

The same individual also recently sent me an email, which opened with: “On The Eleventh Anniversary of the 9-11-2011 Tragedy — Events leading to Climategate in Nov 2009.”

(Disclaimer: O. Manuel did not design our survey items.)

So is this individual a “nutter,” or is he a “warmist” posing as a “nutter” to make “deniers” look bad? On the cognitive model that some people have applied to our survey responses, the latter possibility should be favored.

Lest one think that Oliver Manuel is just a lone individual of questionable mental competence, it must be noted that climate “skeptic” Ian Plimer relies on Manuel’s bizarre theory, that the sun is largely composed of iron, in his principal work of fiction Heaven and Earth. This recent article opens up a door to a sordid and bizarre network of Manuel and associates whose responses to our survey are readily predicted.

Of course, they are all just “warmists” doing their stuff to make “deniers” look bad.

But why stop at blog posts?

Let’s examine some public utterances of well-known alleged climate deniers and see if they might be warmist scammers in disguise, doing their best to make deniers look like nutters.

A leading candidate for scammer-in-chief is Lord Christopher Monckton. Although he is commonly perceived to be the Vaudevillian poster boy of climate denial, some very serious questions about his true identity have been raised on Australian national TV.

Those questions hint at the possibility that Mr Monckton might be a scammer, an impression buttressed by his public concerns about President Obama’s place of birth.

Further evidence for Mr Monckton’s warmist mission to pose as scammer is provided by his public claim that NASA blew up its own satellite to prevent the climate hoax from being uncovered. This seems likely, given that NASA has had ample opportunity to hone its skills with the so-called “moon landing.”

We conclude that there is clear evidence that Mr Monckton is a warmist scammer trying to make climate denial look nuts.

And Mr Monckton is not alone; there appears to be a considerable number of such scammers out there, given that warmists-faking-nutty-denial-theories of exploding satellites can be found elsewhere.

Looks like they all scammed our survey.

We are convinced now.

Climate denial is a warmist hoax, perpetrated by the same scammers who faked our survey.

Bookmark and Share

421 Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 256:

  1. Thomasawfuller:

    I am just asking what any researcher would ask of another researcher.


    Hmmm, that's curious - I thought that you were a journalist. I didn't realise that you are actually an academic, with equivalent bona fides and experience to Stephan Lewendowsky. Could you please supply some background describing your field of investigation that employs the scientific method and that results in new knowledge?

    There's no urgency. Any time at your convenience will do.
  2. Tom Curtis - you have shown you are more than capable through the work you've on this. That you have reached the same basic conclusion as others should be evidence of that.

    (-snip-)

    Your willingness to say what you believe, even if uncomfortable, is a commendable quality.

    We need more people willing to engage and challenge - to follow the science and the data and not political ideologies and beliefs. Don't apologize and don't belittle your efforts and skills.

    Like you, while I suspect there's a fair amount of confirmation bias involved, I don't think there is any intent towards fraud here. And that should be made clear.

    (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
  3. Brings to mind a 1999 paper from a different but related journal.
  4. And Tom Curtis, my apologies for using you as the example when I suspect you'd rather not. But your work is important and well documented and provides important context and support.

    You dare to stand up and raise valuable points, most importantly to me, the bigger picture ones ... that need to be seen - and addressed. By both sides.

    If I might risk my own paraphrase of your message to Mr. Lewandowsky: 'if you want to be taken seriously then act seriously, address the science, and not the sensationalizing'

    Again, I think yours is an excellent message that all sides would be well served to hear.
  5. Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012
    Questions continue to be raised for further information relating to this paper. My response is threefold:
    1. I see little merit in treading over ground that is already clearly stated in the paper (e.g., the elimination of duplicate IP numbers).
    2. Several questions concern material that is presently subject to an FOI request. I will let that process run to completion rather than pre-empt it.
    3. The supplementary online material for the article is being extended to contain additional information (e.g., the outlier analysis from the preceding post). The online supplement will be released when the typesetting of the article is complete.
    Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.
  6. What Eli Rabett said @64, and it's about time it was said. What the whole recent 'blog science' movement fails to appreciate is that replication of other scientist's results is not accomplished by borrowing their data and running your own analysis on it. That's not the way our knowledge in a particular field is advanced.

    Rather, you do the hard graft to gather your own data, write your own paper, and get it published in a reputable journal. *Then* you are doing science, as opposed to the 'armchair science' as evidenced by some of the commenters here. But admittedly, reading these comments has been good for the lolz, so do carry on.
  7. Dr. Lewandowsky,

    It's been noted at several blogs that the survey was circulated at your university and elsewhere on two psychology related websites. This was unreported in the paper as far as I could discern.

    You were kind enough to explain your counterbalancing procedure when blog speculation ran rampant. I wonder if you might also explain how this data fits into the methodology.

    Or if I could ask, was it incorporated into the full data set? Is it used as some sort of control? Did you collect it and then decide not to use it? Or maybe you intend to publish another paper based on these results?

    Thanks in advance.
    Moderator Response: As stated in the method section those data were not included in the paper.
  8. Here's a google search which aims to verify or refute the "denial" - "moon landing hoax" link. [Google search ]. It searches for old blog reactions to climategate in conjunction with moonlanding.

    The first hits are from northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com. Here are some titles of some of the posts on this blog:

    • ClimateGate: 100 Reasons Why "Global Warming" is A MYTH! - 20 Dec 2009
    • More Exposure Of NASA's Moon Landing Lies: "Return" To The Moon Has Been Canceled! - 14 Feb 2010
    • The Swine Flu HOAX: Tamiflu Anti-Viral Drug Revealed As A Complete Hoax! - 14 Dec 2009
    • Time To Wake Up America: Detroit "Terrorist" Attack Was Staged - 31 Dec 2009

    There several hundred posts per year back to 2008. If this was staged by warmist to make "denialists" look like "nutters" then it is a pretty elaborate!

    This justifies one of your models: outliers should be included, and that the paper title is justified.
  9. I am unclear of the significance of this survey. Even if the results are legitimate, why is there any value in determining that a minority of AGW skeptics are also conspiracy theorists? This seems to have no importance to the debate except as a means of marginalizing all skeptics via the extreme positions of a few.

    As an example, there are many who legitimately opposed the war in Iraq. If you were to compare populations of people who opposed to the war to those who supported the war, you would probably determine that those opposed to the war were more likely to believe in a 911 conspiracy. So what? That doesn't mean that opposition to the war was not legitimate.

    Regards
  10. There must be a psychological phrase for, 'when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging!'
    Professor you have dug yourself what would appear to be a methodological hole! (-snip-)?
    Moderator Response: Fixed text; inflammatory snipped.
  11. Robert Campbell at 02:28 AM on 15 September, 2012
    Messrs. Rabett and Metzler haven't mentioned that journal editors and reviewers do ask the authors of submitted manuscripts, in effect, to drop everything they are doing, for a while at least, and give them what they want.

    (-snip-).

    (-snip-)?
    Moderator Response: Inflammatory tone and rhetoric snipped.
  12. To the extent it's even remotely correct, Robert's point #1 is contingent on the amount of procrastination invested by an author into the back-and-forth of the submit-review-revise process. The progress of a paper is hardly urgent; "Drop everything" is what happens when all excuses for delay have been exhausted.

    Point #2 is at far remove from reality.
  13. Robert Campbell at 03:09 AM on 15 September, 2012
    All I was trying to say was the journal editors and reviewers routinely criticize the quality of empirical studies that they are not going to replicate by doing empirical studies of their own.

    If this is bad practice when done by others, is it bad practice when done by editors or reviewers?
  14. I am new here and have read the comments policy but I still don't see how Eli Rabbett's comment at #64 is neither inflammatory nor ad hominem. Can a moderator explain please?
    Moderator Response: A statement deemed inflammatory was removed. As an FYI, the term "Idiot Tracker" refers to both a blog and blogging individual and is thus not ad hominem nor inflammatory.
  15. @Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012

    1) The paper talks about duplicate removal not multiple responses from the same IP address
    2) (-snip-)
    3) (-snip-)

    (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: Multiple accusations of dishonesty and unsupported assertions snipped. Please read the Comments Policy and ensure that all future comments comport to it before commenting further.
  16. Robert Campbell, that's not quite right.

    When one submits a paper for publication one engages in a contract (having various degrees of explicitness) with the editors/publishers whereby the paper is assessed according to criteria defined by the journal and its editors. You can decline to respond to requests by the editor for information and changes specified by the reviewers, but this will likely result in rejection of your paper.

    When a manuscript/paper is posted on the web one obviously opens oneself to critique. However there's no requirement for this critique to be responded to at all. This is entirely different from the nature of response to journal editor/reviewer critique.

    How should one respond to blog critique? It's entirely up to the individual! In normal academic discourse there is a philosophy of good faith. Scientists by and large submit manuscripts to journals in good faith, the papers are reviewed in good faith, and requests from other scientists are usually addressed in good faith.

    However it's quite apparent that many critiques in the blogosphere are not made in good faith and this strongly distinguishes some of the blog discourse from normal academic discourse.

    Interestingly, whereas the pace of scientific publishing seems glacially slow in comparison with sciency blog discourse (of the sort carried out on this thread), science progression occurs quite quickly since scientific issues are dealt with rather efficiently in the scientific literature, largely due to the good faith philosophy internalized by the majority of scientists. This is quite different from sciency discourse on the web where one finds, for example, people insisting on rehashing long-settled issues like papers on paleotemperature series from nearly 15 years ago!

    The concept of "good-faith" (and "bad-faith") is such an important one in the interaction of scientists and the progression of scientific subjects, and yet it seems to be poorly understood outside of scientific circles as is apparent in perusing blogs where contentious issues (whether real or contrived) of science are gnawed over.
  17. -71- Mod,

    Thanks for your quick response. Like most of your audience I am not an expert in these matters and appreciate your patience.

    The methods section and Table 2 of the version of the paper that I have read (link below) is silent on the matter of surveys posted at other (non blog) sites. Am I reading an outdated version of the paper?

    It is reported that the invitation to the survey said, "UWA researcher Charles Hanich is seeking participants for a web-based survey of attitudes towards climate science (and other sciences) and skepticism." The three outlets that were apparently excluded qualify as "web-based."

    The methods section states, "Links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science
    stance but with a diverse audience)." Presumably the websites of onlinepsychresearch, all-about-psychology and Dr. Lewandowsky's university would be considered "pro-science science stance."

    Is it common to exclude a subset of a survey without explicitly mentioning that decision in the final paper?

    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
  18. Chris # 81 ... you make an excellent point.

    Every author of a paper like this has choices. They can chose the publication route, which withholds the paper from public review until it has been peer reviewed and published.

    The can also choose to publicize the paper in the media.

    Or they can decide to do both.

    Where the choice is straight publication in a peer reviewed journal, the paper and its conclusions remain private until published. Public criticism, until the paper is made public, would not usually be expected.

    However, when an author chooses to make the paper public, when it is released in public to the media and promoted publically by the authors, then it is entirely fair to expect, accept, and respond to public criticism.

    You cannot have your cake and eat it too, as seems the case here.

    The authors received the benefits of public release and dissemination. Exactly as one would expect considering the conclusion and headline title, the paper and its conclusions have received wide-spread coverage, with many stories written in the media touting its claims as fact.

    The authors, having received the benefit of that public release, now want to withhold comment or response to the legitimate bi-partisan criticism, saying they'll release more information and data after publication, and implying they may well wait until completion of an FOI request - which we all know can take forever.

    Trying to have it both ways - reap the benefit of public promotion thru publicizing the paper prior to publication, and refusing to respond to legitimate public criticism as a result of the public disseminatation until after publication, has every appearance of being neither fair or professional.

    It is exactly this type action that is eroding the public respect for the sciences.

    Here is an excellent and timely article that well addresses the danger of this situation:

    Too much advocacy? Scientists and public policy

    That the public is tuning science out regarding climate for this very reason.
    Moderator Response: Your closing statement is non sequitur.
  19. For example, people find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it.


    Reference: Kahan 2010

    quoted by the paper in discussion
  20. Correction in my last post not - "quoted by the paper in discussion" that paper was just referenced not quoted
  21. Yes and no A. Scott

    Yes a scientist who "pre-publishes" on the web might be expected to receive and respond to criticism. But s/he doesn't have to respond. More likely the "pre-publisher" will make some assessment of the nature of the critique and will choose to respond to valid critique s/he considers to be made in good faith. As is obvious from perusing this site and others, there has been a veritable rain of critique and Dr. Lewandowski and his coauthors are perfectly within their rights to assess what they consider is and isn't productive to respond to.

    So this isn't such a straightforward "have-cake-and-eat" circumstance, and what some might consider "legitimate bipartisan criticism" might not necessarily be considered "legitimate" by someone else.

    Otherwise, I think you're making a couple of unwarranted extrapolations. The authors have addressed critique so this isn't really one of your "have-cake-and-eat" examples. In the general case if author's assessment of critique results in an improved manuscript, then this in itself validates pre-publication.

    Your extrapolation of this example to equate with "eroding of public respect for science" is also debateable. This particular example is likely to be a quickly-forgotten blogospheric storm in a tea cup. More problematic is the vast amount of non-"legitimate" critique/misrepresentation of climate science in the blogosphere which spills into non-critical media and the political sphere. As Greg Breining says in the very piece you linked to in your post:

    "Not to say that advocacy on the part of scientists is the sole cause of the nation's skepticism toward science in general and climate change in particular. More influential by far has been the terrific sum invested by fossil-fuel industries and their allies in challenging any science that the Earth is warming.

    And Americans' religious beliefs and populism have inoculated them against even such basic, policy-neutral science as evolution"


    I agree with Breining that advocacy on the part of scientists is confusing to the public, and it should be based on strong scientific evidence. But advocacy is ultimately required to push forward important policy; otherwise we would have delayed acting on scientific issues like dangers of ciggie smoking with respect to respiratory disease and lung cancer, CFC depletion of stratospheric ozone, the dangers of aspirin taking in children in relation to Reyes syndrome and other issues where misrepresentation of science was also manifest. Ultmately it would be very helpful if we didn't have torrents of misrepresentation of scientific issues flooding the blogosphere, and even better a more responsible media!
  22. In terms of explicit policy advocacy accompanied by frequent intermingling of ideological and scientific factors, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen would seem to be an A-1 example. By comparison, Prof. Lewandowsky is not even in the same ballpark.

    Hopefully folks will use the same set of filters when evaluating Dr. Lindzen's remarks as they do when assessing Prof. Lewandowsky, who while having remarked on broad policy challenges in his personal writings has-- unlike Dr. Lindzen-- not traveled the world making appearances for what seem to be purely political purposes.
  23. Moderator Response: Your closing statement is non sequitur.


    Nah - its just missing a few words ;-)

    I'll try again:

    Here is an excellent and timely article that well addresses the danger of this situation:

    Too much advocacy? Scientists and public policy

    That the public is tuning science out regarding climate, is largely a result of the reason in the link above.
    Moderator Response:

    Your statement is still non sequitur. This would be a more accurate rephrasing:

    "That some of the public may be tuning science out regarding climate may largely be a result of the reason in the link above."

  24. Chris ... i agree with your last concept - advocacy is ultimately required to push forward important policy

    However, I disagee, strongly, that the scinetific cimmunity should be involved.

    Scientists research and dispassionately report their findings.

    Advocates advocate based on those findings.

    When scientists become advocates, and especially when they become fierce advocates and start putting science 2nd to advocacy, is when we get to the problem of today.

    (-snip-).

    Add the public release and promotion in the media before publication, and the considerable damage done if the criticism is found correct, and this is in my opinion a textbook case of the issues raised in the Breining commentary.
    Moderator Response: Nonfactual assertions snipped.
  25. NA Scott @ 88

    "That the public is tuning science out regarding climate, is largely a result of the reason in the link above."

    But in fact your link states explicitly that that's not the case. I'll repeat the relevant paragraph from your link:

    "Not to say that advocacy on the part of scientists is the sole cause of the nation's skepticism toward science in general and climate change in particular. More influential by far has been the terrific sum invested by fossil-fuel industries and their allies in challenging any science that the Earth is warming."


    You can't use an article to justify that X is the dominant factor in Y when the article states that Z is "more influential by far".
  26. Moderator Response:

    Your statement is still non sequitur. This would be a more accurate rephrasing:

    "That some of the public may be tuning science out regarding climate may largely be a result of the reason in the link above."


    I agree - like your wording better - with one request - I implied "all", you used "some" - the story actually says "a lot of" people ... which seems the correct choice ...

    Please feel free to replace mine with yours. Thx.

    So, if more environmental scientists are willing to spout off or sneak policy opinions into their research -- what of it?

    First, a lot of people will become not just skeptical, but unreasonably so. People are always looking for ways to avoid challenging information -- Al Gore's movie is called "An Inconvenient Truth," after all. By being able to suspect the motives of the messenger, listeners can discard the whole unpleasant message.

    Second, not only will individual scientists lose credibility, but the whole scientific endeavor will become just another story, a narrative concocted for dramatic effect or self-serving motives. Science will become just another advocacy group -- in a lab coat.

    Third, a collapse in credibility means that science will play an even less constructive role in public-policy debates. And when "stealth advocacy" enters the debate dressed up as science, it will become a proxy for clearly expressed values so that the values themselves are never discussed."
  27. A. Scott, everything you say in your post @89 is opinion (we could equally call it advocacy!)

    But it's all debateable. For example there simply isn't a discrete discontinuity between the uncovering and publicising of important scientific findings with potential societal/policy impacts and advocacy. When Doll and Peto, or Rowland and Molina uncovered evidence for links between ciggie smoking and lung disease/ CFC release and catalytic ozone destruction, respectively, their wider dissemination of their work constitutes a form of advocacy. Obviously if these scientists pursue evidence for problematic outcomes and publicise this they are essentially advocating for a reduction in ciggie smoking/CFC release.

    Likewise since there is rather strong evidence that the extreme oxidation of fossil fuels constituting a large proportion of the sequestered reservoir will result in very marked surface warming with very likely extremely deleterious consequences, stating this may be advocating for a particular policy but it has a strong scientific evidence base. In fact Dr Hanson is something of a scientific outlier in that he has publically stated his intention to advocate for policy solutions for reasons he has stated. I don't have a problem with this. It's ultimately up to an informed public (which requires the sort of reputable media that we are lacking in many quarters) to assess the scientific evidence in its entirety, including Dr. Hanson's contributions. In fact that's largely what the IPCC is for and if its efforts were publicised faithfully, that would be rather helpful for public understanding.

    You decry scientists that "start putting science 2nd to advocacy". That would indeed be a problem. Does it exist? I think it does but the only examples that come to mind in climate-related fields is that tiny group of scientists that misrepresent the pukka science. We could probably name 4 or 5 of these but they are exclusively so-called "skeptics"/"deniers". As Greg Breining indicates in the article you linked to, that's really where the problems relating to public perception of science lie...
  28. "That the public is tuning science out regarding climate, is largely a result of the reason in the link above."

    But in fact your link states explicitly that that's not the case. I'll repeat the relevant paragraph from your link:

    "Not to say that advocacy on the part of scientists is the sole cause of the nation's skepticism toward science in general and climate change in particular. More influential by far has been the terrific sum invested by fossil-fuel industries and their allies in challenging any science that the Earth is warming."

    You can't use an article to justify that X is the dominant factor in Y when the article states that Z is "more influential by far"


    Chris - I didn't say it was only, or even primarily, I said "largely" ... the advocacy by scientists is a large part of the issue. Certainly not the only part.

    And as far as the quote you provided, its an old, tired and in large part untrue statement. The alleged fossil fuel industry funding of climate change skeptics is in great part an unproven myth.

    Regardless, the funding the pro-AGW side receives has been shown to dwarf the funding on the skeptic side by a huge proportion.

    Look at the instant case here. Mr. Lewandowsky shows climate related grants of more than $1.5 million for 2011-2014 term.

    With all due respect, what climate related research could a "cognitive scientist" in a Psychology department possible do that would be worth $1.5 million?

    And even if there is a valid reason to spend that much for cognitive science work related to climate, what benefit will it have to the climate issue?

    In the instant case Charliez above asks the relevant question:

    Even if the results are legitimate, why is there any value in determining that a minority of AGW skeptics are also conspiracy theorists? This seems to have no importance to the debate except as a means of marginalizing all skeptics via the extreme positions of a few.


    No disrespect intended, as all scientists are going to take funding when they can get it - but I think this is a serious and valid question.
    Moderator Response: If you wish to evaluate the research itself, then do so. Lacking that, you impute questions as to motive, which is off-limits per the Comments Policy. Abandon this line of reasoning.
  29. This needs a bit more thought I think, A. Scott:

    "Second, not only will individual scientists lose credibility, but the whole scientific endeavor will become just another story, a narrative concocted for dramatic effect or self-serving motives. Science will become just another advocacy group -- in a lab coat."

    What's missing (and so makes your statement an unrealistic extrapolation) is consideration of the fundamental element of science, namely evidence. You are pursuing a notion that advocacy is divorced from evidence, which it may well be in the political sphere in some instances. It isn't in science. The natural world as investigated by scientists is politically neutral even if there might be implicit or explicit policy issues associated with scientific findings. But your sort of slippery slope extrapolation isn't going to happen.
    Moderator Response: Fixed blockquote hashtag.
  30. Doll and Peto, or Rowland and Molina uncovered evidence for links between ciggie smoking and lung disease/ CFC release and catalytic ozone destruction, respectively, their wider dissemination of their work constitutes a form of advocacy.


    Chris ... dissemination of scientific work, in a scholarly fashion, is far different - and is not what is talked about in the story, nor what is occurring today.

    Did Doll and Peto, or Rowland and Molina ever write a paper with a headline such as the one here "NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science”? I sincerely doubt they did.

    Did they promote their scientific papers in the media well in advance of journal publication? I'd guess the answer there is the same - likely not.

    Disseminating published scholarly work is not advocacy, at least within the meaning and discussion here.
  31. re @93

    O.K. You are using Greg Breining's article to make one point while disagreeing with one of his strongest statements where he describes what he considers the most important problem to public perception of climate science

    As the moderator to your post indicates, arguments about funding are tedious. However it's beyond dispute that the blogosphere has a massive amount of science misrepresentation which is particularly strong in relation to misrepresentation of climate science. This is a major problem in public perception of climate science along the lines of Greg Breining's statement. The question of how this is funded is immaterial to that fact.
  32. you're making some disparate points in post @ 95 A Scott, so I'll address them in similar fashion.

    1. Nothing inherently wrong with publicising papers in advance of publication. It's a sign of the times whether one likes it or not. Universities have media relations departments, scientists put manuscripts on their web pages and so on.

    2. Yes those scientists (the one's I mentioned) did advocate for policy solutions. Here's Richard Doll, for example:

    "Death in old age is inevitable, but death before old age is not. In previous centuries 70 years used to be regarded as humanity's allotted span of life, and only about one in five lived to such an age. Nowadays, however, for non-smokers in Western countries, the situation is reversed: only about one in five will die before 70, and the non-smoker death rates are still decreasing, offering the promise, at least in developed countries, of a world where death before 70 is uncommon. For this promise to be properly realised, ways must be found to limit the vast damage that is now being done by tobacco and to bring home, not only to the many millions of people in developed countries but also the far larger populations elsewhere, the extent to which those who continue to smoke are shortening their expectation of life by so doing."

    That sounds like advocacy to me. Fully justified in my opinion since it is evidence-based.

    3. The paper under discussion here isn't advocacy anyway is it A. Scott? It's a scholarly study. It's a very interesting and potentially important question of the motivations of individuals that misrepresent scientific findings.
  33. The paper and the comments it's attracted make me wonder how 'fixed' are cognitive models.

    In particular, extreme right wing ideology is a predictor of rejection of science - and this can be explained using cognitive models. (Hope I've got that right - this is not my field.)

    Consider comments on this website and the arguably extreme reaction against this paper on various blogs. It all suggests that there is an association between right wing ideology and a tendency to change evidence, or select only 'evidence' that fits the person's existing cognitive model and ignore the rest, rather than amending their cognitive model when it doesn't fit with the evidence.

    The next question, which may be more difficult, is whether this disability is innate or acquired.
  34. Shorter A Scott: research outcomes I disapprove of are the result of 'advocacy'. Research outcomes I and my fellow-travellers are outraged by are also the cause of the alleged decline of Science - which can, after all, never 'objectively' produce outcomes we disapprove of - in the public eye.

    And this alleged disenchantment is certainly nothing to do with a noisy, quasi-nihilistic campaigns of disinformation undertaken by powerful vested interests and their 'libertarian' allies, right?

    Would I be too-far-wrong in suspecting that court decisions you don't like - I'll suggest the recent NIWA and EPA decisions - are similarly the result of inappropriate 'judicial activism'?

    One more question: do you know what 'Epistemic Closure' is?
  35. Doug Bostrom:
    In terms of explicit policy advocacy accompanied by frequent intermingling of ideological and scientific factors, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen would seem to be an A-1 example. By comparison, Prof. Lewandowsky is not even in the same ballpark.

    Doug - This discussion is about Mr. Lewandowsky, not Mr. Lindzen.

    But lets examine your suggestion - and look at the record on Mr. Lewandowsky's policy advocacy?

    From his profile page here at Shaping Tomorrows World:
    Stephan has regularly contributed to national debate and links to his pieces in the Australian and international media can be found here.

    More from the link immed. above:
    The editors and contributors to Shaping Tomorrow's World also make frequent contributions to the national and international media. Particularly notable articles are linked to from here.

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky's contributions to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Drum"

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky's contributions to theConversation

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky in The Guardian (UK) about holding "skeptics" accountable.

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky in The Guardian (UK) about climate change in the Australian media.

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky in The Guardian (UK) about the real climategate, November 2011.

    And couple more:
    A list of all his story's published here at STW

    Professor Stephan Lewandowsky's articles at theConversation

    The Debunking Handbook Part 1: The first myth about debunking

    The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect

    The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect

    The Debunking Handbook Part 4: The Worldview Backfire Effect

    The Debunking Handbook Part 5: Filling the gap with an alternative explanation

    AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty


    There's quite a lot more if you venture out into the wide world of the internet, but the information above - 100% from his own site right here, provides an extensive list of his advocacy efforts in his own words.

    An interesting observation, of his writings here back to early 2011, none generated more than a few comments. Until he wrote the first post about this paper that is. That first post was relatively benign - and generated 29 responses.

    A second story on on the paper, regarding the skeptic blogs and emails, generated 62 responses.

    The third article on this paper, with the same tone and targeting of the skeptics, generated another 62 responses.

    As the acerbic style continued and escalated, the 4th article generated 214 responses, and the 5th and the 6th largely continuing the style of the earlier posts, generated 148 and 150 comments

    Although the 7th and the 8th story's did continue along much of the same lines as earlier articles on the paper, they also included some actual response to the questions and criticism. They generated 106 and 84 comments respectively.

    Perhaps that's that people are losing interest, but in reading the comments, it also could be becasue Mr. Lewandowsky has taken an ever so slightly less confrontational tone, but more importantly has at least started to offer at least some response to his critics.

    Perhaps something could be learned from the microcosm of these 8 (and hopefully subsequent) posts.

    A total of 49 total articles, just 8 referring to a scientific paper. Well over 1,000 comments on those 8 articles vs. 55 comments on the 41 prior story's by the same author.

    There has to be something worth learning there.

    And to answer Doug's question - it sure does appear, looking solely at information from his own site here, that the evidence sure seems to show Mr. Lewandowsky does spend a significant amount of time on policy advocacy.
    Moderator Response:

    To set the record straight, the seeming decline in comment volumes came after a staff of moderators needed to be put into place to audit comments. This was due to the extremely high volume of inflammatory comments. A total to which you yourself have contributed mightily.

    Factoring in those deleted comments, the apparent "decline" in comments on the more recent threads is not so readily apparent.

  36. A. Scott at #100.

    Your point seems to be that Lewendowsky should not advocate for important issues if he is a scientist. I would ask this: if a scientist is aware of a lack of societal action on an important subject, and in which s/he is experienced, why should that scientist not speak out?

    Conversely McIntyre, Lindezen, Spencer, Watts, and others are quite happy to claim scientific understanding, and are stridently vociferous in their advocacy of the lack of need to reduce carbon emissions.

    Why the blatant double standard?
  37. One further gripe.

    You refer to Lewendowsky as "Mr".

    As Lewendowsky's work - and his training to conduct it and experience in doing so - are the subjects of this discussion, it is a purile gambit to not use the appropriate prefix, which is either "Dr" or more preferably "Prof".

    I'm not one to usually bother with such prefixes at all, as I work in a field densely populated with thusly-qualified people. On occasions when people try to use irrelevant honorifics, as Mr Monckton does in his attempts to engage in what he perceives as science, I certainly do like to draw attention to the appropriate qualification descriptor rather than to any bought or inherited title.

    In your case however all you are doing is demonstrating that you are not commenting in good faith, or that you are not acquainted with even the basic facts of the matter.

    Or both.
  38. @ Bernard J. There is a line that some people don't want scientists to cross.

    For example, think of agricultural scientists who are breeding crops that will be more adaptable to climate change for particular localities (drought resistant and/or flood resistant). Under some people's thinking, those scientists are probably allowed to do the plant breeding work, but they should not go so far as to go out into farming communities to advise farmers of the risks and benefits of adopting or not adopting better adapted varieties.

    Similarly, scientists should not pro-actively alert decision-makers of the risks of leaving out climate change as a factor in infrastructure investment (water, energy etc).
  39. I don't -think- I was the person who invited remarks about whether policy advocacy by scientists was appropriate. I believe the advocacy matter was most recently brought up by one A. Scott via the citation of an article entitled "Too much advocacy? Scientists and public policy

    Via his objection to the comparison he invited it's apparent that A. Scott is probably not familiar w/Prof. Lindzen, citing as he does a handful of interactions with the public by Lewandowsky that fall far short of Lindzen's approximately 22 years of assiduous efforts to arrest an policy response to climate change, a job of work that has unfortunately also necessitated ignoring 22 intervening years of scientific progress.

    What moved me to remark on Lindzen and surprises me still is the strangely asymmetric attention paid by "friends of science" such as A. Scott. Lewandowsky's been on the radar for a couple of years, Lindzen for 10 times that long, but where's the outrage focused? Lewandowsky, for some reason, even though if a mixture of advocacy and science is intolerable then obviously Lindzen would be the first priority for scrutiny.

    Criticism of Lewandowsky rings hollow because Lewandowsky's critics seem less than candid with their objectives, if consistency of approach is any guide.

    But I could be wrong. Perhaps A. Scott could point to a long history of Lindzen being treated similarly by "skeptics?" How about Gerlich and Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", a pastiche of science and policy comments framed as a purely scientific publication? I don't recall "skeptics" roundly attacking that work but perhaps there's something I missed; maybe Gerlich and Tscheuschner were badgered with questions from the same folks who are upset with Lewandowsky. As I recall, most of the annoyance with that paper came from pro-science types but I could be wrong.
  40. Roll the tape back 22 years and follow Dr. Lindzen's long habit of advocacy to bring us back into the present, since you brought up the matter of advocacy here A. Scott.

    Short of that, if you'd rather not broaden the discussion-- thereby inviting comparisons that are helpful for establishing the consistency and candidness of what appears to be highly selective criticism-- then simply don't widen the scope of the conversation.
  41. Tom Fuller @ 101

    That's your first sensible question.
  42. Bernard J @104 ... keeping up with and remembering the specific credentials of a myriad of people on the internet is time consuming and unnecessary in order to have intelligent discussion. I use "Mr." in an attempt to be neutral. No more, no less.
  43. Doug Bostrom - again the instant story is not about Mr. Lindzen.

    But since you bring it up - are you talking about the Lindzen who was lead author of Chapter 7 of IPCC Third Assement, and was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment? Is it the Lindzen who said the 2001 Full Report was "an admirable description of research activities in climate science?" Or the Lindzen who served on the NAS panel in 2001?

    Maybe its the Lindzen who has published some 230+ scientific papers on a myriad of different climate science topics?

    I think its pretty safe to say Mr. Lindzen has likely written no papers with a sensationalized title, nor one whose titular conclusion was based on such small evidence as here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    Perhaps its the Lindzen who said earlier this year in the NY Times article, that he accepts the elementary tenets of climate science, agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty” and agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and this should warm the climate.

    I bet its the Lindzen whose critic's admit that Lindzen is a formidable opponent, that while some of his views may be flawed "across the board he's generally very good."

    Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt said this about Lindzen:

    Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) is often described as the most respectable of the climate ‘sceptics’ and is frequently cited in discussions here and elsewhere. Lindzen clearly has many fundamentally important papers under his belt (work on the QBO and basic atmospheric dynamics), and a number of papers that have been much less well received by the community (the ‘Iris’ effect etc.). Last year, he gave evidence to and answered questions from, a UK House of Lords Committee investigating the economics of climate change, in which he discoursed freely on the science. I’ll try here to sort out what he said.


    You can certainly read more at Wiki or check his CV etc.

    Richard Lindzen challenges the science - becasue he believes it is wrong. He comments directly on the science and has the understanding and credentials to directly back up his claims. 230+ papers published that directly involve hard core front line climate science - there is a reason he is an ISI highly cited researcher.

    Robert Pielke Jr. notes the error in attacking Richard Lindzen.

    He quotes Andrew Revkin's words- hardly a skeptic:

    The Lindzen focus is a distraction, to my mind. Anyone thinking that the erosion of Lindzen’s credibility will somehow build societal enthusiasm for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is probably overly optimistic.


    Mr. Pielke Jr says:

    This is "advocacy journalism" -- it is not reporting, as there is absolutely no news in the piece. Two years ago the Boston Globe did a very similar story on Lindzen for its Lifestyle section, which covered the same ground, but as a profile rather than as hit job.

    Whatever one thinks about the climate change debate or Richard Lindzen, is it a good idea for the New York Times to engage in an over-the-top attack on a member of the National Academy of Sciences?


    Judith Curry has a good commentary on the recent too much advocacy story here.

    So Doug I guess my response is, agree with him or not, when he speaks its from a position of first hand, direct climate science knowledge.

    On the other hand Mr. Lewandowsky, despite fairly prodigious output and commentary pushing the AGW cause - has no direct climate science experience. He advocates as a advocate, not as a climate scientist.

    I don't agree with everything Lindzen says, but I respect him for his long career and solid contributions to climate science along the way. He earned that respect, from me and most of his peers, who even when they disagree say positive things about him.

    Mr Lewandowsky has a single paper about to be published. Not on climate science, but one trying to associate negative connotations to those who do not believe as he does regarding climate science.

    Lindzen established a long and respected career before he started to advocate regarding his direct expertise, actual climate science.

    (-snip-).

    I submit there is a world of difference between the two.

    Should Mr. Lewandowsky achieve anything like Mr. Lindzens long history of research, publication and service to the climate sciences, perhaps I'll grant him the same deference as I do Lindzen.

    For right now I'll stick with agreeing with Tom Curtis:

    "Professor Lewandowsky, it is a bit rich to complain about the focus of comments on your paper given your title. If you wanted people to pay attention to the fact that among those who reject mainstream science, AGW "skeptics" have unusually low tendencies to accept conspiracy theories, perhaps that should have been the focus of your title, abstract and pre-publication interview(s)."


    You kept asking - there's my answer.
    Moderator Response: Sloganeering snipped.
  44. -82- DGH

    As I noted in the referenced comment, Dr. Lewandowsky excluded the results from presumably pro-science, web based outlets without explicitly explaining that decision in the paper.

    Is it common to exclude data - a subset of a survey's results - without mentioning that in the resulting paper?

    Once again, thanks for taking the time. I know you've been inundated.
  45. WRT Rowland and Molina, it should be noted that Sherry Rowland, contrary to assertions above, advocated strongly for limitation and then elimination of CFC usage, and yes, there were articles as well as uncounted talks.
  46. PSYOPS (good grief!) and being 'paid for advocacy' - and you're here to disprove the conspiratorial mindset of 'skeptics', right, A. Scott?
  47. A. Scott, someone who can interpret a grant abstract stating an aim to ”inform strategies and policies for communication of complex scientific questions”, as “sound”ing ”an awful lot like they are being paid to research better ways to advocate the AGW position.” has a problem with extracting meaning from words and rather highlights the sort of problem that Dr. Lewandowski is studying.

    And you're making stuff up to support idealised notions. On advocacy, it's a simple fact that scientists that make important discoveries with societal impacts engage in advocacy to varying degrees; the fact that they do this has a positive effect on the development of useful policy. We’ve discussed ciggie smoking and ozone destruction (the advocacy of Richard Doll and Sherwood Rowland) but could also included the strong advocacy by Barry Marshall to influence the wider scientific and medical community of the role of Helicobacter pylori in gastric ulcers and so on.

    The underlying element of these examples, including the advocacy of James Hansen, is evidence. These advocacy positions are meaningful because they have a strong evidence base.

    Your posts indicate a preference for non-evidence-based assertions in your alignment with advocacy positions. e.g. you show quite openly in your post that Richard Lindzen’s advocacy position is based on an extended argument by authority. If you were interested in evidence for Lindzen’s insistence of low climate sensitivity you will be entirely disappointed. I've dumped a synopsis of some of the strategies of Lindzen's evidence-free advocacy below the dotted line at bottom of post.

    I’m sure that in your idealised world you would decry a practice of selecting a favoured conclusion and then attempting to support this by misrepresentation of the wider scientific evidence. Hansen, and other climate scientists don’t do this anymore than did the Doll's, Peto’s, Sherwood’s, Marshall’s and so on of previous eras when advocating for policy responses. But you don’t have a problem with Lindzen’s evidence-free advocacy because you’re impressed by his large publication list and some “citations” from some journalists and bloggers.

    Oddly enough you earlier stated explicitly (your post @89) "When scientists become advocates...and start putting science 2nd to advocacy, is when we get to the problem of today."...and yet in this case you actively support that unfortunate practice.

    ----------------------------------------------------
    Lindzen’s assertions of low climate sensitivity have been based on 4 main unevidenced elements:

    1. In the 1990’s that warming from enhanced CO2 would cause the upper atmosphere to dry somewhat with a negative feedback to primary greenhouse-induced warming. There was an interesting exchange with James Hansen in the pages of Nature in 1991 (Nature 349, p 467; 7 February) in which Lindzen restated this assertion (without evidence) and Hansen pointed out that this was contrary to theory, models and the early direct monitoring of tropospheric water vapour. We know without doubt that Lindzen’s assertions were incorrect and that Hansen, theory, models and direct measures are correct, and that the primary induced warming results in enhanced moistening of the upper troposphere.

    2. Later (2000s) Lindzen proposed his Iris model, again a theoretical notion (nothing wrong with that btw). There is no evidence that this model applies to the real world: the direct experimental evidence on cloud response to warming is weakly so far in favour of a positive feedback, and the paleorecord indicates that such a model cannot have significantly opposed large warming response to greenhouse forcing in the past.

    3. Lindzen then attempted to sell the pretence of enhanced outward radiation to surface temperature fluctuations as an indication of negative feedback using a scientifically disgraceful selection of time periods in a strongly rebutted paper in Geophys Res Lett [Lindzen, R. S. and Y.-S. Choi (2009), G. R.L. , 36, L16705] (see e.g. the demonstration of the appalling methodology in one of the rebuttals by Trenberth, K. E (2010) Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702.)

    4. Lindzen also attempts to sell a pretence of low sensitivity by pretending that the earth comes immediately to equilibrium with respect to a forcing, and therefore we haven’t had as much 20th century and contemporary warming as evidence-based climate sensitivity measures indicate. Another fallacious argument that ignores/distorts scientific evidence.
  48. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might be curious about M. A. Scott's omitting a link to the Real Climate quote posted. Here it is
    Moderator Response: Fixed text.
  49. >>100. Michael at 16:45 PM on 15 September, 2012
    Tom Fuller @ 101

    That's your first sensible question.<<

    ----

    Either time has gone non-linear, or post #100 refers to post #101 for some other bending of reality.
    Moderator Response: Mr. Fuller found compliance with the comments policy too onerous a burden and has recused himself from further discussion. His comments were then excised from discussion as well; references to other comments via numbering may thus be off.
  50. Straight talk from Prof. Lindzen, as heard by a large swath of Australian radio listeners:

    Jones:
    If C02 caused warming, how could human production of C02 be catastrophic, when nature produces what, 32 times as much as human beings; 97% of C02 in the world is naturally produced.

    Lindzen:
    Well, yeah, you’re, you’re addressing the issue of how can one regard something essential to life as a pollutant, and, uh, I don’t know the answer to that, it seems absurd but on the other hand you can get many people to sign on to government control of uh, dihydrogen oxide, ah because they don’t know it’s water.

    Jones:
    That’s it. I mean just taking the maths of it, I mean you’re, you’re an eminent scientist; is it true that the proportion of the Earth’s annual production of C02 is about 3% produced by human beings and 97% roughly produced by nature?

    Lindzen:
    Well that’s correct, that’s correct; the (talkover) argument often is presented that the natural part is in balance and our contribution is imbalancing, unbalancing the system and so that’s leading to a rise. Uh, that’s an arguably possible situation but in point of fact there’s limited evidence of that and the merest uh misunderstanding of the 97% could easily overbalance man’s contribution but to be honest that is not an issue that is known at present and I would argue it’s not even the central issue.

    That's not reflective of Lindzen's actual intellectual capacity. Lindzen's adopting a fairly extreme posture to convey an impression to his audience. Why the slant?

    As well, notice the line that's so redolent of Lewandowsky's work: ...on the other hand you can get many people to sign on to government control of uh, dihydrogen oxide...

    One man's government is another's fearful conspiracy.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments Policy

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account.
  1. Should Australia go first?
  2. Do emission cuts hurt the economy?
  3. Are there limits to economic growth

No Current Events Planned

Relevant events (mainly in Australia) will be announced here as they become available.

Links