The Lewandowsky conspiracy paper reveals how warmists are desperate: Study ignores prominent warmist promoters who appear to believe in 9/11 conspiracies


By: - Climate DepotSeptember 13, 2012 9:12 AM

Climate Depot Editorial

The Lewandowsky conspiracy paper reveals how the promoters of man-made global warming are desperate. This latest study fails just by a reading of the title: ‘NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax’ (Lewandowsky email: stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au)

But if the moonwalkers themselves are global warming skeptics, how can Lewandowsky claim that skeptics believe the moon landing was staged?!

Sorry Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, but have you heard about the moonwalkers themselves? They are some of the most outspoken climate skeptics. How does Lewandowsky explain the fact that the NASA moonwalkers themselves are climate skeptics!? What a silly paper.

See Climate Depot’s 2009 special report: Climate Skeptic Moonwalkers Defy Gore’s Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was ‘Staged’: Moonwalker and Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt – who recently declared he was a global warming skeptic and now, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut and Moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin. [End excerpt]

The views of the NASA moonwalkers themselves have made a mockery of Lewandowsky’s “study.” It appears climate skeptics and moonwalkers share the same views on man-made global warming.

There is also ample evidence that the promoters of man-made climate doom who are the true conspiracy aficionados. Prominent global warming promoters appear to believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

See: Report: Pieter Tans, keeper of the CO2 records for Mauna Loa, is a declared ’911 Truther’ — Tans co-signed letter claiming ‘a few people in our government allowed or caused the 9/11 attacks’

&

Report: A Truther Czar?… Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones Believes Bush Administration Was Behind 9-11
<!–[endif]–>

Lewandowsky is facing serious academic questions about his methods and agenda with this new study. Here is a small sampling of critiques for this woeful piece of work:

Climate Audit analysis: ‘Lewandowsky’s Fake Results’: ‘In addition to Lewandowsky using fake data, many of Lewandowsky’s results, including the result in his title, are fake as well’ — ‘Lewandowsky’s claimed yesterday that their ‘results withstand skeptical scrutiny’, but this claim is untrue’ — ‘Removing the outliers (which removes the most grotesque fake responses, but not all of them), Lewandowsky’s signature conspiracies (MLK, Moon, MLK) – all of which have negligible adherence – are now disproportionally held by warmists’

Climate Audit: ‘The key issue for Lewandowsky et al 2012 is its use of fake data’

New study claims ‘skeptics’ are nutters by asking alarmists to fill out survey: ‘This could be worst paper I have seen — an ad hom argument taken to its absurd extreme, rebadged as ‘science’ – Warmist Lewandowsky thinks that skeptics ‘believe any kind of conspiracy theory, including that moon landings never happened, that AIDS is not due to HIV, & smoking doesn’t cause cancer. But he didn’t find this out by asking skeptics…He ‘discovered’ this by asking 1,000 visitors to [warmist] climate blogs

Lewandowsky: study ‘Useless’ unless authors demonstrate ‘data integrity’

The Cook-Lewandowsky Social-Internet Link: ‘Stephan Lewandowsky is John Cooks academic advisor…That’s quite a little activist organization they have running out of U. of western Australia’

The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation — ‘Ross Gelbspan has never proven he has any evidence to support his accusation that skeptic scientists are paid to manufacture doubt about man-caused global warming. It certainly appears that what we have instead is around two decades of efforts by enviro-activists to manufacture doubt about the credibility of the skeptics’

‘Few people remember every email contact from 2 years ago and no obvious search terms were provided. Lewandowsky’s theory that they could somehow easily know and search is ridiculous’ — ‘Inviting Morano on September 23 when the survey had been initiated at least as early as August suggests less than reputable behavior on the part of the lead researcher’

Stephan Lewandowsky: Bloggers’ Hall of Amnesia

Lewandowsky does ‘science’ by taunts and attempted parody instead of answering questions

Climate Audit’s McIntyre: The Lew Paper ‘a landmark of junk science’: ‘As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper’ — Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically, Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses’

How bad is this paper in ‘Psychological Science’? ‘It’s so bad, questions will be asked at all kinds of levels’ — ‘With a tiny ten positive responses out of 1147, the authors drew inferences about a group of people which must number between one hundred thousand to one million or more individuals. Worse, of the ten who thought the moon landing was faked, only three or four were skeptics’

Stephan Lewandowsky’s slow motion Psychological Science train wreck: ‘Set out to show the world…that climate skeptics were, as Jo Nova puts it, ‘nutters’ — ‘Peer review failed to catch any of the problems now in the open thanks to the work of climate skeptics. My best advice to Dr. Lewandowsky right now is: withdraw the paper. It has become a lighting rod for everything that is wrong with team climate science today’

How Not To Do Science: Academic Global Warming Alarmist Lewandowsky May Face Scientific Fraud Allegations Over Paper — ‘The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline – linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism – was not even supported by his data’

Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky believes satellite temps data ‘…yield precisely the same result…’ as ‘surface-based thermometers’ — But his claims challenged

Rebuttal to Lewandowsky: ‘Just checkout the very real trend differences between satellites and surface found in April 2012. ‘You know how the warmists parrot on that ‘satellites agree with surface temperatures’ – not any more – they should check the data’

Stephan Lewandowsky: Bloggers’ Hall of Amnesia