Butcherboy, This blog shouldnt be on the science section but politics because Lewandowsky has only american psychology degrees and obviously has no understanding of scientific matters.He apparently garnishes large govt. labor grants by pilloring global warming denialists whenever possible and his lack of scientific methods has come under criticism from a large numnber of critics.Like most psychologists dealing with subjective matters their conclusions are often flawed and biassed. Scientific method is seriously lacking and runs second to political prejudices. Definitely one for the politics section under " what researchers are prepared to say for government grants" Below one of the many criticisms of Lewandowsky`s latest publication that Steve McIntyre finds is a “landmark of junk science”
Steve McIntyre audited Stephan Lewandowsky’s data to weed out the obvious fake responses. That people would “game” the test was predictable given the clumsy nature of the survey, the one-sided nature of the conspiracies investigated, the virulently anti-skeptic sites where it was hosted, and the comments on the threads where it was announced. Obviously the survey hoped to show skeptics were nutters, and when it was posted in front of those who-hate-skeptics, readers obliged.
Steve McIntyre weighs in with a lengthy post, several original graphs, and concludes:
“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.
As Tom Curtis observed, Lewandowsky has no moral alternative but to withdraw his paper.”
When the number of responses to conspiracies are graphed against the share that is “skeptical” of man-made global warming McIntyre reveals an interesting pattern. The “Oklahoma” point on the bottom right of the graph was the most popular conspiracy theory — but percentage-wise, “alarmists” were more likely to support this theory than so called “skeptics” were.
The line across the graph represents the proportion of the total responses which [...]
