Lewandowsky – Strike Three!! What a riot!

UPDATE:  Bishop Hill has more to say on the matter:Lewandowsky and Cook in spectacular carcrash

I woke up today still laughing.  Others chiming in:

Geoff Chambers Commentary

Cook & Lew label senior Met Office climatologist a ‘conspiracy theorist’

WUWT Tom Fuller

The Blackboard


H/T Reader Skiphil again… Update: Barry Woods or Geoff Chambers seem to have found the quote.

So the good docktor finally got his contribution to scientific understanding past the rigorous peer review of Frontiers of Psychology.   I have to say, I’m actually pleased with his improved and only moderately distorted reference to me.

Conspiracist ideation is arguably also exhibited on climate blogs, for example when expressing the belief that climate scientists “colluded with government officials to ignore the law”(Condon,2009)

The new entry was in reference to an email I sent to the editor regarding the avoidance of FOIA by UEA scientists, where I pointed out that Jones stated:

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.

But this post isn’t about me.  Lewandowsky has placed a comment in his supplementary information from the excellent bishop Hill blog, authored by fellow conspiracy theorist Richard Betts:

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

 Unfortunately for Lewandowsky, this is Richard Betts:

Richard Betts

Current activities

Richard is Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area, which includes climate impacts research and also the climate change consultancy unit.

The Met Office’s main role in climate impacts research is to facilitate a more integrated approach to the assessment of climate change impacts, in collaboration with specialists across the wider academic community. A large part of our impacts research, therefore, involves examining the interactions between different impacts areas, such as agriculture, natural ecosystems, water resources, glaciers, urban areas and human health.

Richard leads the impacts theme of the JULES community land surface modelling programme. This collaborative project forms part of UK-wide efforts to assess impacts in an internally-consistent manner.

The Met Office’s climate change consultancy area works directly with end-users in a wide range of sectors, to ensure climate change information is used effectively for decision-making. This end-user contact also informs our research direction to keep it relevant to user needs.

Career background

  • BSc (Physics), University of Bristol, 1991.
  • MSc (Meteorology and Applied Climatology), University of Birmingham, 1992.
  • PhD (Meteorology), University of Reading, 1998\

This absolutely made my day.   What a riot Lewandowsky has been.   I literally laughed to tears that he would pick up this comment and label the head of the Met Office Climate Impacts as well as a lead author for the IPCC a conspiracy theorist.

Look out Lewie, they are all around you!!!

24 thoughts on “Lewandowsky – Strike Three!! What a riot!

  1. I’ve been smiling all day since I read it on twitter. To quote Richard Betts twitter: “…Lewandowsky et al clearly deluded!

    1. Or as the great Bazza McKenzie once said, “he must have two d!cks, no-one could get that silly pulling one”.

  2. Richard Betts, conspiracy theorist…… what a crock. These guys have no “method” except trolling threads for occasional comments to rip out of context and associate with “conspiracy ideation.”

    In my case, I have just reviewed and detailed on the Bishop Hill discussion thread the foolish treatment of one brief comment of my own in the Lewandowsky/Cook et al. SI.

    I find that this “scientific research” provided a grotesquely misleading impression and mis-categorization of my own views expressed in six fairly detailed comments on that original WUWT thread.

  3. I thought the person Jones had half hour sessions with was the FOI officer at the University (Palmer?) who could hardly be described as a “government official”, so on that narrow and minor issue Lewandowski has a point.

  4. Hi Jeff

    I will be at the Met Office in about an hours time to do some research into the MWP. I will look out closely for people hanging round the library looking conspiratorial. Trilbies? Long Trench coats? Sun Glasses? Or is that private detectives. How WILL I recognise them, and more importantly sidle up close and listen to their conspiratoreial whispers?

    Met office? Its a hot bed of intrigue I tell you….


  5. OK who do I complain to?

    Lewandowsky even CHERRYPICKED PART OF MY COMMENT, his supplementay data (url below) he quotes me.

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?sup=1&articleId=40138&FileId=2676&FileName=Data Sheet 1.PDF&contentType=Data Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1

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

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

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

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

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

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

    extract below:

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

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

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

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

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

    The other eleven results are below

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


    That was MY FULL comment, it is at Lucia’s here:


    😉 😉 This is beyond satire, who will psychoanalyse these troublesome activists psychologists.. 😉 😉 !

    1. Love it. He did the same to me.

      The real redfaced ones should be the Frontiers in Psychology editors but I doubt they have much shame for being crazy.

  6. It is really hell when not only people but also the weather (for 17 years) conspires against you. That sort of experience can make a person paranoid. I wonder if Lew has looked into HARP and chemtrails.

  7. I wasn’t going to post on Furious Recursion, but then… had to:

    SteveEasterbrook’s “explanation”

    Steve Easterbrook Steve Easterbrook ‏@SMEasterbrook

    @richardabetts @skepticscience But it’s easy to feed conspiracy ideation by doing data-free speculation about motives. We’re all susceptible

    Well… maybe we are all susceptible, but that doesn’t make Richard Bett’s post at BH ‘data-free” speculation. It’s “data-based” speculation. If that’s not permitted we can’t have science, law, forensics . . .

    It’s pretty hilarious!

  8. Lew & crew are at a similar point in the AGW debacle where Sen. Joe McCarthy was in the Red Scare when he claimed to see commie plots in every part of life. Lew & crew are seeing evil conspiratorialists in every e-mail that dares to disagree with them. And if they have to ‘salt the mine’ to illustrate their point better, well it is all for a good cause. Just peter Gleick or the late Dr. Schneider about the importance of being….flexible…..in the important work of silencing climate denialist scum in the employ of the Koch Brothers and Big Oil. Lew & crew are clearly upholding that tradition and exploring new frontiers to add to it.

      1. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Recursive-Fury-Facts-misrepresentations.html#92472

        my concern is that the Recursive Fury paper does not capture concerns about LOG12 fom BOTH sides of the debate
        I quote Tom Curtis (SkS regular) concerns about LOG12 (moon paper) from last year.. (calling for withdrawal)

        extract (full comment at SKS)

        Tom Curtis
        “………. Given the low number of “skeptical” respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation.

        It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.”

        Yet we do not find tom listed in a conspiracy ideation paper… much stronger than mine that is in the papers data.

        why not add a very civil, very careful, but to the point comment, as someone named in various papers, how can they deny you a response and if they did, you can demonstrate bad faith.
        (please note all my comments have been approved, I have no complaints about that)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s