Nom nom nom
I’ve noticed several climate sceptic blogs have linked to WtD in the mistaken belief that a) I’m somehow part of the “conspiracy” and that b) I was involved in the survey for the Lewandowsky et.al study
Guys – we’re just getting silly now…
The paper is about how climate sceptics have a tendency to engage in conspiracy making. To date there has been a great deal of conspiracy theorizing. If confirmation of the “NASA faked the moon landing…” was needed well… its like watching conspiracy ideation in real time.
I’ve done a quick scan of the sceptic blogs, and would recommend people read this post on Stephan Lewandowsky’s site :
The public response to my forthcoming paper in Psychological Science, entitled “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science,” has provided a perfect real-life illustration of the very cognitive processes at the center of my research.
In fact, the cascading eruption of allegations and theories about the paper and myself have illustrated the impoverished epistemology of climate denial better than any mountain of data could have done.
It is helpful to analyze some of the theories that have sprung up in response to my paper….
The paper is about how climate sceptics have a tendency to engage in conspiracy making.
We see conspiracy making.
I blog on climate change because of the importance of the issue.
And for my own amusement.
I am all kinds of amused.
Now Mike, you know full well that you and I were involved. Remember that data you sent me? I did that little trick with it.
Shhhhhhhhh! Be very quiet… sceptics are listening!
Isn’t this paper generalizing and stereotyping?
No. You will find the paper in my research library: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/climate-sceptic-conspiracies/research-library/
Offering the paper up doesn’t really answer the question that was asked: “Isn’t this paper generalizing and stereotyping?”
This link offers a sort of timeline of the paper, the survey, who participated, etc. Well worth reading:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/
It’s people like Jo Nova who is whipping her followers into a frenzy by stereotyping them herself by attributing words like “nutters” to them and trying to pin it on Lewandowsky. Nowhere in his paper did he use words like that. The reaction however, by deniers, tends to then put the word “nutters” into the minds of the more reasonable. So in a way, they have managed to stereotype themselves with their subsequent orgy of conspiracy theorising. Deniers are their own worst enemy.
pinroot, ask lewandowsky
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyScammers1.html
The implication is that climate skepticism is result of conspiratorial thinking. The name of the paper is enough to get that across.
But the experiment did not address how the people came to their conclusions. It only asks what people think, not why.
In what way does the study test the motivations or reasoning of those questioned?
Yeah, like internet polls aren’t silly to begin with. Is someone actually trying to pass one of as science?
It’s not a poll, It’s a questionnaire. Personally, I don’t have the competence to judge the method, even though I think such things are probably unreliable. I haven’t read the paper anyway.
It doesn’t matter though. As soon as idiots turn up inventing conspiracy theories rather than discussing the methodology, the conclusions have essentially been validated.
I’ll bet Anthony Watts tries to pass his latest poll off as science.
[...] 2012/09/06: WtD: Inbox-gate: OK, now it’s getting just plain silly… [...]
[...] http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/inbox-gate-ok-now-its-getting-just-plain-silly/ [...]