Inbox-gate: OK, now it’s getting just plain silly…

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.

About these ads

13 thoughts on “Inbox-gate: OK, now it’s getting just plain silly…

  1. [...] 2012/09/06: WtD: Inbox-gate: OK, now it’s getting just plain silly… [...]

  2. ManBearPig says:

    Yeah, like internet polls aren’t silly to begin with. Is someone actually trying to pass one of as science?

    • hinschelwood says:

      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.

  3. zooba says:

    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?

  4. zooba says:

    Isn’t this paper generalizing and stereotyping?

  5. 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.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: