I guessed the author of the 'study' from just the content of this tweet.
But that was easy, because he has written the same thing before.
He claims climate scientists are victims of 'memes'.
But that was easy, because he has written the same thing before.
He claims climate scientists are victims of 'memes'.
he believes that psychologists have more to say about climate than climate scientists.
This may be true, but not in the way he imagines. Unfortunately for him, it cuts both ways.
This may be true, but not in the way he imagines. Unfortunately for him, it cuts both ways.
Here's the identical claim made in 2015. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This is Consensus Policing, pure and simple.
Here was @richardabetts' reply. wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/13/gue…
It is obvious that Lewandowsky and Oreskes have a political agenda which requires more urgency and alarm than climate science can provide.
It is even more obvious that they cannot answer their critics from within or without the academy. So they double down, or simply ignore it.
It is even more obvious that they cannot answer their critics from within or without the academy. So they double down, or simply ignore it.
This is the key signature in any report of Lewandowsky's work:
"The comparisons were made with a variety of statistical techniques to correct for problems in previous work."
"The comparisons were made with a variety of statistical techniques to correct for problems in previous work."
"Statistical techniques" are to Lewandowsky are as words are to Humpty Dumpty.
That this is Lewandowsky's MO is not without evidence. Dixon and Jones, for e.g. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
An explainer on the detail, and further discussion at manicbeancounter.com/tag/ruth-dixon…
To be generous, all that Lewandowsky brings to climate science is the far, far lower standards of analysis expected by behavioural science.
More likely, Lewandowsky merely hides bullshit behind exotic methodology.
More likely, Lewandowsky merely hides bullshit behind exotic methodology.
Call it sophistry or call it fraud, and he'll call you a conspiracy theorist.
We should give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a bullshit artist.
