• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More Bilious Propaganda from Lewandowsky and Cook

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
These two clowns have lowered even their own standards in this latest assault on honesty and rational discussion.

More Bad Smells from the Lew-cum-Cookhouse

Posted on 24 Sep 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 3 Comments

Lewandowsky and Cook have just dropped another peer-reviewed pile even more offensive than the thirteen others served up from the Lew/Cookhouse and which are cited in the paper.
Forgive the scatalogical intro, but this one is even more poisonous than the others for at least three reasons:
1) It makes no secret of the fact that its only purpose is to insult and denigrate people that the authors don’t like (Mainly Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts).
2) The lies, incompetence and stupidity are not hidden out of sight in the supplemental material or in misquotes from blog articles that no one (least of all peer reviewers) will bother to check. They’re there for all to see, for example in Table Two, which claims to consist of nine pairs of contradictory quotes from the same person. The briefest glance is enough to establish that none of them are contradictory, and one of the pairs isn’t even from the same person.
3) This paper is published, not in some vanity publishing on-line free sheet, but in“Synthese – An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science”. In eighty years of existence they’ve published articles by major 20th century philosophers like Rudolf Carnap, W.V Quine and Hilary Putnam for Gaia’s sake. What are they doing publishing this stuff? (You can read more about the journal here.)
There are already some excellent critiques of the article, by Brandon Shollenberger and by Michel here and here and here. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
These two clowns have lowered even their own standards in this latest assault on honesty and rational discussion.

More Bad Smells from the Lew-cum-Cookhouse

Posted on 24 Sep 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 3 Comments

Lewandowsky and Cook have just dropped another peer-reviewed pile even more offensive than the thirteen others served up from the Lew/Cookhouse and which are cited in the paper.
Forgive the scatalogical intro, but this one is even more poisonous than the others for at least three reasons:
1) It makes no secret of the fact that its only purpose is to insult and denigrate people that the authors don’t like (Mainly Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts).
2) The lies, incompetence and stupidity are not hidden out of sight in the supplemental material or in misquotes from blog articles that no one (least of all peer reviewers) will bother to check. They’re there for all to see, for example in Table Two, which claims to consist of nine pairs of contradictory quotes from the same person. The briefest glance is enough to establish that none of them are contradictory, and one of the pairs isn’t even from the same person.
3) This paper is published, not in some vanity publishing on-line free sheet, but in“Synthese – An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science”. In eighty years of existence they’ve published articles by major 20th century philosophers like Rudolf Carnap, W.V Quine and Hilary Putnam for Gaia’s sake. What are they doing publishing this stuff? (You can read more about the journal here.)
There are already some excellent critiques of the article, by Brandon Shollenberger and by Michel here and here and here. . . .

Click to expand...

Happy Saturday, Jack. ;2wave:

This is getting very BORINGLY tiresome, and their insults are getting more ridiculous as time goes by! :thumbdown: Don't they care how "junior high" childish they look when they do this, particularly since they are supposedly representing the world of scientific study? :shock:
 
Jack Hays said:
These two clowns have lowered even their own standards in this latest assault on honesty and rational discussion.

More Bad Smells from the Lew-cum-Cookhouse

...
Click to expand...

I saw that Lewandowsky name and I thought it was about Trumps ex-campaign manager.

Hey! Peer reviewed! Ya gotta trust it, right?
btw, that another peer-reviewed pile link didn't work for me.
Were you able to get it?
 
bubbabgone said:
I saw that Lewandowsky name and I thought it was about Trumps ex-campaign manager.

Hey! Peer reviewed! Ya gotta trust it, right?
btw, that another peer-reviewed pile link didn't work for me.
Were you able to get it?
Click to expand...

I find it funny that the only peer review papers that get published are the ones
that agree with their zealotry. that right there pretty much ensures that nothing they
peer review is accurate but full of bias.
 
ludin said:
I find it funny that the only peer review papers that get published are the ones
that agree with their zealotry. that right there pretty much ensures that nothing they
peer review is accurate but full of bias.
Click to expand...

"Peer review"ing among alarmists is a lot like political reporting among journalists.
If you can get your people into those positions you get to control the public discourse.
To too great an extent, they have and they do.
 
polgara said:
Happy Saturday, Jack. ;2wave:

This is getting very BORINGLY tiresome, and their insults are getting more ridiculous as time goes by! :thumbdown: Don't they care how "junior high" childish they look when they do this, particularly since they are supposedly representing the world of scientific study? :shock:
Click to expand...

Happy Saturday, Polgara.:2wave:

You are the adult in the room.:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
Happy Saturday, Polgara.:2wave:

You are the adult in the room.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's sad indeed if that's true, :lol: but it does help the "deniers" who appear to be the rational group in contrast! :shock:
 
polgara said:
It's sad indeed if that's true, :lol: but it does help the "deniers" who appear to be the rational group in contrast! :shock:
Click to expand...

Yes, I find 3goofs the best here at making the case that there is nothing to worry about from a little warming. He is just brilliant at it.
 
Might as well post the abstract too, since deniers tend to not follow links to upsetting material in the scientific literature:

Abstract
Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable. People who oppose this scientific body of knowledge because the implications of cutting GHG emissions—such as regulation or increased taxation—threaten their worldview or livelihood cannot provide an alternative view that is coherent by the standards of conventional scientific thinking. Instead, we suggest that people who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.
 
Reading into this paper, it's actually hilarious because it's so true.

It outlines the many, many mutually exclusive and incoherent things we see in denier circles every day.

I especially liked this section- which should really come complete with a picture of Jack Hays:

"1.3.4 There is no scientific consensus but contrarians are dissenting heroes"
 
Threegoofs said:
Reading into this paper, it's actually hilarious because it's so true.

It outlines the many, many mutually exclusive and incoherent things we see in denier circles every day.

I especially liked this section- which should really come complete with a picture of Jack Hays:

"1.3.4 There is no scientific consensus but contrarians are dissenting heroes"
Click to expand...

Delighted to see you making your stand atop this pile of dung. I was afraid you might show prudent judgment and retire to fight another day on better ground. As has been conclusively shown, the paper is replete with errors of both fact and inference.
 
Jack Hays said:
Delighted to see you making your stand atop this pile of dung. I was afraid you might show prudent judgment and retire to fight another day on better ground. As has been conclusively shown, the paper is replete with errors of both fact and inference.
Click to expand...

Like how Svensmark is a hero for fighting the consensus that doesn't exist?

Or how the temperatures are clearly paused since 1998, but they aren't reliable and you can't depend on them?

Etc, etc
 
Threegoofs said:
Like how Svensmark is a hero for fighting the consensus that doesn't exist?

Or how the temperatures are clearly paused since 1998, but they aren't reliable and you can't depend on them?

Etc, etc
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion.
 
[h=1]‘Intellectual yet idiotic’: the sad case of Stephan Lewandowsky[/h]Guest opinion by Drieu Godefridi In a new paper just published with two other authors “The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism“, Stephan Lewandowsky states — for the umpteenth time — that climate skeptics are deniers, that “there is strong evidence that the rejection of climate science…

4 days ago September 27, 2016 in Climate News.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]‘Intellectual yet idiotic’: the sad case of Stephan Lewandowsky[/h]Guest opinion by Drieu Godefridi In a new paper just published with two other authors “The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism“, Stephan Lewandowsky states — for the umpteenth time — that climate skeptics are deniers, that “there is strong evidence that the rejection of climate science…

4 days ago September 27, 2016 in Climate News.
Click to expand...

Academic gets published in a very reputable journal.

I can see why all the randos attack him on denier blogs. They have no other platform.
 
[h=1]Get your mind right – Embrace the ‘Lewandowsky Hypothesis’[/h] Guest essay by Peter O’Brien I gave up reading Robert Ludlum novels about forty years ago. The highly convoluted and improbable plots became just too irritating. But recently, thanks to Eric Worrall at Wattsupwiththat, I dipped into a new contribution to the genre – a piece with the title The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom