I love it when a plan comes together

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a lot of fun, we get a scientists who publishes a paper that basically says that climate denialists are conspiracy nuts (anyone remember that study?) gets called out by conservative bloggers that says it was faked, and publishes another study that proves that everyone who argues with him is crazy. Funny thing, he faked all the data.

Last year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled:

Assorted bloggers denounce the paper’s “Anthropogenic warmist nonsense,” suggest that the paper is “not scientific or competent,” and describe it as “an ad hom[inem] argument taken to its absurd extreme,” an “inane, irrelevant and completely biased rant study.”

Disgruntled climate skeptics have gone beyond digs at the science to suggest “hidden motivations” for the paper — perhaps a systematic attempt by left-wing academics to discredit those who reject climate science.

Lewandowsky and one of the authors of the Psychological Science paper, along with two other colleagues saw the response as an opportunity, so last year they wrote another paper with a similarly provocative title:

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation

That study was published in Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. But yesterday, that paper — or at least everything but the abstract – disappeared. It turns out this is the second time that’s happened. The paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until yesterday.

https://retractionwatch.wordpress.c...ppear-the-complicated-lewandowsky-study-saga/



OK, the title has nothing to do with the thread, I just always wanted to say it.

 

[SAYIT]

This is a lot of fun, we get a scientists who publishes a paper that basically says that climate denialists are conspiracy nuts (anyone remember that study?) gets called out by conservative bloggers that says it was faked, and publishes another study that proves that everyone who argues with him is crazy. Funny thing, he faked all the data.

Last year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled:

Assorted bloggers denounce the paper’s “Anthropogenic warmist nonsense,” suggest that the paper is “not scientific or competent,” and describe it as “an ad hom[inem] argument taken to its absurd extreme,” an “inane, irrelevant and completely biased rant study.”

Disgruntled climate skeptics have gone beyond digs at the science to suggest “hidden motivations” for the paper — perhaps a systematic attempt by left-wing academics to discredit those who reject climate science.

Lewandowsky and one of the authors of the Psychological Science paper, along with two other colleagues saw the response as an opportunity, so last year they wrote another paper with a similarly provocative title:

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation

That study was published in Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. But yesterday, that paper — or at least everything but the abstract – disappeared. It turns out this is the second time that’s happened. The paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until yesterday.

https://retractionwatch.wordpress.c...ppear-the-complicated-lewandowsky-study-saga/



OK, the title has nothing to do with the thread, I just always wanted to say it.

Sometimes ya can't tell the players without a scorecard (I just always wanted to say that).