Lewandowsky and Cook's papers on Skeptics

[westwall]

von Storch, Hans. "Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments"". Retrieved 6 August 2010.

Ahhhhhh, so pre CLIMATEGATE. I wonder what his opinion is now

 

[Abraham3]

The number of scientists whose opinions on AGW were changed by the release of CRU's stolen emails is vanishingly small. I suggest you find some direct evidence of a different opinion before you suggest that's the case.

They call that sort of thing - that following the evidence - good science.

Here are other von Storch quotations and comments - post CRU email thefts - from the Wikipedia article.

Von Storch received the IMSC achievement award at the International Meetings on Statistical Climatology in Edinburgh in 2010, to "recognize his key contributions to statistical downscaling, reconstruction of temperature series, analyses of climatic variability, and detection and attribution of climate change".[19]
*****************************
The Earth has warmed considerably less than expected over the past 15 years days, says Hans von Storch. That may be due to an unforeseeable climate variability, or that CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas was over-estimated, so says the meteorologist of the Coastal Research Institute.
On whether global warming has stopped, Hans von Storch says: “No. We don’t expect that. But it is indeed true that we have seen a considerably reduced warming trend compared to what our climate model scenarios showed over the last 15 years. [...] We definitely have seen less warming than we expected.”
******************************
On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]
******************************

He certainly had opportunity at those points to say he no longer believed in AGW were that the case. In particular, the highlighted "No" he gave to the answer about warming tells us that while he wonders greatly about the current hiatus, he still finds AGW to be the best explanation for the observed warming.

 

[westwall]

The number of scientists whose opinions on AGW were changed by the release of CRU's stolen emails is vanishingly small. I suggest you find some direct evidence of a different opinion before you suggest that's the case.

They call that sort of thing - that following the evidence - good science.

Here are other von Storch quotations and comments - post CRU email thefts - from the Wikipedia article.

Von Storch received the IMSC achievement award at the International Meetings on Statistical Climatology in Edinburgh in 2010, to "recognize his key contributions to statistical downscaling, reconstruction of temperature series, analyses of climatic variability, and detection and attribution of climate change".[19]
*****************************
The Earth has warmed considerably less than expected over the past 15 years days, says Hans von Storch. That may be due to an unforeseeable climate variability, or that CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas was over-estimated, so says the meteorologist of the Coastal Research Institute.
On whether global warming has stopped, Hans von Storch says: “No. We don’t expect that. But it is indeed true that we have seen a considerably reduced warming trend compared to what our climate model scenarios showed over the last 15 years. [...] We definitely have seen less warming than we expected.”
******************************
On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]
******************************

He certainly had opportunity at those points to say he no longer believed in AGW were that the case. In particular, the highlighted "No" he gave to the answer about warming tells us that while he wonders greatly about the current hiatus, he still finds AGW to be the best explanation for the observed warming.

Oh, I think not. I think it is huge as the degree of unethical behavior was made known the climatologists lost all support they may have had. Now, you see politicians trying to push the fraud along but mainstream science and the scientific press are giving them less and less attention.

There was a time pre CLIMATEGATE when you couldn't swing a dead cat without a barrage of AGW stories, now you see the occasional crap on yahoo and that's it save for the political noise.

Nope, you are simply wrong.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh, I think not.

And, of course, you have rational reasons for that... like some quotes from Dr von Storch indicating that he no longer believes AGW to be valid.

I think it is huge as the degree of unethical behavior was made known the climatologists lost all support they may have had.

And you can show us some surveys or polls that support that contention? Cause, the polls and surveys in Wikipedia at Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia don't show the SLIGHTEST reduction in support for the AGW theory in response to any of the mass releases of cherry-picked and out of context quotations taken from the CRU's stolen emails. None. Many folks spoke critically about the behavior of Phil Jones wrt FOIA requests but that doesn't seem to have translated to any change of mind concerning the science. Maybe that's because the two things have no connection.

But I'm assuming you have some good evidence that I must have missed that shows huge numbers of climate scientists falling away from - in fact a loss of "all support" - for the IPCC position.

Now, you see politicians trying to push the fraud along but mainstream science and the scientific press are giving them less and less attention.

To what do you refer here? The all night talk-a-thon last (Monday) night? I saw plenty of coverage in the news. I didn't even look for any scientists reactions as I can't think why they'd have any. And, you know, when you call it a fraud, you're calling me a liar. I don't like being called a liar. Just lettin' ya know.

There was a time pre CLIMATEGATE when you couldn't swing a dead cat without a barrage of AGW stories, now you see the occasional crap on yahoo and that's it save for the political noise.

Science journals are still filled with climate research but that it's maintained itself in the mainstream media for as long as it has is a bloody miracle. There's a long history behind the term "9-day's wonder" and AR5 is not exactly "occasional crap on yahoo". But one reason why their might actually be less research getting done in certain areas of the topic is that no one questions a number of facets to the issue. No one was questioning the Greenhouse Effect even before this all started - at least no one with the brains god give a rubber duck. No one except the Luddites and the conspiracy nuts questions the warming data. And for some time now, no one with any expertise in the climate sciences or good general science knowledge questioned human causation for that warming. The result of all that is that no one is bothering to research those points any more. They're a done deal. Not sure where that leaves you, but I guess that's your problem.

Nope, you are simply wrong.

Then you should have no problem proving that or presenting overwhelming evidence supporting such a contention and if you can't, you'll be the first to admit it and apologize for behaving like such an ass without justification. Right?

 

[IanC]

If you want to cast doubt on whether or not the vast majority of actual climate scientists (as opposed to Canadian oil field workers or America's TV weathermen) believe that the world is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate and/or to cast doubt on whether or not a vast majority of actual climate scientists believe that our deforestation and our use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of that warming, you have a great long ways to go.

These last comments are almost meaningless and that should be obvious to you. The truth is the reason that all those various polls and surveys and studies come up with very similar numbers is that those numbers are an accurate reflection of reality in this regard. AGW is accepted science. By rejecting it, you have placed yourself on the outside; with the Flat Earthers, the Luddites and the Conspiracy Nuts. Your choice Ian.

you are deflecting from the topic. when lewandowsky and Cook got caught for using very inappropriate methods to do a hachet job on skeptics they then obfuscated.

is your trust and esteem for Cook and his blog SkepticalScience damaged or not? I dont actually care but I know that personally I think less of a person when they lie to me to save face.

Perhaps I am incorrect in thinking that you are aware of Lewandowsky's Moon Hoax paper, or the problems associated with it. Are you?

even Tom Curtis of SkS was very leary of Lew's poll-

Tom Curtis at 10:33 AM on 3 September, 2012
A (hopefully) final comment on Lewandowski (in press):

I have been looking through the survey results and noticed that 10 of the respondents have a significant probability of being produced by people attempting to scam the survey. I base this conclusion on their having reported absurdly low (<2) consensus percentages for at least one of the three categories. An additional response (#861 on the spreadsheet)represents an almost perfect "warmist" caricature of a "skeptic", scoring 1 for all global warming questions, and 4 for all free market and conspiracy theory questions. There may be wackos out there that believe every single conspiracy theory they have heard, but they are a vanishingly few in number, and are likely to appear in a survey with such a small sample size. A second respondent (890) almost exactly mirrored respondent 861 except for giving a 3 for the Martin Luther King Jr assassination, and lower values for the scientific consensus questions. Again this response is almost certainly a scam.

Combined, these respondents account for 2 of the strongly agree results in almost every conspiracy theory question; and the other potential scammers also have a noticable number of strong agreements to conspiracy theories. For most conspiracy theory questions, "skeptics" only had two respondents that strongly agreed, the two scammed results. Given the low number of "skeptical" respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation.

It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.

for those who dont know, Lewandowsky's paper was drawn from a poll taken almost exclusively on rabidly anti-skeptic sites like Tamino and Deltoid. no chance of fake responses there, eh? I wonder if there were any legitimate skeptical responses at all. the survey was linked at JunkScience.com with the follwing caveat-

I went through the above and felt it has numerous problems – questions are framed in absolute terms but lack useful definition (climate change is used frequently but is not defined, do they mean CAGW, natural variability with some anthropogenic component or what?). Climate scientists is used as a generic term without distinguishing between modelers (PlayStation® Climatology) or physical scientists (very few geologists are impressed by claims of CAGW, for example).

Basically it seems to be fishing for conspiracy theorists in an effort to associate them with CAGW skepticism. I suspect Hanich & HREC are likely to get a lot of complaints about this framing.

even people at Tamino and Deltoid knew it was just a set up-

You missed the long series of questions about various conspiracy theories. Those were fun!..

I guess they’re trying to use those survey questions to identify the nuts haha… All those conspiracy ones were a bit ridiculous…

Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids?

The questions seemed to be picked in hopes to see “climate change deniers” “denying” also everything else there is a consensus at…

I think the “conspiracy theory” section is too heavy-handed to be useful. There’s no chance that people won’t figure out what the survey is looking for here, and everyone knows that “conspiracy theory!!” is pejorative. So I suspect that a lot of people who actually do think that climate scientists are rigging the data will hide their beliefs, even in an anonymous survey, because they’re worried that they’re going to be painted as conspiracy theorists. Maybe with good reason, maybe not

I certainly could go on and on with other deficiencies but what is the point? you will believe Lewandowsky's fake poll of skeptics just like you believe Mann's fake paleo reconstructions. no amount of evidence will change your mind.

 

[Abraham3]

Aside from this thread, I have never heard of Lewandowsky or any survey he might have conducted.

Why don't you attempt to assault the list of survey/polls and studies available in Wikipedia and which I have listed for you on this forum and try to do so without the use of cartoons.

Jesus, Ian, you try to convince us you're a smart, science type and then you use cartoons to make an argument... Put down the comic books and pick up your thinking cap dude.

 

[IanC]

OK

from the first name on your list, using data from the second-

For the following analysis, I use the results of the survey of climate scientists conducted by Bray and von Storch, noted on this blog and in the comments to Rob Maris&#8217; posting.

The causes of climate change.

Here I only make 2 distinctions; anthropogenic or natural, and make the assumption that those who attribute climate change to natural causes, I label skeptics, not skeptical of he manifestation of climate change, but skeptical of the popular form of attribution. (I have not asked about the manifestation of climate change as not one respondent reported being fully convinced that climate change, whatever the cause, is NOT occurring. and only approximately 2% of respondents expressed significant doubt, whereas 67% expressed the maximum expression of certainty available on the questionnaire. Minimal doubt was expressed by another 27% (perhaps healthy scientific skepticism but definitely not an indication of disbelief in climate change). Back to attribution: About 85% of the respondents tend to think to some degree (more yes than no) that climate change could be attributed to anthropogenic causes. However, only about 35% expressed the maximum possible level of certainty. Does this mean that 65% should be labeled skeptics? Or should the 11% that tended towards favouring doubt be the ones to be labeled skeptics? Or should we have 11% skeptics, 55% healthy science skeptics and 35% non-skeptics? Which brings us back to definition and measurement.

The projections of climate models (limited to temperature only).

Scientists were asked &#8216;How well do global climate models model temperature values for the next 50 years? 6.54% said very poor and 2.45% said very good. On the healthy skepticism side then it could be claimed there are 91%, at the full skeptic level only 6.54%.

I asked you before what your definition of 'denier' was, but you never answered. do you consider me and my views as denial?

 

[Abraham3]

OK

from the first name on your list, using data from the second-

For the following analysis, I use the results of the survey of climate scientists conducted by Bray and von Storch, noted on this blog and in the comments to Rob Maris&#8217; posting.

The causes of climate change.

Here I only make 2 distinctions; anthropogenic or natural, and make the assumption that those who attribute climate change to natural causes, I label skeptics, not skeptical of he manifestation of climate change, but skeptical of the popular form of attribution. (I have not asked about the manifestation of climate change as not one respondent reported being fully convinced that climate change, whatever the cause, is NOT occurring. and only approximately 2% of respondents expressed significant doubt, whereas 67% expressed the maximum expression of certainty available on the questionnaire. Minimal doubt was expressed by another 27% (perhaps healthy scientific skepticism but definitely not an indication of disbelief in climate change). Back to attribution: About 85% of the respondents tend to think to some degree (more yes than no) that climate change could be attributed to anthropogenic causes. However, only about 35% expressed the maximum possible level of certainty. Does this mean that 65% should be labeled skeptics? Or should the 11% that tended towards favouring doubt be the ones to be labeled skeptics? Or should we have 11% skeptics, 55% healthy science skeptics and 35% non-skeptics? Which brings us back to definition and measurement.

The projections of climate models (limited to temperature only).

Scientists were asked &#8216;How well do global climate models model temperature values for the next 50 years? 6.54% said very poor and 2.45% said very good. On the healthy skepticism side then it could be claimed there are 91%, at the full skeptic level only 6.54%.

I asked you before what your definition of 'denier' was, but you never answered. do you consider me and my views as denial?

Human thought represents a nearly infinite, continuous spectrum. I would say you are definitely on the denier side of the thing. You claim to only be a good skeptical science hound, yet every time you have an unforced choice to make, you come down on the side that believes the Earth is not warming and that believes climate scientists' work ranges from shoddy to the manufacturing of conspiratorial falsehoods. If I was only give the two choices, you would be a denier. On a scale of 0 to 100 of denier-ship, I'd give you about a 72.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oooooohwww .. That one's gonna hurt.....



Hey [MENTION=21028]IanC[/MENTION] ... Abe say you believe the earth is not warming. Thinks you're a 72 !!!
Just for grins --- What is MY rating on the Abraham3 scale of denial???

 

[westwall]

Oh, I think not.

And, of course, you have rational reasons for that... like some quotes from Dr von Storch indicating that he no longer believes AGW to be valid.

I think it is huge as the degree of unethical behavior was made known the climatologists lost all support they may have had.

And you can show us some surveys or polls that support that contention? Cause, the polls and surveys in Wikipedia at Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia don't show the SLIGHTEST reduction in support for the AGW theory in response to any of the mass releases of cherry-picked and out of context quotations taken from the CRU's stolen emails. None. Many folks spoke critically about the behavior of Phil Jones wrt FOIA requests but that doesn't seem to have translated to any change of mind concerning the science. Maybe that's because the two things have no connection.

But I'm assuming you have some good evidence that I must have missed that shows huge numbers of climate scientists falling away from - in fact a loss of "all support" - for the IPCC position.



To what do you refer here? The all night talk-a-thon last (Monday) night? I saw plenty of coverage in the news. I didn't even look for any scientists reactions as I can't think why they'd have any. And, you know, when you call it a fraud, you're calling me a liar. I don't like being called a liar. Just lettin' ya know.



Science journals are still filled with climate research but that it's maintained itself in the mainstream media for as long as it has is a bloody miracle. There's a long history behind the term "9-day's wonder" and AR5 is not exactly "occasional crap on yahoo". But one reason why their might actually be less research getting done in certain areas of the topic is that no one questions a number of facets to the issue. No one was questioning the Greenhouse Effect even before this all started - at least no one with the brains god give a rubber duck. No one except the Luddites and the conspiracy nuts questions the warming data. And for some time now, no one with any expertise in the climate sciences or good general science knowledge questioned human causation for that warming. The result of all that is that no one is bothering to research those points any more. They're a done deal. Not sure where that leaves you, but I guess that's your problem.

Nope, you are simply wrong.

Then you should have no problem proving that or presenting overwhelming evidence supporting such a contention and if you can't, you'll be the first to admit it and apologize for behaving like such an ass without justification. Right?

The only ass here is the one staring back at you in the mirror. And never alter my quotes again.

 

[Abraham3]

And never alter my quotes again.

What quote of yours did I alter?

And where is the evidence supporting your contentions re von Storch?

 

[westwall]

And never alter my quotes again.

What quote of yours did I alter?

And where is the evidence supporting your contentions re von Storch?

I deleted it, and you know very well which one you altered.

 

[IanC]

Oooooohwww .. That one's gonna hurt.....



Hey [MENTION=21028]IanC[/MENTION] ... Abe say you believe the earth is not warming. Thinks you're a 72 !!!
Just for grins --- What is MY rating on the Abraham3 scale of denial???

hahahahaha....

97 is one of his favourite numbers so I'll guess 97!

it really is amazing that people who have legitimate concerns with how climate science is being done are automatically labeled 'denier' just so anything they say can be ignored. their loss.

 

[Abraham3]

You missed your first step. You DON'T have legitimate concerns about how climate science is being done.

 

[IanC]

You missed your first step. You DON'T have legitimate concerns about how climate science is being done.

I just bumped an old thread for you. it has plenty of legitimate concerns in it.

 

[westwall]

You missed your first step. You DON'T have legitimate concerns about how climate science is being done.

Ummmm, yes we do. We the taxpayers have paid for it. That means it belongs to US. If the work is being done crappily or fraudulently we absolutely have a legitimate concern you dolt.

 

[mamooth]

The CultOfMcIntyre rages on, shaking their fists at the sky, wanting someone to pay attention. But nobody does. The world has passed them by.

 

[westwall]

The CultOfMcIntyre rages on, shaking their fists at the sky, wanting someone to pay attention. But nobody does. The world has passed them by.

You guys seem to pay a whole lot of attention to him! Everytime you idiots post up one of your stupid studies he rips it to shreds in a few hours. Not good for your credibility....I guess that's why you idiots don't post them up anymore save in your vanity Journals

 

[flacaltenn]

The CultOfMcIntyre rages on, shaking their fists at the sky, wanting someone to pay attention. But nobody does. The world has passed them by.

You are an angry old cat these days.. Should get out and stalk some small defenseless creatures and get some fresh air.. Your posts are starting to smell like your litterbox.
Actually -- I just read them to judge the state of the warmer self-projection.. And it looks desperate...

Starting to sound like the Big Font guy, but without all the links... Try Magenta and choose IMPACT fonts..

 

[ScienceRocks]

poor rollingthunder