Stephan Lewandowsky Denounced By Prof. William M. Briggs.

Getting to the bottom of Lewandowsky’s inane, irrelevant and completely biased rant study requires a sane mind and the ability to comprehend the warmist’s mindset. Not everyone is capable of delving into the minds of lunatics and fringe afflicted individuals but here we have someone who may.

Bare in mind to that Lewandowsky is another member of the American Academic left wing lunatic fringe, which either explains his actions as being normal or that he suffers from an overdose of University educationalitis. Either way, we have a mess of a human being that live in it’s own conundrum.

We have the pathetic example of Professor Stephan Lewandowsky demonstrating his biases, his Anthropogenic warmist nonsense while at the same time clearly demonstrating that he has transgressed his funding activity by producing insignificant drivel at the cost of the taxpayer. We demand a refund, by the way.

Here is the gentleman to do the surgical analysis of Lowandowsky’s fulminations -

EXPERIENCE

2004-present. Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

I teach and advise mid-career students in the Masters Professional Studies program. Main focus: philosophy of science, epistemology, foundational Bayesian theory and methods.

 

Erm, YEP, he has the qualification and the expertise to tear that joke Lewandowski apart.

 

NASA Faked Moon Landing—Academic Psychologists Swoon, Tie It To Climate Change

 

Lewandowski, another left wing lunatic has taking leave of his senses while he wanders into the unrealistic and exaggerated realm of AGW hysteria. Lewandowski is NO Climate Scientist.

One day a terrific psychological study is going to be written on the madness and mass lunacy which arose after climate change swam into the public’s ken. I don’t mean the actions and thoughts of the man-in-the-street, which were and are no different in this area than they were and are in any political matterhe . No: the real curiosity is what happened to academia, inside departments which haven’t anything to do with climatology.

There, surrounded by people eager to agree with each other and fueled by infinite estimates of their own intelligence, great hoards of degreed non-experts, people who couldn’t derive the Omega equation if you threatened to remove their tenure and who think Vorticity is a town in Spain, lectured all of mankind on why The End Was Near, Unless…

Unless they, the non-experts, were hearkened to, esteemed, feted, moneyed, and just plain listened to, dammit.

The cornerstone of this future pathological report may well be the peer-reviewed Psychological Science paper “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles Gignac, perhaps the completest, most representative work of its odd era.

Everything that could have been done wrong, was done wrong. Every bias that could have been manifested, was manifested. Every fallacy pertinent to the matter at hand was made. The conclusions, regurgitated from unnecessarily complicated statistical procedures, did not follow from the evidence gathered, which itself was suspect. In its way, then, the paper is a jewel, a gift to the future, a fundamental text to how easy it is to fool oneself.

Consider that its errors are not far to seek1. Take the opening sentence: “Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence.” Isn’t that gorgeous? I count at least seven mistakes, and we are only at the very beginning!

  • Mistake 1: Lewandowsky is not a domain expert, and by his argument is not qualified to speak on matters climatic, yet speak he does.
  • Mistake 2: His opinion about how to consider the science of climate change is therefore no more valuable than any other non-domain expert’s (about the physics), but he considers by this act of publishing that it is.
  • Mistake 3: He conflates voting with truth. His fallacy is to suppose that because the majority of domain experts say X, X is therefore true.
  • Mistake 4: He conflates numbers with weight of evidence. His fallacy is to suppose the minority of domain experts who do not agree with the majority are not to be listened to because they are only a minority.
  • Mistake 5: He confuses physics with economics, a vulgar but common error. It may be true that, say, temperatures will rise by 0.5o C in the next five decades, but it does not follow that any theory of what will happen because of this temperature rise is true, nor is it true that anybody’s suggestion to combat the adverse consequences of what will happen is therefore worthy of consideration.
  • Mistake 6: Since Lewandowsky committed this howler, and is obviously unaware of it, he cannot see it in the people he interviews, who often make a similar error. That is, when a civilian is asked, “Do you believe in climate change?” he often answers “No,” but the mistake is to assume he is answering the question as stated, when in reality he has answered the modified question, “Do you believe in climate change and should the government regulate, rule, tax, control, mandate, penalize, etc., etc. to combat this change?” Such an elementary mistake by a psychologist shows us just how far the madness has progressed.
  • Mistake 7: Lewandowsky, because he is not a domain expert, misunderstood the basic physics. There are no domain experts who do not agree that mankind changes the climate. The only matters in question are: how much? where? when? with what certainty can we know? Notice the absence of “What can be done?” because this requires expertise in human behavior, and that expertise is what is suspiciously missing in this paper.

My dears, I emphasize that this was merely the opening sentence, and that much worse was to come. But before that, there was one more error, more grievous than any other, embedded in his starting sentence. This is Lewandowsky’s befuddlement that any non-domain expert could deign to question “the scientific evidence” (when much of what is “science” is instead politics). He assumes that any who do so, even in the admitted presence of disagreement over what “the” science is, suffers from a psychological flaw. Science has spoken, thinks he, and therefore nothing remains to be said. An actual instance of doublethink, and really quite marvelous when you consider the economy of words used to express it.

About the Author

Full time sanity assessor, with the odd habit of having to think and point out various, inane, unintelligible pretentious, limited purview, that could only evolve in the mind of an obviously, questionable, pretentious, self-proclaiming grown-up. This could take a long time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.