Read here. More confirmation that climate doomsday alarmists are completely incapable of conducting honest, impartial scientific research.
"The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline - linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism - was not even supported by his data. The first allegations of academic fraud have been made."
The credibility and reputation of the entire science community continues to be sacrificed by "scientists" with a political agenda, especially any scientist who is a proponent/advocate of catastrophic global warming and climate change.
The level of science misconduct alleged in the Lewandowsky affair again establishes why there needs to be 'freedom of information acts' that allow the public to discover the truth. And in fact, a 'FOIA' has been filed in this case. This should get very interesting.
It is long past time for the scientific community, broadly defined, to set down clear definitions and come to a consensus on what "science" is.
This is not a matter that can be left to public opinion or to editors of "science" journals. It should not be a matter of opinion at all because it is procedural.
It is what all scientists should have been taught as absolutely basic to science, the rules which make science and distinguish it from "not science."
Important associated questions: what constitutes scientific data?
What constitutes a statistically meaningful connection between two sets of data?
What allows us to conclude that data set A is causally connected to data set B?
What is a hypothesis? How do we test a hypothesis in science? What is a theory?
What is scientifically supported or established theory?
If any of these questions is posed clearly, it should also become clear that there is no scientific evidence behind the current and recent claims of climate alarmists.
Posted by: Ronald G.Havelock, Ph.D | September 06, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Why is it that Lewandowski's discipline is amongst the most often cited for scientific / academic fraud? Is he just a product of the system?
Posted by: Streetcred | September 04, 2012 at 04:14 PM
But there's another problem with the Lewandowsky paper: Who does he rely on for his references when it comes to making the assertion that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money? Why, none other than the usual suspects seen in similar papers analyzing the motivations of 'denier scientists' - Boykoff, Dunlap, Freudenburg, Lahsen, McCright, Mooney, Oreskes, Schneider.
Each in turn cites a single source in their own writings and speeches to say skeptic climate scientists are paid by 'big coal & oil' to manufacture doubt about global warming: anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. No need to trust me on this, you may look it up for yourselves.
Gelbspan, meanwhile, seems to have every appearance of being the central figure behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists.
People may attempt to analyze 'deniers' motivations all they want, but when a cornerstone premise within all of these papers - that skeptic scientists are corrupt - is literally unsupportable, then the analysis is fundamentally flawed no matter who they survey.
Posted by: Russell C | September 04, 2012 at 09:27 AM