Our old friend Stephan Lewandowsky is at it again. He has a piece over at The Drum talking about misinformation.
The rapid spread of misinformation and its subsequent resistance to correction routinely inflicts contemporary societies …
…
There are several ways in which the effectiveness of a rebuttal can be enhanced, three of which are particularly noteworthy.People can disregard misinformation if they are suspicious of the motives underlying its introduction. …
Alternatively, a correction must be accompanied by an explanation of why a piece of information was incorrect. …
Another tool for effective rebuttal involves the use of graphs …
Perhaps he could spend some time explaining why climate change ‘deniers’ are not paedophiles.
ROBYN Williams: NOW what if I told you pedophilia is good for children or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life and to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).
Stephan Lewandowsky: There seems to be something about an extreme free-market ideology that prevents some people from accepting scientific evidence. I think there are some spokespeople out there for anti-scientific positions who claim to have a left-wing Marxist background, but when you look at the population at large in a large sample of people, then you don’t find them. And that probably means one of two things. Either the numbers of these people are so small that you just have to be extremely lucky to find one, maybe one in a hundred thousand, or that their claimed political affiliation is not as left-wing as they make out.
Extra credit for using graphs.
Then there is his “research” into faked moon landings and other things.
It seems though, once you scratch the surface of Lewandowsky’s paper, that it is nothing more than a journal sanctioned smear of climate skeptics based on not only faulty data, but data gathered with a built in bias.
But who are we to criticise? Lewandowsky tells he “was awarded a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award by the Australian Research Council in 2011.” The criteria for that is:
The DORAs provide opportunities for mid to late career research-only and teaching and research academics. There are no restrictions in relation to time since award of PhD, and selection is based on the needs of the project in addition to the excellence of the researcher.
The Project? A cool $765,000 over three years for:
Project Summary
Intelligence is correlated with learning but uncorrelated with most aspects of expertise. Why is this so? Why does the role of intelligence diminish as one becomes more expert at a task? This project examines a broad range of cognitive tasks to provide a concise mathematical description of how intelligence relates to expertise.
A mathematical model of learning by doing.
Then there is this bit of hypocrisy:
“Science is one of the most transparent endeavours humans have ever developed. However, for the transparency to be effective, preliminary documents ought to remain confidential until they have been improved and checked through peer review,” he said in an emailed comment.
“The leak of a draft report by a reviewer who has signed a statement of confidentiality is therefore regrettable and dishonourable.”
To be transparent documents must be confidential? It is dishonourable to leak? Here is his defence of Peter Gleick.
But it does mean that one’s ethical concerns should consider competing actions and outcomes rather than focusing on an individual’s chosen action in isolation.
Gleick has apologised for his use of subterfuge. His actions have violated the confidentiality of a think tank but they have also given the public a glimpse into the inner workings of the climate denial machine.
Had he not done so, no one’s confidentiality would have been violated, but then the public would have been kept guessing about the internal workings of one of the world’s most notorious serial impersonators of science.
Here is the Bunyip’s take down of that nonsense.
When it comes to Lewandowsky do I follow his first principle:
… disregard misinformation if … suspicious of the motives underlying its introduction.
If you’re going to have someone come in to chat about misinformation, you may as well get an expert.
I agree with whisperer. “Lew” is the best person to discuss misinformtion, generalized lying, biased research, which in old days used to be called propaganda and stiffing the taxpayer. I think you have this one wrong Sinc. 🙂
JC – I agree he is an expert is misinformation (and what does his own research then say about his intelligence 🙂 ).
“Here is the Bunyip’s take down of that nonsense.”
I just followed the link. Seriously, you couldn’t invent a face like that even if you were trying to concoct the worlds greatest buffoon.
On the topic of people “who claim to have a left-wing Marxist background, but when you look at the population at large in a large sample of people, then you don’t find them…Either the numbers of these people are so small that you just have to be extremely lucky to find one, maybe one in a hundred thousand, or that their claimed political affiliation is not as left-wing as they make out.”
“Progressive left” and Marxist ideas and misconceptions like the horrors of ‘unrestrained capitalism” and the need for militant trade unions to control nasty managers have spread so widely that they infect most people of all political denominations.
So it is hard to get support for good policies in the non-Labor parties.
That is why a top prioritiy is to cut off the flow of indoctrination and disinformation in the classrooms of the nation.
Rafe, I support public education and hospitals, so wouldn’t that make a no more than centre-right, being social policies after all. Yet I would expect to be labelled a “far-right neocon extremist” by the left if I was a politician. That would make them far-left neomarxist extremists to hold such views, am I right?
Make “me”, dammit. Stupid iPhone spellchecker…
Lewandowsky says graphs change people’s minds but chooses carefully the one to use- a prediction without history. How convenient.
But like a dog returning to its vomit, the IPCC tries to Hide the Decline once again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/
What needs to be examined carefully are the hundreds of thousands or millions of taxpayer dollars this Kmart academic charlatan (in my opinion) has gamed from the ARC gravy train. I am astonished that other academics at UWA in disciplines that have to fight for every dollar of research funding don’t press for a formal UWA inquiry into his shonky amateur-hour research, not to mention the fact that he has turned UWA’s reputation into that of a hicksville TAFE.
He has no idea. The problem for the CAGW people is the graphs tell the exact opposite story of what they want them to say.
Is it possible to plagerise yourself? Or is it lazy thinking to repeat a messaging phrase ad nauseum.
The Drum article
A Conversation article he links:
He compares the climate models to the Law of Gravity btw. This guy…
Rafe is there anywhere in the nation where kids can get a proper classical education following the Trivium at primary, secondary or tertiary level? Or anywhere in the USA for that matter?
The brainwashing that goes on in our education system is scandalous.
Bob Brown just described Paul Watson as “the greatest environmentalist of the last hundred years”.
That would be Paul Watson the Sea Shepherd pirate.
FMD.
Amusing that, in accusing another of shamelessness, you re-raise the William’s pedophile point. Your own shamelessness on this matter is clear to all with an open mind and post-primary school English.
At the Bunyip site there is a link to a great example of settled science being unsettled. The case of quasi crystals that the great Linus Pauling dismissed a figment of the researcher’s imagination.
I’m going to keep raising it.
As I said, shameless.
Why wouldn’t he raise the attempt by Williams to equate sceptics to pedos, Braggs. That’s what the commie’s son tried to do.
Anyways you were left a question the explain the budget last evening, so stop focusing on pedos and deal with the answer.
WB – Oh good grief! You do know what ‘insinuation’ means don’t you? Humans have been doing this since Herod topped both his sons due to it.
Williams’ problem is the data does not equate with his religious leanings. If I wanted religion I wouldn’t listen to Science Show I’d listen to Compass.
Sin wouldn’t raise it again if he were capable of appropriate shame unless he first acknowledged his error is saying that Williams’ “called” deniers pedophiles and “equated” deniers with pedophiles. Were he to acknowledge that error, he could then quite respectfully criticise Williams for the actual analogy he used.
Alas, like The Australian and many other blinkered right-wingers, Sinc verballed Williams and has spent way too long being hot and bothered, attacking a straw man. You too, JC, conveniently misconstrued William’s remarks, but no one would ever expect you to stick to the facts. Higher standards are expected of Sinc.
I wonder if the UWA will soon announce the establishment of a chair in Systematic Musicology. There is a certain Professor in that field who may be seeking reemployment from the University of Graz.
What is the value of a UWA degree these days?
Lefties have this wierd condition where they can cast aspersion but not recognise it at the same time.
Braggs
The son of those communist filth equated sceptics to pedos which is basically saying they are the same. In other words Sinc is perfectly fine to suggest that the communist scum’s son is an appalling sack of dirt.
You’re just trying to save that piece of shit’s arse because he agrees with your totalitarian views dealing with da climate.
You shameless dirt pile Braggs. You have no standards accept when you apply them to others.
Disgusting hypocritical asshat.
Judging by the uni boss’s letter he’s in deep shit. Lets hope it’s a good Xmas present.
Austrians are seriously hypersensitive to that stuff and so they should be.
State of the Climate Change debate:
1. In the context of global climate, 15 years is too short a period for a warming trend to rise from the noise. This is why the current lull in warming (15 years) should not be seen as a reversal of the long term warming trend.
2. Weather-related disasters have nearly _tripled_ in the past 30 years — an insurance company tells us (and Lew) — and we’re reliably sure that temperature increase due to climate change has contributed to this.
Are those two statements compatible? I can’t see it.
Of course they aren’t consistent, but, shut up!
But I see your point, particularly as
1: the lull seriously reduces the future growth in temperatures out to 2100, or at the least requiring serious revision of the models
2: confusion of the cost of natural disasters (plus insurance company rent seeking), mainly as a result of population change and wealth, with the rate of natural disasters, which if anything, has declined.
Its still a thing of value to some insiders, government departments etc who get free money spend on sympathetic science.
Not sure about all Departments, but the Law School is a hostile place for anybody stupid enough to get outed as a conservative. Its post post modernist, post Orwellian. Kind of like the ABC straight into the artery.
I’m calling BS on that unless someone can prove otherwise….unless you were just stirring, Harold…which is possible 🙂
I’m second post on the convo article right now. Too bad replies are closed.
And Williams is disgraceful for likening people who disagree with his religious beliefs to ped0philes.
What kind of sick mind thinks about ped0philes in the norm anyway?
Someone IS stirring but it ain’t me!
This is Lew at The Conv:
This is Lew Too (Lew cites Lew):
William Bragg attempts to be a provocative troll, but succeeds only in being an uninteresting troll.
What is interesting is that he manages to provoke a response from some posters. Every time he obtains a response, friendly or hostile, he claims another victory.
Harold, do you know on what basis he says they’ve trippled? Nominal cost? No of insurance claims (more wealth = more people with insurance)? Cost of insurance claims? Number of events? People affected?
Unsubstiantiated pseudostats are a classic misinformation tactic.
Oh it was Lew? Well then no point taking any notice of his spurious claims.
Climate scientist is he, eh?
Had to laugh at the title of his missive:
He really ought to be sporting a sandwich board declaring “The end is nigh. Repent! pay your carbin taxes!” while harassing the populace on the corner of Hay & William sts, Perth.
I took too long write my comment! Seems like you’ve already cleared that up!
Funnily enough his ShapingTomorrow article is all about the need to be cautious interpreting such data, but he’s happy to cite that as “3 times, boo yah!”
Yes, after all, they found that “normalised” insurance losses were stable or decreasing over the same period depending on the methodology used.
He then states:
Ha ha ha. Yes, give me a grant for $750,000 and I will tell you how much worse things could have been in a fantasy world.
Harold I noted a similar thing at 12.33
He uses talking points.
Agree, but I would add banks to that list or at least some banks.
Kiwibank in New Zealand has been an excellent example of a low cost state owned bank beating down local interest rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwibank
It was only introduced because the Labor government was forced to go into coalition with a break-away Red-Green Alliance group who made that demand as a condition for governing.
Probably gives Kiwis on average a quarter of a percentage point savings on their mortgages compared to Australians. Of course the idea of ordinary folk saving on their mortgages due to Government intervention would cause much gnashing of teeth amongst libertarians. It is blatant case of the people robbing the banks of their justified fat margins.
Dickhead, why would you want to be squeezing bank profits? What is the motivation?
If there’s one thing I hate more than people who lie to my face it is pissant zombie trolls who play pedantic word games in defending people like Robyn Williams whose misuse of his professional position to achieve brazen, extremist political objectives on my dime is beyond belief.
Errr….greater competition and cheaper mortgages? Don’t worry JC,you could pay your bank extra if you like. I am sure you asked your bank and said you wanted to pay an extra 0.25% on top of the standard variable rate they would be delighted to agree.
An Austrian calling for his opponents to be executed. Nothing chilling about that. No siree!
Haha, yes let’s all go to a government owned bank to save a ‘whopping’ .25% on our mortgage.
Now, let’s see some things like time on hold when calling, time in queue, efficiency of online banking system, cost to taxpayers to subsidise the mortgages of landholders (baring in mind that development is severely restricted in NZ pushing huge upward pressure on land prices in the short term, increasing volatility and instability in the long term) and all those other ‘great’ things that government owned businesses are famous for.
“It’s cheaper, therefore it must be better!” Yep, sure thing buddy!
Doktor Obergruppenfuhrer Richard Parncutt has posted some updates on his website.
What lying, squirming c*nt. The reality is, he does support the death penalty for his political opponents, and his apology will never change that. All that really happened is the mask slipped for a moment and we saw what lay beneath it. And it wasn’t pretty.
Never believe these c*nts when making “retractions”. Sometimes they are forced to hide or delete their policies, but we all know they never intend to renounce them.
Actually the 0.25 reduction are the rates offered by the major banks, if you go to Kiwibank you get even a lower rate.
Kiwibank pays a dividend to the taxpayer of 80 million last year
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/financial-results/7525365/Record-profit-for-Kiwibank
Admittedly it doesn’t compare to the profits that the Commonwealth bank makes. But who is it that funds those profits?
Parncutt did not just call for the execution of global warming skeptics. This from his original article:
So Parncutt is saying that the Pope should “perhaps” be sentenced to death for opposing contraception.
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf .
If there is anyone who is inclined to believe Parncutt’s “apology”, take a look at the conclusion from his original article. It is obvious that this is a very sincerely held belief that he won’t genuinely drop just after receiving a few emails of protest.
This disgusting piece of garbage should be arrested for incitement to murder, stripped of his qualifications and superannuation, and thrown in prison for the rest of his miserable life.
Hey if people want to take their money to a state owned bank I have no problem with that. It’s their money.
Just saying I work with privately owned banks and they are a complete pain in the ass to deal with. Can’t imagine what it would be like to have to deal with a state owned one. Perhaps labotomy would be preferable.
Also, losses will occur eventually, this is 100% guaranteed. Either through an operating loss of through stupid lending practices (aka Freddie Mac and Fannie May). Then taxpayers, as always will be on the hook.
In all seriousness, I agree that he should be arrested.
No question about it. That he could openly say this without shame in itself gives you a real insight into what these people are saying privately in their university cafes and lounges when they think no one is watching. People like that don’t just come out with such stuff, especially in the humanities, unless they know there will be virtually no reproach or social consequences. I bet the majority of his peers were quietly cheering him on.
It is important that an example be made of these people before this goes too far down the road.
So he wants the police to even further stretch resources and spy on people making comments on the Internet, or publishing scientific papers.
Your low carbon future, where the only jobs are candle stick makers or in the police force.
In Europe you can get busted for holocaust denial. What do you get for holocaust promotion?
I particularly likled this :
Well, looking on the bright side, he’s not calling for the execution of past (dead) Popes. So there’s hope, or something.
Pervak just cleaned up Wozniaki, and Sam Stosur’s on tonight in the Brissy International.
Fisky said:
An Austrian calling for his opponents to be executed. Nothing chilling about that. No siree!
————————–
Embarrassingly, Fisky, this purveyor of criminal lunacy is Australian, currently employed in Austria. He’s a pal of Lewandowsky’s.
As he’s been called in to explain himself by his appalled employers, unfortunately we may soon have him back again.
Lewandowsky tells he “was awarded a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award by the Australian Research Council in 2011.”
So this would be a “Discovery Outstanding Research Citation” then. I love new acronymns…
🙂
Doesn’t surprise me. Australian Leftists are notoriously the most retarded in the world. But Parncutt does sound vaguely Teutonic. Were his parents Austrian? I’m sure they would have looked very dapper in their uniforms back in the day.
What could he possibly say to them? “Oh, I’m so sorry, boss, for saying what I really believe. You’d be shocked how many colleagues agree with me.“
Parncutt is an English name, with origins to before the C7th.
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Parncutt
The man himself is a former denizen of the University of Melbourne.
The most fantastic piece of nonsense since this.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/parncutt-death-threat-uni-of-graz-shocked-monckton-gets-it-withdrawn-with-apology-john-cook-says-nothing/
Christopher Monckton threatened to report Parncutt to the authorities if he did not renounce his murder-inciting material. Incredibly, none of Parncutt’s academic contemporaries were prepared to unconditionally condemn or distance themselves from what he said. This is more evidence that they really do believe in executing AGW skeptics, but are only embarrassed that it has come out before they had the tools to carry out executions.
I repeat, not one prominent AGW advocate has come out and unconditionally condemned Parncutt.
“…. Why does the role of intelligence diminish as one becomes more expert at a task?….”
Perhaps doing a task actually confronts the intelligent academic with reality …as temperature measures confront temperature models eg …..surely his definition of intelligence needs to be revised if its confronted by reality …the knowledge gained by doing something should be what our intelligence is based on I would have thought …