p.s. I don’t think it’s worthy of your time right now with all that’s going on with the Marcott paper, but just thought you should know.

BishopHill tweet:

Lewandowsky has accused @richardabetts, Met Office head of climate impacts, of being conspiracy theorist! http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2091932#post2091980

Lewandowsky’s “Recursive Fury” paper sweeps up prominent Met Office climate scientist in the hall of “conspiracy ideation” miscreants — problems with Lewandowsky methodology and rigor??

Lewandowsky et al.
New paper says:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009)….”

Condon, J. (2009, November). Global temperature records above the law. Retrieved from
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/global-temperature-records-above-the-law/ (Accessed 6 May 2012)

Actually, Jeff’s argument (in 2009) was that with CRU flouting FOI requirements no independent party could examine how they got from raw data to adjusted data. Condon’s points were about openness, reproducibility, scientific rigor, and also observing the FOI LAW. Lewandowsky et al. have grossly warped Condon’s posts into ‘conspiracist ideation’ as a straw man figure.

Lewandowsky continues to spew vile misinformation

[linked on Jo Nova]

Robyn Williams radio show for ABC (Australia) with Stephan Lewandowsky as guest:

Attitudes to climate change

Broadcast:
Saturday 24 November 2012 12:05PM (view full episode)

“If 95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority? Stephan Lewandowsky has studied scepticism. In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view. He says extremist market ideology leads people to reject climate science. They are rejecting the enlightenment, and all that has been achieved over hundreds of years. He says there is a false consensus effect and the media has done a terrible job at representing climate science. News Limited publications in Australia systematically misrepresent climate science. Denial is a way of wishful thinking. He says solutions need to be highlighted along with new entrepreneurial opportunities as climate changes and the challenges increase.”

=====================================================================

[Jo Nova quotes Lewandowsky from the program]:

Jo Nova: Lewandowsky goes on to defame, degrade and maliciously attack skeptics with misinformation

[Lewandowsky]
“They were rejecting the science not based on the science… but on other factors…
what we basically found was the driving motivating factor behind their attitudes was their ideology.
People who endorse an extreme version of free market fundamentalism are likely to endorse…

They are also rejecting the link between smoking and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS…

it’s an extremist free market ideology”

That is even the UWA have doubts about the value of his work.

that guy has a problem (what has happened to arguement) his finishing statement, he may know the early “denial” history – but don’t lecture on things you know FA about, ie Steve’s motives being part of a climate change denier cause !!!

what a stumbling verbal prat, Steve & Ross you should pull this guy up for slander.

ps- apparetly CA is a “echo chamber” & apparently you had climategate as a blog title ready to go beforehand & the guy liked MM book ? nuts.

This is a misunderstanding &/or misrepresentation. Review my comments with more care & less false presumption.

Steve: Perhaps you can clarify your point, because I’m unable to see how your comments respond to mine. As Ripley sets out clearly, the algorithm for principal components is different from the algorithm for factor analysis with k factors. Do you agree with this? If not, why?