At retraction watch, I posted a comment which began ‘Klass, All I can say is “oh heavensâ€.’ Perhaps a more appropriate intro would have been “La storia mia è breve…..” If you like, you can read my original comment there. Here I will self-plagiarize and repost — possibly cleaning up a few typos:
Klass,
All I can say is “oh heavensâ€.
I agree the paper might seem like a good read if you skim. But I think that opinion could only be held by someone who doesn’t visit the underlying links to examine the ‘evidence’ for the claims.
One difficulty is even straightforward requests for information are diagnosed as somehow suggesting ‘conspiracy ideation’. To use an example: According to the paper, the ‘first’ person to have ideated the conspiracy theory ‘ “Skeptic†blogs contacted after delay’ is Geoff Chambers. (Given the nick-name for the theory, it’s worth mentioning that skeptic blogs were contacted after a delay. So presumably the ‘conspiracy ideation’ is not evidence by merely knowing that fact is true.) Let’s look at how Geoffs comment were taken [as] evidence of some sort of conspiracy ideation. To do the explanation justice, I must give some background information:
On 9/2/2012 Lewandowsky posted a discussion about contacting skeptic blogs at his own blog: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html
I would characterize his post an ‘snarky’; others might think otherwise. But in the third paragraph Lewandowsky wrote,
Should any others want to continue searching their correspondence, it might be helpful to know that my assistant has just re-read old correspondence from some time ago (e.g., from Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:38:33 -0400) with considerable amusement in light of the frivolous accusations flying about the internet that we may not have contacted those blogs with a request to post a link.
Geoff read what Lewandowsky wrote. As he was curious about the dates when invitations were sent and asked a question which you will find in the 3rd comment on that post. It is rather brief and reads:
3. geoffchambers at 21:08 PM on 4 September, 2012
Professor Lewandowsky
Does your thrd paragraph mean that you posted requests to the five sceptic blogs on 23rd September 2010?
I would think a person who was not blinded by their own pre-conceived notions about what this question meant would think geoff was asking for clarification of information in paragraph 3.
The next two comments are by “Lewandowsky supporters†Eli Rabbet and Mike H.
4. Eli Rabett at 21:41 PM on 4 September, 2012
Watch the Gish Gallop. FWIW, as Eli wrote at the other post, a great argument for the Apple OS search function.
For those who do not know “The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. â€
The next comment is interesting because– if I interpret the tone correctly– it is challenging and includes an example of someone hurling the accusation that the geoff’s one-sentence question somehow amounts to a conspiracy theory:
5. MikeH at 21:41 PM on 4 September, 2012
geoffchambers @ 3. This is your post at Skeptical Science at 19:01 PM on 4 September, 2012“McIntyre says he received the request from Lewandowsky’s assistant 6th September, (a week after the survey had been posted at Tamino, Deltoid etc) and a follow up request two weeks later. That brings us to 20th September. 23rd of September Lewandowsky gave a presentation at Monash University in which he announced the results of the survey, with the current sample size of 1100 (i.e. after the elimination of false data and duplicated IPs). So three days after asking for cooperation in fieldwork, he’d processed the results and written his conclusions and announced them.â€
So you already knew that McIntyre received the email on the 6th September.
What us – conspiracy theorists – never!I thought this was over once McIntyre had admitted that he had overlooked the email invitation. I forgot – conspiracy theories 101 – they do not have to make sense.
This is hilarious. I am getting the popcorn.
(Italics mine.)
Responding to Eli (#4), MikeH (#5) comments (which I interpret as challenging), Geoff posts the 6th comment in the thread
geoffchambers at 22:23 PM on 4 September, 2012
No Gish gallop, no conspiracy, just a simple question. Would Professor Lewandowsky kindly tell us when he sent his requests to sceptic sites to publicise his survey? In the case of face to face interviews or telephone surveys, it is normal practice to state the dates of fieldwork. Professor Lewandowsky posted his requests to at least six of his eight pro-science sites in late August, since they posted his request 28-30 August. McIntyre received his request 6th September, with a follow-up reminder 2 weeks later. Lewandowsky sent something to someone the 23rd September – but what?
Bit by bit we’re piecing together the facts that should have been in the methodology section of his paper.
I’ve italicized the explanatory text that was stripped by Lewandowsky when this quote was presented in the SI for Fury. The previous three comments were not included.
If not stripped out of the full quote, the first sentence in Geoffs (#6) suggests to a reader Geoff is responding to what he perceives as a rather snarky accusation his question is a ‘gish gallopâ€. If MikeH comment had been presented to a reader, the main part of the Geoff’s response appears show geof willing to respond to MikeH’s demand that he justify one-sentence request for clarification. The ‘kindly’ could be interpreted as Geoff explaining that he was trying to ask a fairly polite question. Notably: Geoff finishes is comment by supplying his motive for asking the question,
Bit by bit we’re piecing together the facts that should have been in the methodology section of his paper.
So: we have an explicitly stated motive. Geoff wants to know information to remedy something he considers to be a deficiency of the methodology section.
I think it is entirely reasonable that people at skeptic blogs would wish to know the identifies of blog contacted both out of pure curiosity, to evaluate the degree of skepticism, and to [evaluate] whether they were larger more popular blogs, smaller less popular blogs, truly out there “sky dragon†blogs, lukewarmer blogs or so on. Once we learned that skeptic blogs were invited after data collection was well underway, we wished to know details about when they were contacted. It’s possible people could think these details could affect our interpretation of the data as we might wish to know the range of people who participated. I think all of this.
Now, it seems to me one can debate whether the differential treatment accorded invited blogs should or should not have been in the methodology section of the paper or whether these details matter. Geoff suggested they should have been in the methodology section. I think they ‘matter’ to the outcome. I also tend to think major differences in methodology should be discussed in methodology sections; minor differences could be omitted.
So it seems odd for researchers in Fury suggest that someone holding the opinion any differences in the method of recruiting activist and skeptic blogs should be included in methodology section and wishing to know what they are is exh[i]biting “Nihilistic Skepticism†(NS) , or accusing Lew[a]ndowsky and his coauthors of “Nefarious Intent†(NI) or believing “Nothing happens by Accident†(NoA) or that the ‘official account must be wrong’ (MbW). (The final one is particularly odd as there was no ‘official’ explanation for the observed differences in timing of invitations and geoff was actually soliciting one through his questions).
In fact, we now know there were quite a few of differences:
1) Lewandowsky invited the skeptic blogs after links were already posted at the other blogs. The invitations went out between 1 and 4 weeks after links were already posted on activist blogs.
2) Some of the activist blogs knew Lewandowsky was involved in the survey; this information was concealed from others. We know this because Lewandowsky’s name appeared on some of the activists blogs.
3) Some activist blogs were recruited through a by-invitiation only forum that is often characterized as an “activist†blog. (Planet3.0 run by Michael Tobis.) So, with respect to recruiting activist blogs, the methodology involved some ‘preconditioning’ in the sense that some blogs may have participated because they learned more detailed information on that forum, as members learning there tended to trust others in that forum and they learned of the survey from a person who they were familiar with. This precondition did not exist for skeptic blogs. And
4) The only means by which skeptic blogs received information was through a terse email from someone named Hanich who they had never heard of. The invitation did not mention Lewandowsky.
One might still debate whether these things should be revealed in methodology. In many cases, we only know these things because collectively they were tracked down, not volunte[e]red. But once again, I don’t think a difference of opinion on this point amounts to “NIâ€, “NSâ€, “NoA†or “[MbW]â€â€“ yet, it is this difference of opinion that seems to represent evidence of these traits.
Notably: although the comment on the Lewandowsky’s post contains 59 comments, it appears Lewandowsky never answered Geoff’s question about when he invited various blogs. Yet, despite Lewandowsky’s habitual refusal to provide information, people [continuing] to ask questions seems to be taken as evidence that their thinking exhibits “MwB†— whose symptoms are to reject the explanations provided.
That people who do not delve into the ‘evidence’ provided might believe the paper is a good read and supports it[s] claim I can believe. That it is [an] “excellent piece of work†is beyond me.
So, as “Mimi/Lucia” might say: That’s my brief story! 🙂
Update: 11 am. Relevant details learned a bit latter. Woth respect to recruiting activist bloggers, Lewandowsky was already an active participant at one of the blogs he invited to post a link. SkS July, 2010 post by Lewandowsky.
“Yet, despite Lewandowsky’s habitual refusal to provide information”
Meanwhile, posted today on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/22zwkq/science_ama_series_im_prof_stephan_lewandowsky_i/cgs0p5n
RichardTol 8 points 3 hours ago
Please elaborate on the importance of reproducibility of research, including the availability of data and background data to other researchers if not the public, and on the importance of instilling this attitude in our PhD students.
[–]StephanLewandowskyProfessor of Cognitive Science|U. of WA[S] 12 points 2 hours ago
Crucially important. That’s why I release all relevant data immediately upon publication. I also have now begun to preregister my experiments, which i consider to be an exciting new development in the social sciences. I am also now increasingly relying on Bayesian statistics for similar reasons. Finally, I have rarely published anything without knowing that it has replicated (e.g. my two recent papers on conspiratorial thinking and the denial of science).
The last comment confuses me. Is Lewandowsky saying that he has rarely published to report findings before someone else has already replicated those findings?
Maybe he means before he has convinced himself he’s done the experiment twice? This is a sort of replication, but I don’t think it’s what’s meant by replication.
> Maybe he means before he has convinced himself he’s done the experiment twice?
I can’t stop myself imagining him saying to himself “I read those blog comments twice, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, and both times concluded their originator was a nut job…”. Lew science in action!
Or maybe. he does mean independent replication… his experiments are replicated by others, even before they’ve read or know what they’re supposed to replicate. He’s really that good!
New rhetorical strategy pioneered by Lew:
1) Lie about something
2) Publish it
3) Create outrage
4) Damaged or interested parties request information on which lie was based
5) Make accusation of “conspiracist ideation”
6) Hand over to Eli and other internet trolls
Tom C,
I’d rather avoid trying to diagnose a “strategy” or how this story fits into that “strategy”.
My intention is to point out that the ‘evidence’ about whatever ‘hypothesis’ people had regarding the ‘late invitation’ seems to include merely asking a question about when blogs were invited and asking it during a period when that information had not yet been dug up by those who were asking.
If that sort of thing amounts to a comment that indicates “nihilistic skepticism”, or attribution of “nefarious intent” one can only wonder.
It’s also worth noting: this is an interaction between the lead author of Fury (Lew) and a named participant (Geoff Chambers) during the ‘data collection period (Aug 2010-Oct 2010). The quote used in the “study” springs is a “participant’s” reaction to the lead researcher’s engagement of the members of the group being studied. (That is: participant=Geoff, Lead researcher=lew, members of group=’participants in skeptical blogosphere’)
Lucia –
As long as you’re ” cleaning up a few typos”, perhaps you can change “MwB” to “MbW”. Must wrong be.
Thanks. Done.
Copner (#128631) –
Lewandowsky’s claim that he releases all relevant data is interesting given the recent refusal of requests for “Moonhoax” data (here and here).
I asked Prof Lewandowsky if I could have his data for LOG12, following his reply to Richard Tol.
I quoted Paul Johnson (VC of UWA) refusal to provide it to me..
the comment was deleted after about 30 minutes..
Ask Professor Lewandowsky Anything…
….except for his data.
If I can be bothered I’ll upload my screen capture of it
This seemed interesting:
“In a nutshell, in societies that are not transparent and less democratic, conspiracy theories flourish because the government etc are not trusted. ”
Without saying that any conspiracy theories abound about climate science, but it seems by Lewandowsky’s own reasoning, he’s answered his reason conspiracy theories about climate science might exist. (If we look upon the “climate science community” as a “society”.)
Arghh… I’d thought the main thrust of this post was about Lew&Crew identifying “NI”, “NS” etc on such flimsy grounds. Then he goes and repeat a behavior I describe in the post– and the thread is about that: His tendency to not provide info that is asked for. Arghhhhh!!!!
I was tempted to move all that to focus on the stuff about his unwillingness to share data/info/ answer to simple questions. But then I realized it was based on the content of this post. ARGGGGG!!!!
ref “Lewaadowsky was already an activist blogger..”
More than that he got John Cook to write a Skeptical Guide to the Skeptic Handbook.. (which has UWA’s logo on it)
Lewandowsky organised a counter event to Anthony Watts (and Jo Nova) appearing at UWA) and flew John Cook in, and had three people handing the booklet out at Watts’ talk.
Lew’s event:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Perth-event-tonight-public-forum-on-climate-change.html
Anthony Watts/Jo Nova’s Event:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-account-of-the-Watts-event-in-Perth.html
Lew’s/Cook’s book handed out:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html
Jo had handed out copies of here ‘Sceptics Handbook’ at a talk Lewandowsky at UWA back in December 2009 and asked questions in the Q/A
Lew and Cook went onto greater things, writing this (again with UWA and Queensland logos on it)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
were Cook/Lewandowsky really suitable researchers, given that Anthony and Jo were Cook’s (and Lew’s) direct opposition
Interesting.
Barry,
To “interesting” I would add that I don’t see any of that as the sort of direct interaction between a named participant (Geoff) and the lead researcher (Lew) during the period of the interaction that exists in the example I showed above.
I see it more as context for why some of the people who were eventually named in Fury might have been justifiable skeptical of Lew’s motives vis-a-vis them. For that reason, had it’s likely none would have granted ‘informed consent’ to participate in “Moonhoax” or “Fury” had then known Lew was involved. That’s an issue with respect to informed consent.
BTW: I see possible animus on the part of guest blogger “Ann Young” when she write One has to wonder why Nova, Carter, Watts and their ilk … but there is a level of separation between “Ann Young” who is not an author on any Lew paper and showing animus on the part of any author of any “Lew” paper.
Joe
I like the way he merely says “not transparent”. I suspect it could go further:
If governments do bad things, they also tend to be not transparent. In particular, they often wish to conceal the bad things they have done. In these circumstances, people learn to suspect the government might continue to behave as it has been behaving. That is: the anticipate it might do bad things. In this light, when people hear a story that the government has done a particular bad thing, they tend to believe that the government might actually have done it. So, theories that suggest the government has done bad things tend to circulate. (Some of these stories turn out to be true, thereby feeding the cycle of distrust which leads to more ‘conspiracy ideation’.)
In short: sometimes ‘conspiracy ideation’ amounts to “people making entirely rational judgements based on facts.”
“In short: sometimes ‘conspiracy ideation’ amounts to “people making entirely rational judgements based on facts.—
I’m still very unclear how the act of someone questioning methods and even motives amounts to “conspiracy ideation”. It keeps sounding to me that the worst you can label it as “nitpicking”, or “seeking to find fault”, or “accusations of incompetence”. None of which really hints at conspiracy.
What’s the phrase? Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity. [or simple incompetence]
Lucia,
Don’t know if ‘Klass’ was serious or only trolling for a response with an outrageous comment. Either way, seems to me it is worthwhile ignoring what he/she says.
.
” sometimes ‘conspiracy ideation’ amounts to “people making entirely rational judgements based on facts.â€
.
For sure, and that is one of the many things that makes the whole ‘conspiracy ideation’ analysis so odd. It’s like the old line that you are not paranoid when you think people are out to get you…. if they really are out to get you. 😉 Seems like Lew and Co just can’t accept that anyone who is skeptical of catastrophic GHG driven warming can think rationally, mainly because they can’t accept even the possibility that someone could look at the available data and draw a different conclusion. I am reminded of the famous Oliver Cromwell line, as retold by Wikipedia:
.
“He made a famous appeal to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, urging them to see the error of the royal alliance—”I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” The Scots’ reply was robust: “would you have us to be sceptics in our religion?”
.
There is no room for skepticism in religion. The Scots’ reply to Cromwell seems painfully similar to what you hear from the climate alarmed today about GHG driven catastrophe; their thinking really is more akin to religion than to reason.
SteveF,
At least the Scots understood the issue. Great and pertinent quote btw.
JoeShill
This is what Lew wrote in methods:
Note: in some sense, since ‘ideation’ is merely “process of creation of ideas”, the “conspiracy ideation” is the process of creation of ideas involving the notion that a conspiracy exists.”
So, in principle, there might be some approach to studying how perfectly normal people come to accept a the idea that conspiracy that happened actually happened (e.g. Dreyfus Affair, Watergate burglary, or ‘your wife and best friend glommed on to your money and ran off to Aruba’).
But it’s actually pretty clear that Lew isn’t discussion that sort of “conspiracy ideation’ because — presumably– the elements of ideation wouldn’t need to involve “nihilistic skepticism”. It might only need to involve “healthy skepticism” which might also be the condition of “not suffering from an unhealthy level of gullibility or naivtee”.
Also, ‘conspiracy ideation’ one might observe when the conspiracy exists likely wouldn’t need anyone to exhibit the “NI” symptom Lew talks about. For example, one need not “[presume] deceptive intentions of the people or institutions”. One might be “able to believe people sometimes have deceptive intentions and are willing to be convinced if evidence exists”. (One might start out trusting people — for example your wife and accountant in the example above–and be converted by evidence, or one could even start out agnostic with respect to people one hasn’t met.”
But all Lew’s “criteria” for exhibiting conspiracy ideation only make sense if the conspiracy is presumed not to exist. So it seems to me that even though he claims his methodology for identifying ‘conspiracy ideology’ applies even if the conspiracy doesn’t exist, that’s not really true.
SteveF,
Retractionwatch is read by people who are agnostic about the specific “snit” and interested in issues surrounding retractions. For that reason, I thought it worthwhile to post that there.
Cook directly interacted with Geoff at Skeptical Science during the research period.
Geoff was asking questions about LOG12 and Johns involvement with posting the survey!
not only directly interacting, COOK was snipping and deleting Geoff comments….!
Marriott was also directly interacting with Geoff (and me) at Shaping Tomorrows World during the research period, Marriott was particularly hostile.
All the snipped comments are available.
BArry
In one of the FOI’d emails..
Lewandowsky refers to ‘Steve Mcintyre and his ilk’..
and tells the ethics officer, that ethics are not the motivations of the complainants and to ignore them.
shades of Jones, explaining to his information officer, why FOI does not apply to Mcintyre
So the flow chart seems to go something like this:
Non-climate scientist Lewandowsky becomes fervent AGW believer.
Based on the enlightenment of his beliefs, and his participation in internet blogging, he concludes it is impossible that anyone could disagree with his belief in AGW unless they are suffering from a pathology.
Based on this enlightened conclusion, Lewadowsky carefully shapes studies to ID and diagnose those wicked people who still dare to disagree with him.
When those people point out that his study is a shallow childish excercise, Lewadowsky decides to really punish those cretins who *still* won’t believe how enlightened he is.
Then of course we can look at how the reactionaries at Frontier are worried that the enthusiasm with which he pursues his enlightened view may have enabled him to skip over pesky ethics rules and such.
hunter,
Flow chart for what? Lew’s ‘master plan’? Which you learned by reading his mind? (Yes. I am violating the rules on rhetorical Qs.) Please stop that sort of thing. It’s just as bad as Lew’s reading my mind to discover the “unreflexive counterfactual thinking” (which seem little more than my not reading his mind to find out why he thought my interpretation was wrong and not admitting the argument I learned by reading his mind was ‘right’. Oh. And he failed to read my mind to figure out what my reasoning was.)
The point of my discussion is not to expound on “flow chart” involving steps you imagine happened (and which may or may not have happened). It is merely to show what sorts of things Lew diagnosed as “conspiracy ideation”.
I think it’s counter productive to try to spin this observation into a whole “flow chart’ for many reasons. Among them: it obscures the evidence we actually have by burying it in a bunch of speculation.
Barry,
This will be a topic of another thread. I have pulled together screenshots of what still remains. 😉
I’m trying to “isolate” the individual ethical issues, not smush them all on one thread.
Given recent events, it is very hard to make a claim that someone who believes in conspiracies is mentally ill. Used to be if you claimed someone was listening to all your phone calls and email you were a little nuts, now we know better. Used to be someone who said the IRS was after them would get a referral for therapy, but maybe not now.
And when you toss in group think, the members of the conspiracy need not ever meet or formulate a plan, they just think a like and act alike and cheer each other on.
So the entire premise of Lew and Co is flawed–and of course they also identify anyone who thinks their work is flawed is mentally ill, just like Stalin did.
Ok I had to laugh at this from the “Comments Policy” page of “Shaping Tomorrow’s World:
According to the “Comments Policy” Lew’s paper should have been subject to deletion or was “skating on thin ice”.
lucia,
You are of course correct. I was making a late afternoon attempt at a bit of parody of the good Dr. Lewandowsky.
There is more than enough out there that he has actually done that makes parody redundant. Thank you for tolerating my indulgence.
Jan,
lol. Those rules and how he applies them is a very target rich environment.
hunter,
Lots of people like the idea of resorting to parody and satire. Unfortuantely, parody and satire are very difficult to do well in comments at blog posts.
Generally, unless there is some obvious “marker” that signals “this is satire” to the reader, all one manages to achieve is posting something that leaves readers unsure whether you mean what you wrote or you mean what you wrote to be a spoof of something.
@HaroldW,
I preferred “MwB – Must Wrong Be”. Rather like the graffiti “Dyslexia rules K.O.”
lucia,
Good satire and parody make it look easy.
hunter,
Good satire and parody generally know better than to attempt themselves in comment blocks!
All science is political. That is people view scientific results through the lens of their own preferences. Greens would require more convincing arguments in support of nuclear energy safety than others. Why can’t people just admit that they have personal beliefs that colour their assessment of scientific findings.
In engineering, I can remember prolonged wars over competing protocols for instant messaging. Each side treated the other side with insults and contempt. if something as straightforward as this can create political wars, why would it be supposing that something like AGW can create warring camps that tend to misinterpret the views of other camps
Slightly off-topic — Here’s an illustration that can serve as inspiration for the next dozen or so of Good Prof Lew’s next papers. The Conspiracy Theory Flowchart “THEY” Don’t Want You To See. Lew has already covered “Moon Landing Hoax” (lower right), but there’s plenty of untilled soil remaining.
Surely, this is the best of all possible worlds for sciencey, conspiracy-minded psychologists!
Tom Gray,
“All science is political.”
.
The ideal gas law and Newtonian dynamics are quite free of politics. If your point is that advancing science can bring in all sorts of human foibles, then sure… as was recognized by both Thomas Kuhn and many others. Animosity between people with different interpretations of data (and indeed, different views of reality) is very common in lots of fields; it is quite normal, and usually non-political.
.
I think the bigger issue with climate science is that a specific political POV has at least partially subsumed the entire field…… whereupon it ceases to be “just science” and becomes instead in part about reaching specific policy goals, by framing “the science” so that it demands specific public policies. It’s politics masquerading as science. Reality will not listen to politics.
Amac,
What’s sort of funny is we could list actual ‘conspiracies’ under that tree.
1) Under “presidents” put: Nixon: covered up burglary.
2) Under ‘what are they f*ing with, put “email”, then NAS.
3) at the level of “aliens/them/big pharma”, they could add “foreigners”, “skinheads/supremists”, ‘(liberal|conservative) news media’ and lots of other things. Each could have branches.
The difficulty is that if these are added there are branches form “they are out to get me/us whatever’ that lead to true conspiracies. The difficulty is that in that case, one has to recognize that believing conspiracies is only a problem if it’s obvious the particular one you believe in is wildly implausible. If they are plausible…. well… The fact that some are plausible makes many conspiracy theory movies fun.
Lucia,
This isn’t the first time you’ve written “NAS” when I think you mean “NSA”. I’m only pointing this out because I think this is evidence of a constipiracy!
bill_c
constipiracy fo’ sho!
I guess the Manhattan Project was a notably true scientific conspiracy – although not many were in on the details of the plot there were well over 100,000 people involved.
But they were doing it for the “cause” to “save the world” from “evil corporatists” so it went pretty smoothly.
Re: “Note: in some sense, since ‘ideation’ is merely “process of creation of ideasâ€, the “conspiracy ideation†is the process of creation of ideas involving the notion that a conspiracy exists.—
(Apologies for the interval between replies. Life.)
But all of that still assumes a “conspiracy”. A conspiracy is multiple people acting with evil intent.
Most of the criticism (okay, a lot of the criticism), is not about multiple people acting with evil intent. It’s been about one person (Lewandowsky) acting. And a great deal of the theorizing has not been about evil intent, but with simple incompetence.
Or am I perhaps entirely wrong? Does conspiracy mean to Lewandowsky something different that I’ve assumed it meant all of my life (and indeed what the common definition seems to be?) Is “conspiracy ideation” not about the creation of ideas about people acting with evil intent, but any sort of criticism of methods or actions whatsoever?
@ JoeShill (Comment #128699),
As far as Lewadowsky seems to consider the question of definition of “conspiracy”, it seems that he takes a cue from Through The Looking Glass:
“”When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
JoeShill:
You are close to the mark. To help you understand, some examples:
1) A number of people largely unknown to one other but who comment on the same blog(s) file FOI requests for withheld climate data. CONSPIRACY OR THE PRODUCT THEREOF
2) A small group who collaborate professionally communicate plans to thwart these FOI requests even to the point of unlawful refusal, deletions and misstatements while imputing evil motives to the requesters. NOT A CONSPIRACY
3) Noticing the absence of “extreme weather” and noting the low confidence by the IPCC that it is happening or related to carbon emissions. CONSPIRACY OR THE PRODUCT THEREOF
4) etc.
So, to be clear, any expression of any thougt of belief not shared by the researchers is conspiratorial in that it is impossible not to agree with the researchers point of view unless some form of mental illness has been interjected.
Such unwarranted disagreement further implies a failure of trust of a recognized Consensus which lack of trust can only be the product of conspiratorial thinking.
Therefore, disagreement with one’s self-appointment betters is necessarily evidence of conspiratorial thinking.
If you disagree with this, well, you know the rest..
Joe
Yes. I made that point in a blog post.
At least the Tsarnaev brothers amounted to two. One could say they conspired with each other. But here, in most cases, the “conspiracy” amounts to Lew conspiring with himself. That’s not a ‘conspiracy’.
JoeShill,
” And a great deal of the theorizing has not been about evil intent, but with simple incompetence.”
.
In this case I can see little beyond evil intent. The level of incompetence needed to produce such terrible papers is almost absurd, while the evil intent seems evident (at least to me) in most everything Lew & Co say. But then again, that probably just means I suffer a severe case of conspiracy ideation. 😉
@SteveF,
That sounds like a paraphrase of one of Clarke’s laws:
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.