The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman, IPCC (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Lewandowsky et. al’s faulty methodology is just one of the paper’s problems; like many other ‘skeptic’ motivation analyses, its central premise is unproven and relies on a SINGLE highly questionable source.
Experts like Steve McIntyre pore over the manner in which the Lewandowsky paper’s survey was conducted. But there is another basic problem with this paper and others essentially similar to it, where a collective analysis proposes to explain why anyone would deny the settled science of global warming. Such papers operate under a false premise, namely that analysis is needed because the science is settled and skeptic scientists – who arguably are the only people qualified in this issue to offer science assessment opposition that might be valid – are corrupt.
No need to go any farther into the Lewandowsky paper than its first page to see this, where it says in the top paragraph that “More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions”, followed with a statement in the second paragraph that researchers “in history and sociology frequently cite the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by vested interests and political groups….”
This latter reference is in regard to the so-called ‘lies’ that skeptic scientists are said to be spreading via associations with right-wing think tanks. Immediately following each statement are citations from people who’ve made basically the same statements over many years: IPCC scientist Stephen Schneider and researchers William Freudenburg, Aaron McCright, Riley Dunlap, Chris Mooney, and Naomi Oreskes. A less evident but still troubling glimpse into this overall problem is the citation on pg 4 of Max Boykoff in regard to “the scientific consensus on climate change is often misrepresented in the media” and on pg 5 of Myanna Lahsen in support of the assertion that there is are “notions of a conspiracy among [skeptic] scientists.”
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Classic Projection.
They are trying to sow seeds of doubt about real scientists, and they are very well funded and definitely colluding. Because if this clown's peers (fellow clowns?) buy into this 3rd grader's attempt at psychology, they are either too stupid to breathe on their own, or they are purposely supporting and presenting what they know is a pack of agenda driven lies.
These leftists are academic light weights. It is not possible to defend lies and this is why they choose not to debate. I once debated Noam Chomsky via email and was vastly disappointed. I was expecting a challenge and instead got somebodies crazy old uncle who could not defend or support his statements. Once again, I was just supposed to take his word based upon a misplaced banner of authority.
These alarmists are pathetic.
Drewski et al are completely brainwashed by their faith in authority, unable to adapt to the truth - like a repeating scratched record, slithering along after their leaders of this dying cult religion.
At least James Lovelock and Fritz Varenholt had the guts to see through their own self inflicted brainwashing and outed themselves. Takes guts to admit your wrong - some people just don't have any.
The fact remains that this climate is indistinguishable from previous warm periods. That is the fact from which they run the most. Chicken Little is soooo very appropriate when it comes to defining them, in more ways than one.