Lewandowsky on IPCC leak

At it again…

At it again…

UPDATE: A commenter jokingly suggests below that Lew should “see a shrink”, but the strange thing is that he ticks several of the boxes for the psychological characteristic of narcissism, including:

  • Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
  • Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
  • Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
  • Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

I will leave it to readers to decide…

Stephan Lewandowsky weighs in with his usual tact and diplomacy on the IPCC leak, spraying the D-word around like confetti:

“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.”

“However, what is worse than the leak itself is the distortion of the content of the draft chapter by some deniers,” he said.

Prof Lewandowsky said that the report’s statement that humans have caused global warming was a “virtual certainty” meant it’s [sic] authors had 99% confidence in that view.

“That’s up from ‘very high confidence’ (90% certain) in the last report published in 2007,” he said.  [Hey Stephan:  How, specifically, were those 90% and 99% numbers calculated?  What, specifically, changed between 2007 and now that accounts for the alleged 90% reduction in uncertainty?]

“In other words, the scientific case has become even stronger and has now reached a level of confidence that is parallelled only by our confidence in some very basic laws of physics, such as gravity or thermodynamics.”

To claim otherwise by cherry-picking part of a sentence out of context is absurd, he said.

“Although it illustrates the standard approach by which climate deniers seek to confuse the public. Climate denial lost intellectual respectability decades ago, and all that deniers have left now is to misrepresent, distort, or malign the science and the scientific process.” (h/t Tom Nelson via WUWT)

Nowhere in Lewandowsky’s world is there ever any hint of doubt, uncertainty, contrition or scepticism about his own beliefs. He’s right on everything – always.

This is evident from the UWA FOI emails (on which more will follow in due course) where the many emails of complaint to the University about his recent work are dismissed in the same cavalier manner as any legitimate questioning of the alarmists’ position on climate.

Commenting on one particular blog article critical of the Moon Landing Denier paper, the Deputy VC at UWA, Robyn Owens, emails Lewandowsky:

“The sooner we get Critical Thinking 101 back to being a compulsory unit for all university students (and the rest of the population) the better!”

To which Lewandowsky responds:

“These folks are beyond educable.”

Funny thing is that the more Lewandowsky, John Cook and others like them insult, demean and belittle their ideological opponents, the more those opponents will dig in and fight back.

Comments

  1. “Robyn Owens, emails Lewandowsky:
    “The sooner we get Critical Thinking 101 back to being a compulsory unit for all university students (and the rest of the population) the better!””
    I would not disagree with him, but I have a feeling the ‘critical thinking’ being referred to may not be the grounding in logic that used to be a component of classical education.

    “To which Lewandowsky responds: “These folks are beyond educable.””
    Translation: “let’s not go down that path … “. (He may be wacko, but he senses the danger.)

  2. David Adkins via Facebook says:

    “virtual certainty” / 99% confidence is just a crock .. If the IPCC could prove AGW was real & true they would, but they can’t.

  3. I think he needs to see a shrink.

  4. Professor Lewandowsky: “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. “

    If science is so ‘transparent’ why does reading a ‘confidential’ document really matter?

    [REPLY: Because, as usual, Lewandowsky is talking bollocks. Excuse my French…!]

  5. Lew should start with Statistics 101 before looking at more difficult subjects. I do feel we are giving him too much oxygen though, he seems to be no expert on anything especially the environment.

    [REPLY – I tend to agree, but when our national broadcaster gives him airtime, it is difficult to ignore]

  6. “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.

    Pure and simple Marxist claptrap.

  7. Like a lot of rants by “experts” like Lewandowsky and Cook, they all have to resort to rabble rousing and, attacking someone/something, rather than factual discussion.

    Confidence levels expressed as percentages when it comes to something as complex as the atmosphere – well, I have a problem with this, simply because, to me, the ability to assign a percentage, particularly a high percentage of confidence, indicates a complete (or almost complete) understanding of the situation vis a vis, the atmosphere, and interactions with everything else – and we don’t have that, that much is obvious – if we did, there would indeed, be no argument.

    To then claim that we have “…reached a level of confidence that is parallelled only by our confidence in some very basic laws of physics, such as gravity or thermodynamics…” is just sheer idiocy, and displays nothing but contempt for, and ignorance of, the scientific process. I’ll bet Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, et al., are spinning in their graves, as well they should be.

  8. Lewandowsky, is a [snip – LOL!], that is a fact: there is no reasonable doubt.

  9. luminous beauty says:

    “I will leave it to readers to decide…”

    Projection is a prime tactic for narcissists to rationalize their denial. I’ll leave it to you to deconstruct the house of mirrors you’ve created here.

    Not that I have much hope of that happening.

    [REPLY – So let me get this straight: Lew brands anyone who questions any part (however small) of the alarmist consensus as a fruitcake who believes the moon landings were faked (because he is so certain of his own position), but it’s us that are the narcissists? Give me a break.]

  10. luminous beauty says:

    “Funny thing is that the more Lewandowsky, John Cook and others like them insult, demean and belittle their ideological opponents, the more those opponents will dig in and fight back.”

    Funny, yes! Your (Freudian) slip is showing. Is this an admission that their opposition is entirely ideological and based on their subjective perception of being insulted, demeaned and belittled when their arguments are shown to be without substance?

    It certainly reads like that.

    [REPLY – Well, you read it wrong. Unlike Lew and Cook, this side of the debate is always agnostic, questioning its own scepticism as proper scientists should. Lew and Cook on the other hand are the ones on an ideological mission, failing to acknowledge any flaws of any kind in the global warming consensus (of which there are too many to list), instead resorting to ad hominem attacks.]

  11. ACM, but using the name is giving credit when credit isn’t due. The recent examples of mass shootings giving ‘immortality’ to the shooters rather than the victims is a prime example of this where the actions of a extreme negative case instantly allows the name to be recognised. It is also why alarmists (like the floating excrement of a mind homeopathy Professor above) use the negative term deniers since it is so strongly linked in the minds of people to a massive devastating act by Hiltler’s Nazis.

  12. It is really absurd the way Lewandowsky has somhow declared himself some kind of a “defender of the faith” . Are we paying this guy’s wages?

  13. How can Lewandowsky claim that there is increased certainty of human caused climate change, when the Draft Summary for Policy Makers makes a number of startling admissions of exaggerations and errors in previous reports? For instance, admitting AR4 overstated the role of aerosols, or that there is nor proper evidence for an increase in extreme weather, or a lack of evidence for worsening hurricanes. Now there are many issues with the report, (such as confidently claiming that the missing heat is in the depths of oceans where thermometers rarely penetrate), but for Lewandowsky it must seems as if the IPCC is in denial. But no doubt, after 18 months of research he will find the statistics to “prove” he is right. After all he too that time to produce a paper from a biased survey called “NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” with statistics to “verify” that we skeptics are nutters, despite in the actual results of a survey only 3 strong climate skeptics out of 125 accepted that conspiracy theory – and a least 2 of those were scam responses.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Local Climate Change master of the universe and mental superbrain Lewandowsky speaks with absolute certainty about the ‘deniers’ leaking the latest IPCC ‘science’ here http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/12/lewandowsky-on-ipcc-leak/ […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,819 other followers

%d bloggers like this: