Lewandowsky invents new pseudo-science of psycho-climatology™

Pseudo-science rules!

Pseudo-science rules!

Stephan Lewandowsky knows nothing about climatology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric physics or thermodynamics, but that trivial obstacle does not prevent him believing the alarmist consensus with such fervour that he uses his own “discipline” (if you can call it that) of psychology to label those who question said consensus as suffering from some kind of mental condition, his favourite label being “conspiracy theorist”.

If that wasn’t enough, however, Lewandowsky has also invented “recursive idiocy” by taking the above approach a step further, so that anyone who questions Lewandowsky’s psychological assessment is themselves branded a “conspiracy theorist” and the recursion goes on, presumably, ad infinitum. Seriously, I’m not making this up. And Lewandowsky is something called a “Winthop Professor” at the University of Western Australia. And a recipient of the UK Royal Society’s Wolfson Research Merit award. No, really.

By himself, Lewandowsky, with a bit of help from John Cook over at Un-Sk Ps-Sc, has invented the shiny new pseudo-science of psycho-climatology™, whereby scientific study and debate regarding the earth’s climate system is replaced by psychological demeaning of those with whom the learned professor (for a professor he is © Media Watch Dog) happens to disagree, on a subject about which he knows nothing.

Enough already. Just read Ben Pile’s majestic demolition of Lewandowsky and his pseudo-science psycho-climatology-babble here.


  1. Stephan says:

    Promotion Criteria – Winthrop Professor (Level E)

    It’s on the University of WA web site

    A member of academic staff seeking promotion to Winthrop Professor (Level E) will be expected to have demonstrated exceptionally distinguished scholarly achievements and will normally be recognised as an eminent international authority in his/her discipline.

    • Alfred the Great says:

      Uni WA has copped a massive hit in reputation with this guy. One can only presume they believe any publicity is good publicity.

  2. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Pseudo-science has been in evidence in climatology for some years now, twisted distortions of psychology are not a surprise from the same perpetrators.

  3. C. Paul Barreira says:

    What has been the cost to taxpayers of this chappie? ARC grants. Salary etc.

  4. manicbeancounter says:

    Ben Pile has covered a huge amount of ground here, so there are a bound to be a couple of issues that I believe require a bit of more emphasis.

    First is on the conspiracy theory questions. There were fifteen, with five potential categories
    – Neutral to the climate change question. (12)
    – Related to the climate change question, the pro-consensus types might believe in. (0)
    – Related to the climate change question, the sceptics types might believe in. (1)
    – Unrelated to the climate change question, the pro-consensus types might believe in. (1 – but results not reported)
    – Unrelated to the climate change question, the sceptics types might believe in. (1)
    The question that results were not reported was “7. The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq”. I believe that, Simon, that you put in a FOI request for these results. Did anything come of it? See http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/02/10/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-log12-questionnaire-examined/

    A second area is looking at alternative hypotheses for the mistrust of science. My own conclusion is far more important that the “conspiracist ideation” idea. In personal or business relationships, if someone betrays your trust; gives misleading statements; makes prophesies that turn out to be incorrect; or fails to appreciate that you may have a valid point of view even if they feel it inferior to their own – then you are likely to lose trust in anything that they say. The average climatologist community employs these tactics all the time, alienating their own followers. See http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/17/a-reply-to-lewandowskys-sideswipe/

    Click to Edit (34 seconds)

  5. “Without understanding natural processes you can’t identify human induced changes. You are vulnerable to the claim that all natural changes are unnatural, which is occurring daily in the mainstream media.
    Historically young people entered university and challenged the prevailing wisdoms. Now they come fully indoctrinated with environmentalism that ignores facts, manufactures false information and blames humans for everything. It is significant that challenges come from much older people who know and understand the fallacies. Everyone knows that information is power, but it’s exploitation of power that has allowed a few to control and manipulate people.”
    Dr.Tim Ball


%d bloggers like this: