How Cook ‘n’ Lew do science

Climate Clowns

Climate Clowns

Here’s a summary of the Scientific Method, according to John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky:

Step 1: Develop a quasi-religious belief in a particular point of view (e.g. that human-caused emissions are causing dangerous climate change);

Step 2: Convince yourself that you are morally and intellectually superior to those who hold a different view, since your view is naturally “right” and “good”, and the other is “evil” and “bad”;

Step 3: Look for ways to caricature, demean, ostracise and ridicule your ideological opponents whilst at all times avoiding any rational discussion of the subject matter in dispute;

Step 4: Find some suitably catchy phrases, like “deniers are all conspiracy theory fruitcakes who think the Moon landing was faked” or “97% of scientific papers support the ‘consensus’ on global warming“, with which to frame the “research” and portray your opponents as fools;

Step 5: Beat, batter and torture whatever data you get until it fits said phrase;

Step 6: Use said phrase in the title of your paper so that MSM journalists, who never read anything beyond the title anyway, will do all the hard work for you (especially when one of your mates writes part of the story…!);

Step 7: Continue to pretend that the research is “impartial” and of the highest standard, despite the fact that the entire world and his dog is aware of the researchers’ firmly held beliefs and biases. How?  Mainly because they publish them every day on web sites.

Step 8: Sit back and wait for moonbat universities, governments and supposedly learned societies to award you great honours for doing such valuable “research“, and for the grants to flood in.

By the way, that whirring noise in the background is Karl Popper spinning in his grave.


  1. Nemo Stone says:

    Cook and Lew? Heck this is the way all of academia, especially the 22 tenured faculty in the department of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M practice the scientific method.

  2. Baldrick says:

    Step 9: Engage in congratulatory back-slapping with like-minded hand-wringers and defame those who speak against your ideology.

  3. thingodonta says:

    You don’t have to worry about details if you are right anyway. That is, you believe in your right to control knowledge, regardless of what is actually true. Same process as all corrupt bureaucracies.

  4. thingodonta says:

    Actually I wouldn’t worry too much about Lew and Cook, there will always be substandard research and substandard researchers, I worry more about the journal and journal editors who publish such tripe, that is far more serious. Bring back rigorous standards in science is the answer, and emphasize empiricism above models and projections. As for dubious statistics, well….

    • That would require honesty and a vanquishing of human nature. Can YOU grok that reality?

      The only other way to settle this science is to whoop the crapolla out of those who are trying to control us with false green gods. Whoop-ass is the tried and proved method of having your way.

  5. ironic? says:

    Out of interest, were you trying to be ironic when you wrote ‘Look for ways to caricature, demean, ostracise and ridicule your ideological opponents’ and then used an image of ‘climate clowns’ indicating that all climate scientists are clowns?

    • Er, who started it? And I’m not saying all climate scientists are clowns, just Cook and Lew for their ludicrous “research” (neither of whom are climate scientists anyway).

  6. manicbeancounter says:

    A couple more steps
    – Never admit you are wrong, nor that there might be the slightest possibility of alternative interpretations.
    – Never admit that there is other areas you can learn from. Not even a dictionary.
    It is all negative, because they have no positives. They cannot proclaim that predictions are proving right (rising temperatures, accelerating sea-level rise, falling crop yields in Africa…….). They cannot proclaim to be following in the traditions of the greatest scientists or philosophers of science. Nor can they claim to have any notion about drawing on moral values from other areas.

  7. They don’t have a scientific theory, they have a hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on sound science but its logic makes a couple of huge leaps. More importantly its predictions do not agree with observation. Nevertheless they believe in their hypothesis with all the conviction of religious martyrs. It appeals to the philanthropist in all of us and allows them to feel that their lives matter. Strongly interwoven with their love for the planet is a hatred for humanity. Their victims are chiefly the poor and disadvantaged. This striking contradiction has to be ignored, or their movement would fall apart. When they see evidence for their hypothesis in extreme but common weather events, I am strongly reminded of those who see Jesus’s face on a slice of toast as evidence for the existence of God.

  8. chuck Nolan says:

    The caption is the only thing that indicates climate scientists act like clowns.
    You could change the caption to read:
    “Lew & Cook in Make Up?”


  1. […] The “phony science bullies,” of course, don’t do that… […]

  2. […] has just published a funny, yet frightening, piece following up on this revelation. He lays out an 8-step plan of the [modified] Scientific Method purportedly followed by fellow Australians, John Cook & […]

%d bloggers like this: