Somehow I feel this ought to have been posted this in the Joke thread. The authors are those well-known humorists Lewandowsky and Mann, now in a
double act now posing as psychologists.
why is it a requirement to save every human life. do we have to infest every inch of this world? IS THAT THE POINT?
Quote:
This “paper” sounds more like a whine than a science paper. How did it pass peer review?
Quote:
Dr. Lewandowsky, Your paper is an example of the truth that you are either an extraordinarily mentally troubled person, or a true amoral Machavellian.
It is natural that you would gravitate toward someone who has the same issues as yourself.
Quote:
Where is the science in this?
It is simply another emotive attack from a group of activist “scientists” who very clearly wish to stifle open discussion and debate. Who say
“the science is settled” and that a 97% consensus show the days for discussion and debate are over.
Science is under attack not from outside as claimed by the authors here but from within. The scientific community will continue to lose credibility
within the public’s eyes whilst disgraceful non-scientific papers such as this one are allowed to be published in science journals.
[Edited on 11-7-2013 by elementcollector1]vulture - 7-11-2013 at 00:57
Quote:
The authors are those well-known humorists Lewandowsky and Mann, now in a double act now posing as psychologists.
Make sure you read the comments...
Why are they humorists? The defend their position with well referenced arguments. The comments are the usual pathetic namecalling without any content,
reference or logic.
Quote:
This “paper” sounds more like a whine than a science paper. How did it pass peer review?
This is exactly the point the authors are making. Scientists are expected to pass peer review, publish all their data (including their personal
emails??) to then have their work burned to the ground by some joe schmuck sitting is his sweatpants in his parents basement. And ofcourse they have
to take it in good humour and kindly respond to all the "arguments" said ignoramus is producing in five minutes without even reading the work in
question.
Why should anyone have to engage with people who are mindlessly repeating the propaganda inserted in to their head by the mainstream conservative
loudmouths which has already been debunked countless times?
Furthermore, more than half of the commentors did not read the article and just launch into a tirade how the authors are AGW proponents. They are no
better than animal activists threatening scientists doing animal research.
Last but not least, as far as I can tell this is not a peer reviewed publication, so complaining about peer review is moot.
If all these people so worried about the "conspiracy" within science or academia would get out behind their keyboard, would spend more than 5 minutes
"researching" (e.g. repeating Rush Limbaugh) and would start publishing peer reviewed literature, would respond to FOI's themselves and would reveal
all their financial interests, then maybe somebody would take them seriously. Do the people commenting to the article disclose their address and phone
number?
Being a scientist does not mean one should accept unjustified character assassination.
[Edited on 7-11-2013 by vulture]Pulverulescent - 7-11-2013 at 03:21
Quote:
Why should anyone have to engage with people who are mindlessly repeating the propaganda inserted in to their head by the mainstream conservative
loudmouths which has already been debunked countless times?
Interesting article, and yes, the comments do literally drip with the very worst kind of willful ignorance . . .watson.fawkes - 7-11-2013 at 09:30
The authors are those well-known humorists Lewandowsky and Mann, now in a double act now posing as psychologists.
Posing? Lewandowsky has academic positions in a psychology. (As does another of the four authors.) From the article cited:
Quote:
Stephan Lewandowsky is with the Department of Psychology at the University of Bristol, UK, and University of Western Australia
The publication this article appeared in, The Observer, is not a journal, with peer-reviewed articles, but rather the
magazine of the society, with news and articles of broader interest than narrow research results, and which can include argument for a position
(something toward an opinion piece, but not really the same).
The real problem with the article is that it's whinging, trite, and boring. But there's a larger issue here. There's an innuendo floating about (and
I'm not quite claiming you, DerAlte, adhere to it) that personal character flaws of scientists should detract from the scientific field as a whole.
It's like saying that you shouldn't believe the science just because some of the scientists are assholes.Given that the thesis that global warming is
anthropogenic has > 95% adherence amongst academic research, it would be far more surprising if there weren't prominent asshole-scientists amidst
them. DerAlte - 7-11-2013 at 21:43
Still no comment!DerAlte - 8-11-2013 at 10:09
OK, A Comment
This piece originated in Whimsy but seems by the magic of moderation to have gone somewhere else. Whatever! The OP was somewhat tongue in cheek, and
two forked, typical Der Alte. Actually my purpose was mainly to point out the pseudo-scientific nature of a large number of so-called scientific
papers and ‘research’. The fact that you and I paid for this crap because it was funded by grants should give us pause. And it pointed out
another flaw (IMO) in many papers – an extreme excess of ‘references’ to give apparent authenticity. I would guess that no one ever reads a
tenth of them – and that even less are truly relevant.
And of course, the advocates saw the hidden agenda, the other tine of the fork, and poured forth a plethora of disconnected verbiage. Re which I offer
the following from an ex-PM of Australia. The political angle: well worth a read:
