Lewandowsky Kerfuffle

The anti-climo-blogosphere was certain the researchers lied when they said they sent requests to post the survey on denier blogs. Lewandowsky, as with most social scientists highly constrained by an ethical review board, was unsure whether he could release the list of blogs which he contacted despite all the outrage. He politely asked the deniers to check their email from the time period of interest more carefully. Now Watts and McIntyre have found the invitations. In the end, gratitude for their honesty in this regard has to be tempered by concern about the vehemence of their earlier position.

Does all of this not actually illustrate Lewandowsky’s point? When people who reject climate science also reject the finding that their rejection is more ideological than rational are they not actually confirming the hypothesis they question?

Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera has some more interesting reflections on this bizarre blogstorm.

Comments:

  1. The dull roaring sound of an ox being gored went beyond plain old "I doubt it."

    The denskepticons' immediate instinct to conjure up a scientific conspiracy explaining Lewandowsky's findings was particularly funny, in a twisted way, though it certainly did not help to undermine the "Moon Hoax" angle. The effort to identify a plot included now standard features such as delving into stolen databases (Skeptical Science's) to parse dusty messages for little tracks left by the Illuminati.

    Must be nice to be incapable of embarrassment. Or maybe it's more like having congenital analgesia; can't tell when you're setting yourself on fire.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.