4 amnesiac bloggers

Stephan Lewandowsky has identified the 4 remaining bloggers that he asked to post a link to his survey about climate denialism and conspiracy theories (paper here).

They are:

  • Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
  • Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
  • Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
  • Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)

It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted…

Why would the people who were contacted publically fail to acknowledge this fact?

Several hypotheses could be entertained but I prefer to settle for the simplest explanation.

It’s called “human error.” It simply means the 4 bloggers couldn’t find the email, didn’t know what to search for, or their inboxes were corrupted by a move into another building, to name but a few possibilities.

The only fly in the ointment in that hypothesis is that I provided search keys and exact dates and times of some correspondence.

As much fun as having a bunch people attempt to discredit a study linking climate denialism to other conspiracy theories by claiming that the study itself is part of a conspiracy, some apologies are in order.

For the record Planet3.0 did post a link to Lewandowsky’s survey.

Comments:

  1. Quoth Lucia Liljegren:

    Lewandowsky’s theory that they could somehow easily know and search is ridiculous. To perform an effective search one needs to identify a search term. It turns out that the correct search term to discover that Stephan Lewandowsky had contacted people inviting them to participate in a survey that ultimately lead to the publication of a paper authored by Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac was “Hanich”. Lewandowsky suggestion that he was somehow helpful because he mentioned providing search keys in in a post at DeSmogblog on September 5 after people announced they has searched and not found emails and after McIntyre did miraculous manage to guess a search term and find one of the email shows us only that Lewandowsky is delusional. And a whiner.

    and

    I think the fact that

    It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.

    Is a “liar, liar pants on fire lie” is among the reasons why no one owes the guy an apology. Roger writing

    ““Hi Joanne-

    Never heard of the guy, and a search of my email finds no contact from him.

    Hope this helps,

    Roger””

    is not stating publicly that he was not contacted. It’s responding to Joanne’s question and truthfully reporting that he had never hear of the guy and reporting that a search of the email find no contact from him. And guess what: Roger was never contacted by Lewandowsky and no search for Lewandowsky would have permitted Roger to find the email. Roger was contacted by Hanich. The evidence shows Roger was entirely truthful, and went above and beyond the call of duty in answering Joanne’s questions.

    I think that this whole four blogs business is a side issue, and it's a clear indicator of how the opposition operates. But "amnesia" is clearly far too strong, as is, apparently "publicly stating they were never contacted". I'm getting concerned that Stephan is overreaching and this may backfire in the end. This has been a great victory in the PR space against the naysayer crowd, but to the extent that it is overstated it's not a good thing.

  2. Roger completely forgot he'd replied to an email concerning a climate attitudes survey, even -after- hearing about this?

    A memory cue like a 10-ton weight failed to elicit recall? That's amnesia.

    Meanwhile McIntyre is so busy obsessively riffling through other people's email that he didn't have time to read his own, it seems. So no amnesia there, something else.

    Why in the world would we trust any of these cranks on their own say so? Without exception their main activity is refracting truth to the point of inversion.

  3. Amending my last remark: Roger Pielke Jr. refracts truth to a tiny and hopefully innocuous and unremarkable dot but does not invert it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>