Lewandowsky doesn't like us either

[Woolie]

Since they were creating propaganda with a predetermined conclusion, there was simply no need to bother with tedious details like editing the data, or even looking at it, apparently. Their bonehead programmers need to venture out of the ivory tower once in a while, although they probably wouldn't last a day in an office where software is expected to, you know... actually work.

A nice test of any study is to ask, "Would the results have been publishable if the answer to the question turned out to be 'no'"?
To be fair, very few studies pass this test.

But just to consider this case, how interesting is this headline?
"Study finds that climate change sceptics are not likely to believe in conspiracy theories"

Not very exciting is it? So we're talking about a study where the researcher is highly motivated to obtain a positive result. Raises huge, er, red flags for me.

 

[Skippa]

Now that you mention it, I do recall a certain NASA mission to Mars that disintegrated because someone mixed up metric and standard measuring systems...

To which NASA (or was it that British team?) responded: "oops, we made a boo boo, we'll try again and make sure we double check the measurements this time".

What they didn't do was stick their fingers in their ears saying "la la la everything is fine, anyone who notices our glaring error is clearly vexatious".

'cos I like to think NASA do REAL science.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Raises huge, er, red flags for me.

Tut, tut Woolie. Red flags are a symbol of Communism. The Communists in the Soviet union in no way were involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the Czar. That would be a 'conspiracy theory'.

In the same way, Julius Caesar just had an unlucky day that involved walking into a lot of daggers.

And researchers with conflicts of interest and group memberships in no way have ever sought to hide data from patients out of their own self-interests. That would be conspiratorial thinking, and thus impossible.

 

[Forbin]

(I forget if someone else posted this quote on PR, but it made me laugh...)

"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing it everywhere. Everywhere!"​

- Jon Ronson




​

 

[Luther Blissett]

(I forget if someone else posted this quote on PR, but it made me laugh...)

"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing it everywhere. Everywhere!"​

- Jon Ronson




​

Jon Ronson's For the Love of Lunar Conspiracy

I remember watching it

 

[Skippa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35506000

Don't know why, seems relevant somehow.

 

[jimells]

Lewandowsky really needs to quit while he is ahead. A week ago I hadn't heard of him. Today I'm looking at his obvious propaganda and thinking, "Hmmm, this must be an example of the phony research and hidden data that global warming skeptics have been shouting about for years. Perhaps there *is* something to what they have been saying... "

So the net result of his "research" could end up being the exact opposite of its intent.

We are seeing Coyne's strategy in action: Make a huge fuss, then wait for the other academics to turn their heads to look at the car crash as Coyne's critics over-react. Simple and effective.

Meanwhile David Tuller's article on Health Affairs Blog is currently #1 "most read' and presumably getting the attention of the policy people in DC.

 

[TiredSam]

This made me laugh a couple of days ago, haven't seen it reposted here:

 

[eastcoast12]

To which NASA (or was it that British team?) responded: "oops, we made a boo boo, we'll try again and make sure we double check the measurements this time".

What they didn't do was stick their fingers in their ears saying "la la la everything is fine, anyone who notices our glaring error is clearly vexatious".

'cos I like to think NASA do REAL science.

If I remember correctly, the mistake didn't occur on Mars but rather during testing. I believe the story was someone used American units instead of metric units designing something to do with the parachute deployment. Turns out parachutes never opened and the thing came crashing back to earth. You can probably you tube it.
Hell yeah NASA sciences pretty good. They learned from their mistakes and now we have a bunch of robots on Mars. Still kinda funny though

 

[jimells]

This made me laugh a couple of days ago, haven't seen it reposted here:

Thanks for that. It's innocuous but insulting posts like this that get other academics' panties twisted in a knot. Poor babies. I almost want to play them a tune on my tiny violin, but I'd have to get off the couch to get it. So never mind.

 

[Luther Blissett]

This made me laugh a couple of days ago, haven't seen it reposted here:

View attachment 14528

 

[Forbin]

If I remember correctly, the mistake didn't occur on Mars but rather during testing. I believe the story was someone used American units instead of metric units designing something to do with the parachute deployment. Turns out parachutes never opened and the thing came crashing back to earth. You can probably you tube it.

This was the Mars Climate Orbiter mission in 1999. The ground based software that calculated engine thrust used US units, while the ground based software that used that data to calculate the trajectory used SI (metric) units. As a result, in attempting to achieve orbit, the "orbiter" accidentally flew about 50 miles too low over Mars and disintegrated in its atmosphere.

It was kind of reminiscent of the mistake that gave the primary mirror of the Hubble Space Telescope an incorrect curvature. The precision device used to measure the mirror's curvature to a very high accuracy was itself incorrectly manufactured. When "less accurate" devices showed the error, it was decided that those tests were wrong because the "more accurate" device must be right. Right?

It was an oddly technical "appeal to authority."

 

[Sean]

The ground based software that calculated engine thrust used SI units, while the ground based software that used that data to calculate the trajectory used metrics units.

SI units are metric based.

The stuff-up was in calculating thrust in pounds (US unit) instead of Newtons (SI unit), despite the measurement standard required in NASA contracts being SI (i.e. metric).

About as dumb a mistake as you can make in engineering.

 

[Forbin]

SI units are metric based.

They stuff-up was in calculating thrust in pounds (US unit) instead of Newtons (SI unit), despite the measurement standard required in NASA contracts being SI (i.e. metric).

This is why I don't work for NASA. I have amended my remarks in an effort to avoid future space disasters (and to look less like an idiot).

 

[Esther12]

Just saw this, with Lewandowsky promoting himself as a post-truth expert:

Global experts on debunking of misinformation

The word “post-truth” was Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year for 2016. Concern with “fake news” is increasing all over the world, and media concern with the spread of misinformation, and how to debunk it, has been increasing dramatically over the past few years.

This portal provides contact details of a global network of researchers from across multiple disciplines who are experts on misinformation, including

• Social media and internet
• Debunking of misinformation
• Conspiracy theories and lack of trust
• Science communication and science denial

The experts welcome inquiries from media, government, or NGOs.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/expsych/research/posttruthexperts/

He's the worst.

 

[Snowdrop]

Flippant comment maybe but it looks like Uof B needs a psych ward not a psych dept.