Fraud And Intellectual Dishonesty Still Prevalent In Psych Academia!!!!

I was almost going to write a serious critique of a bunch of lunatic socialists parading as scientists, but the more I read their assertions, the more I started laughing at them.  The delusions these people are suffering under is simply amazing.  There’s a new paper out.  Boy, it’s a doozy!. (PDF)  One would think that after the psych world has been rocked by retracted papers, fraud, and malfeasance,  these people would be a bit more judicious when writing papers.  It starts like this……

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence.  Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science.

Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ‘ :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.

This group of people can’t possibly be that insipidly stupid!  Oh, wait, they are psychologists, so yes, yes they can be.  And, we note that papers in the psych world are of questionable credibility.  Why anyone would quote a silly psych paper against this backdrop is beyond me, but that’s alarmists for you.  No one can legitimately accuse them of being rational.

It is the lunatics inability to interact with critical thinkers which allow these incredibly vacant ideas to permeate.  It’s like when I write about temps in the arctic and the delusional lunatics think I’m writing about global temps.  They simply lack the capacity to understand what is being stated. 

So, they start with a lie which any rational thinker knows and understands it’s a lie.   The authors source Anderegg and Doran.  Now, this alone is fascinating.  Even if one accepts the subjective conclusions of Anderegg, we know the study isn’t about the percentage of scientists but rather, their level of expertise and agreement with certain views.  Anderegg’s study is a laughable bit of sophistry, but it says nothing towards the actual percentage of scientists who agree or disagree with anthropological climate change.  But, if one does read Anderegg, we see that their raw numbers break down to about a 2/3 agreement with anthropological climate change.  So, this paper’s contrivance of over 90% is destroyed.  This leaves the oft ridiculed paper of Doran with their seventy something respondents.  Does Lewandowsky assert that 75 or 77 respondents are representative of larger body of science in climate and climate related areas?  Is this what passes for Psychological Science?  Here are the cold hard facts about this imaginary consensus.  It has never been demonstrated. 

Then we move to the conflated areas of free-market thought and these conspiracies.  Now, I’ve been involved in the climate skeptic blogs for several years.  And, while I accept that this blog isn’t representative of skepticism by numbers, it probably fairly represents many in thought.  But, it also likely has an equal number which it doesn’t.  In my view, the broad spectrum of skeptics can probably be mostly represented by 3 distinct blogs.  If anyone wants to actually understand what the make up of skepticism is and who they are and what they believe all they have to do is go to these 3 very diverse blogs. 

Climate Audit, WUWT, and Real Science.  But, the paper was from Australia so Jo Nova could have been an obvious place to turn to.  Now, what is interesting is that the authors, instead of being inclined to actually read what was stated sent out surveys.  In all the years I’ve been engaged with climate skepticism, I’ve never once seen the moon landing challenged on any skeptic blog.  Nor have I seen the firsthand smoke cancer link challenged.  And, I’ve never seen the idea that MLK was assassinated by the CIA advanced.    Being a free market capitalist, I also see that the thought of MLK and moon landings decidedly advanced by leftist nuts, not capitalists.  The AIDS/HIV confusion is another laughable irrational tie to free market ideas.  It wasn’t conservatives reluctant to accept that HIV causes AIDS.  Even more hysterical in the paper is that they actually mention the truthers, but fail to connect them to the leftist nuts so prevalent in our society. 

So, what does free-market economics have to do with conspiracy theories?  Nothing in the minds of rational thinkers.  However, in the delusional minds of alarmist psych academics, the tie is as obvious as the accelerating rise in the rates of major tornado events, or hurricanes, or flooding, or sea level rate rise…… etc. 

We could, and maybe someone else should delve deeper in this paper and continue to make a mockery of what passes for Psychological Science, but, when I find papers which creates its foundation on demonstrable lies, I deem it not worth my time to go much further and address the laziness of the authors and their lack of ability of reading comprehension.

They talk about a conspiracy notion to eliminate thermometers, yet, it has been demonstrated that many have been eliminated from the data set.  The fact that they’re gone isn’t arguable.  The fact that the original temp values have been altered in interpretation isn’t arguable, either.   These are objective observations. 

This paper simply provides more nuts to point and laugh at. 

This entry was posted in Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Fraud And Intellectual Dishonesty Still Prevalent In Psych Academia!!!!

  1. DirkH says:

    They found some correlations, fine, I am not surprised. To understand the logic of free markets one needs to have a minimum of logical thinking skills, and that also comes in handy when dissecting the cleverly made smokescreen of Hansen and Jones and Mann. The simple repetition of talking points as practised by OWS won’t help you much there.

    So, yes, psychologists, you found out that logically thinking individuals reject warmist science while non-thinking collectivists embrace it as they are uncapable of recognizing a sufficiently well-made lie that is fed to them, and are also incapable of understanding that politicians have resorted to using environmentalist science as a propaganda weapon, as long as said science delivers arguments for higher taxation.

    I guess that sentence was a little long but I’m too lazy to reformulate it so dear psychologists, if you have problems comprehending it, just ask an EE or use MS Word’s summarizing function.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, that logic is too hard to follow for lunatic psych people. What I find interesting is that they felt the need for a survey. The blogs aren’t closed. There’s no super secret bat cave we operate from. All they have to do is read what is stated. But, they won’t, and they certainly wont accurately reflect what is stated on the blogs and the people who don’t read the blogs are more apt to believe these delusional lunatics than to actually read what is stated.

  2. kim2ooo says:

    Pseudoscience for Pseudo scientists. You surely didn’t think Pseudo scientists would use Normal Science?

  3. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Our Stephan is rather entertaining, isn’t he.

    In Jo Nova’s words from the second link: “Lewandowsky is a source of much fun on this blog”. Then she goes on to give plenty of quite interesting links. One might even (gasp!) think Prof Lewandowsky has some sort of agenda with the paper you are referring to.

    • suyts says:

      I just can’t believe after all the hubbub of fraud and dishonesty that psych science would publish such an easily refuted piece of tripe.

      Published science is dead, long live the blogs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  4. manicbeancounter says:

    I believe that I took the survey about eight weeks ago. I copied the questionnaire questions and commented in detail on my blog. I thought afterwards that it was a spoof questionnaire. However, all the questionnaire sections are represented in the results, with the exception of the last one on corporations. Furthermore, the survey was conducted by a research assistant who has assisted Prof. Lewandowsky in the past, but who is not mentioned in the paper.

    There are some questions to ask of the survey.
    1. Were the questions vetted for neutrality? See what you think.
    2. Was there a vetting of who answered these questions? If it was on the internet, there was none. In fact I found it from an extreme anti-skeptic website, so there could have been a lot of “spoof” answers.
    3. Furthermore, mainstream skeptics would have quickly terminated the survey, as they could see where it was leading.

  5. Jim Masterson says:

    There’s a new paper out. Boy, it’s a doozy!

    I love the statement in the Abstract: “Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science.”

    That would imply that a socialist/communist/fascist would fully endorse and accept climate science and that is the problem.

    It use to amaze me how liberals would embrace climate science religiously without the slightest bit of skepticism. It appears to be ingrained in their worldview. Climate science is their stepping stone to maximum government control of our lives.


    • suyts says:

      Yeh, they accept it because it fits their world view. These people get very unhappy when someone suggests that we’re fine and not going to alter our climate.

  6. Jim Masterson says:

    . . . smoking causes lung cancer.

    First of all, I have to give credit where credit is due. Dr. Brignell runs the Number Watch web site. It was there that I learned about wrong numbers such as Relative Risk (RR).

    Most of this stems from the science of epidemiology. Epidemiology is one of those sciences where the designing and running of experiments requires exceptional care. A poorly designed experiment will not provide the correct data. Even with the correct data, a poorly selected statistical set will not provide the correct results. RR is one of those tools that has been misused almost continuously over the last few decades.

    Notice that the Wikipedia article states that an RR of greater than or smaller than one is significant. In the old days, most epidemiologists would require an RR of greater than 2.0 or smaller than 0.5 before there would be anything considered significant. One epidemiologist even claimed that he wouldn’t consider any RR less than 3.0 (or greater than 0.33) as valid.

    So what does an RR in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 give us? It makes foods like eggs bad then good. It makes butter bad then good too. It makes us all eat margarine to save our hearts, but then we find that margarine has been worse for us than butter–many times worse. There are many foods that the food-Nazis have been trying to take away from us. Using poorly designed epidemiology experiments and RRs in the noise range of 1.0 to 2.0 have given them the means.

    So what about smoking? Smoking isn’t very healthy–I admit that. It even seems that emphysema is entirely caused by smoking. If you don’t smoke–you don’t get it. However, the smoking-cancer link is different.

    The RR tying smoking to lung cancer is very high–between 20 and 25. That, of course, IS significant. But the paper proving the link doesn’t fare well on close examination. The statistical set isn’t as large as one would expect; there is data mining present (see Brignell’s site for definitions), and a host of other statistical problems. Also, there is usually only one or two papers referred to as showing conclusive proof. These same two papers are the only ones referenced. Ahhh, it must be settled science.

    I agree with Dr. Brignell, when he says, “It is not proven that smoking causes lung cancer, any more than fertiliser causes tomatoes.”

    What’s really fun is when the smoking-Nazis turned to second-hand smoke. Even the EPA enters the scene. They prove the dangers of second-hand smoke with an RR of 1.16 to 1.17! They’re claiming and increase risk of 16 to 17%. We know it’s nonsense (no one’s died of second-hand smoke). This doesn’t stop them from outlawing smoking in all public places, both privately owned and publicly owned.

    Do I like smoking? No. I gave it up decades ago. I hate smelling it. But lies are lies. Freedom is freedom.


  7. manicbeancounter says:

    There are other questions about this surveys reliability.
    1.The access to the survey. It was an internet based survey, with links posted on 8 “pro-science” blogs. Five skeptic blogs were approached but declined. As such, one would expect that “pro-science” responses would far outweigh “denialist” responses. I cannot find the split, but a small sample of skeptics would have rendered the results invalid.
    2. There should have been a record kept of abandoned survey results. The survey gets more dogmatic as it progresses, and becomes far longer than originally stated (74 questions, as against 40 in 10 minutes quoted at the outset). Moderate skeptics would have quickly abandoned the survey when they realised what was being inferred. Others, as the questions became more time consuming and “weird”.
    3. Not reported is the relationship between “climate denial” and genetically modified foods. Is the correlation the reverse? Nor is there any reporting of the section on climate change against conservative Christian religious views, or climate change against views on corporations. The survey only reported the most dogmatic results. Could it be that there is something relevant, but adverse to the desired conclusions here, or no relationship?
    4. There were also final questions on age and gender. Again, this should be reported.

    I have posted up the questions, The formatting when pasted into Word went adrift, but sufficiently readable to evaluate the neutrality of the questions for yourselves.

  8. Pingback: McIntyre Demonstrates Lewd’s Disingenuous Interpretation And Confirms Suyt’s Space Posit! | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s