More noise in Stephan Lewandowsky’s LewWorld. This time, Steve McIntyre finds a statement by Lewandowsky that effectively hoists him by his own petard. Apparently, data integrity only applied to others, not the inhabitants of LewWorld.
Steve writes:
Lewandowsky has stated that an online survey by an opponent was “useless” “without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data” and that their study “should not have been published without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data—I doubt that they could”. Words that apply even more forcibly to his own study. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
On Sep 27, 2010, about a month after the Lewandowsky survey was posted at several anti-skeptic blogs, John Cook posted the following at the private SkS forum entitled “Excerpt from Steve [Lewandowsky]‘s email”. At the time, Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray had just carried out an online survey. Lewandowsky complained that there was “no way to check or verify the integrity of the data” and therefore the data was probably “useless”. Lewandowsky said that the study should not have been published “without the authors demonstrating the integrity of their data”:
It is a real eye opener. I suggest taking it all in at Climate Audit.
====================================================
In other news…Warwick Hughes has this to say:
In May 2010 Professor Lewandowsky stated on the Australian ABC online The Drum – “The further fact that the satellite data yield precisely the same result without any surface-based thermometers is of no relevance to climate “sceptics.”
Just checkout the very real trend differences between satellites and surface that I found in April 2012. “You know how the warmists parrot on that “satellites agree with surface temperatures” – not any more – they should check the data.”
=============================================================
Simon at Austalian Climate Madness writes:
Lucia on Lewandowsky’s questions for the blogs
I particularly like this bit in Lucia’s post in response to Lewandowsky’s third question:
3. Where do we go from here?
We read the contents of the invitations, note the dates and request copies of the other invitations and compare them. This will provide data to determine whether the method of inviting people was designed to introduce bias.
Precisely what the FOI will show. The University have advised that a decision will be made on 18 October 2012.
=============================================================
And Jeff takes Lewandowsky to task over a citation
Posted by Jeff Condon on September 11, 2012
I have avoided critique of Lewandowsky’s paper because I am still awaiting a reply from Lewandowsky on my demand for removal of a false citation. He has agreed in part that the citation was inaccurate but due to some minor sophistry in his reply there is delay in finalizing the issue.
It seems that his attention is now focused on the basic errors in his methodology, which apparently could have been picked up by anyone with even the most rudimentary skills in the field. Odd that in this case his the lack of addressing of the basic sampling problems of an on-line study, singularly biases the study toward a more positive conclusion that skeptics are conspiracy nutters … right?
It has gotten so bad that he has taken to snipping Steve McIntyre’s very reasonable questions at the Lewandowsky “science” blog.
Who would have guessed.
I have been at this for 4 years now and I think we have the cycle down. Why don’t the extremists ever learn how to handle questions?
