"The strange case of psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky shines a light on the climate change industry."

Yes. Lewandowsky's totally biased research throws a light on what has been happening in climate research for a long time.

What's really worrying is that the climate researchers have gone out of their way to defend this work. That shows how corrupt the whole climate science research community has become.

Another day another flat earth story on OLO.

Bilge from beginning to end.
What I find particularly offensive is the way brainless partisans like this call themselves "sceptics"--an honorable position minimifidianists no nothing about.
That's all the comment this article deserves.

A great article which wittily captures the pompous and oppressive, pseudo scientific claptrap of AGW 'psychology'.

This paper reveals that AGW science is run by arrogant sophists whose disdain for those who disagree with them and the general populace is palpable.

The paper by Lewandowsky is a disgrace and reveals only his psychology.

A sober and much needed look at some of the AGW cheerleading which is being palmed off as research.

Lewandowsky’s survey reminds me of some employment psychological tests which narrowly determine that if monkey gives response a), then monkey can only belong to category 1) which can only make him a psychopath ,or worse, a “minimifidianists”.
All more befitting of a glossy pop magazine than academia.

"Another day another flat earth story on OLO."

Kenny, Yes it is hilarious, eh? I haven't been here for months and nothing has changed, it's Groundhog Day on OLO. I am dissapointed in Kile though. It seems he has been to uni but apparently graduated despite failing to understand the scientific method.

Or perhaps he is deliberately 'lying'- there is a lot of it going around - when he says "The researchers – led by Lewandowsky – also claim discovery of a new causal relationship:" Kile says that the authors claim discovery of a new causal relationship but then in the next sentence he cites the author - and 10 points to Kile for doing this because it is standard practice in science. But the authors actually claimed not to have discovered anything but to have found evidence for their hypothesis that one thing was "an overwhelmingly strong determinant" of another thing.

Kile seems to think that "causal" and "strongly determined by" are equivalent; that they mean the same thing. Kile presumes. He says that in cognitive psychology's lexicon, "strong determinant" presumably implies causation. What makes Kile qualified to presume this when the dictionary meaning of these terms is quite different?

Where do I go to find this cognitive pyschology's lexicon that Kile uses? What arrant nonsense!

It seems that Kile has some academic qualifications but he has presented in them in a non-academic form - perhaps he just likes to be an individual and have freedom and that is he why he chooses not to follow the 'rules' of science. It does make it difficult to check up on his publication record.

Anyhoo, we all know that having been to uni doesn't mean you understand how to do science so pffft to Kile. He's got nothin'.

But I'll link you to an interesting article about misunderstanding statistics
http://johnquiggin.com/2012/10/19/statistical-significance/