The only food that comes to mind when I think of you Poirot is eggplant -yuck!

Poirot, who do you identify with the most, Wallace or Gromit? I'm doing a Lewandowsky type survey of alarmists and want to, like Lewandowsky, just deal with the facts.

Anthony, you seriously are a chump. Lewandowsky is not an AGW scientist, he is a cognitive scientist. That means he has expertise in how people think, not in climate change. He may have an opinion on climate change, but unless he is willing to provide evidence in support of his opinion, I don’t really care what it is. I am interested in what he has to say about conspiracy theorists and how they come to that position, because his comments are informed by the research he has done.

I think you might need someone with a bit more expertise than Jo Nova to provide sustained and cogent criticism of Lewandowsky’s paper. Jo Nova has no particular expertise in cognitive behaviour, so unless she is willing to bring evidence to the table, I am not that interested in what she has to say. Sadly, all she brought was conspiracy theorising from climate change deniers.

As for Harrison Schmitt, it is really great that he has been on the moon, but that achievement provides him with no specific expertise in climate science. Neither does the fact that he is a retired geologist. Sadly, Harrison like yourself and Nova has been unable to address the evidence in any coherent and cogent fashion. “Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely [Soviet] communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” That seems to be the sum of his evidence that climate change is not happening.

So Anthony, I think I have to give you an F for this attempt. Please provide reliable evidence next time.

Geez Agro, even by your slipping standards, that was pretty dismal.

I wonder how Lewandowsky would apply his great cognitive insight into the mysteries of the human intellect and thought processes to the antics of the current government?

AGW science is nothing but advocacy so Lewandowsky who has resorted to advocacy of AGW can be judged on the same basis as other AGW scientists, which I now see includes pensioned off former military gentlemen.

Lewandowsky's study was not flawed, it was fake as the idea that the Moon landing was fake; it was fake because the responses it ostensibly got from sceptics were not real; they were not real because the sceptics who were ostensibly surveyed did not respond.

That's pretty basic, isn't Agro. And seriously, did you write this:

"I am interested in what he has to say about conspiracy theorists and how they come to that position, because his comments are informed by the research he has done."

Chumper

My attitude to AGW is quite simple;
Until the climate scientists use realistic fossil fuel quantities in
the models then they are in the GIGO realm.
(Garbage in Garbage Out)

The Uppsala Universities Global Energy Systems Group has done the work
so why do the AGW people ignore it ?

Until that is resolved you are wasting your time discussing AGW !

Anthony, if you want to disagree with the points I make, you really should contribute some proper evidence to back your statements. This is why you keep getting a failing grade.

So let’s take the issues one at a time. Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist: http://www.cogsciwa.com/

What Lewandowsky does or does not think about the current government has no bearing on him not being a climate scientist.

AGW is a scientific hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming with considerable evidence to support it, although not everyone agrees that it is correct.

The only material that you so far have presented that Lewandowsky’s study might be wrong is testimonials from climate change deniers. Unfortunately, these people have a habit of cherry picking numbers they like, ignoring evidence they don’t like, twisting evidence to make it seems like something it isn’t and when all else fails making stuff up. Do you remember that graph you posted with the fake yellow trend line showing no change? The one where the fake yellow trend line was subtly bent to make it look like it fitted the errors bars better? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784 That was one of your best efforts so far. I think we should give it a name: Faketrendlinegate might do for now, although Coxgate is shorter and more likely to catch on.

You see Anthony, the problem with these people is that their statements about climate change are untrustworthy – as this piece illustrates http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784. So there needs to be better quality evidence than these testimonials to show Lewandowsky’s study is fake.