Very weak Agro:

"Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist"

Flannery is a palaeontologist not a climate scientist.

Steffen is a chemical engineer not a climate scientist.

Etc; a host of 'climate scientists' have deviated from their original training and expertise to subsequently specialise in climate science.

As I explained, and which you ignore, is that the defining characteristic of a climate scientist is primarily advocacy; to which you can add, modelling, data manipulation, noble cause corruption and implacable devotion to the concept of AGW.

By this definition Lewandowsky is a climate scientist.

You then play the men/women who have criticised Lewandowsky's 'paper' without considering one of those criticisms except to say the sceptics who say they did not respond to Lewandowsky's survey were 'lying'; you are with the pixies mate; do you really think people like Jo Nova, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts believe the Moon landing is fake?!

It is plain that no sceptics did Lewandowsky's survey; McIntyre does the analysis step by step:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/

This analysis has nothing to do with testimonials.

In other words Lewandowsky made it up; that's a charge of academic fraud; it has not been addressed; coincidentally Lewandowsky has left the country; what a schmozzle; and this guy is an expert on human behaviour and mentality.

Agro, you're defending the indefensible; business as usual.

cohenite,

That's a bit cheesy.

You know all too well that "climate science" encompasses many disciplines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

...of which cognitive science is not included.

He's merely studying the psychology of denial (a related subject:)

Poirot; like Agro you miss the point which is Lewandowsky endorses and slavishly and aggressively supports AGW; his academic credentials give his support credibility. He uses those academic credentials to vouchsafe those who support AGW and to vociferously denounce those who don't.

Lewandowsky's role in promoting AGW is essential and correlates with the consensus and authority arguments to support AGW. The promotion of AGW is done by exclusion and the defining of sceptics as outsiders and inadequate in their capacity to argue against the received wisdom of climate science.

Lewandowsky is on the same page as all the other agitators for AGW like Karoly, Steffen and Flannery; he is a climate scientist for this reason.

cohenite,

Yes, it's extremely remiss of Lewandowsky to be guided by actual scientists on the question of climate change.

One wonders why he doesn't take more notice of the myriad non-scientific commentators and their "expertise" on the subject.

Strange old world.

I would describe a climate scientist as someone with research expertise in one of the disciplines associated with climate research and who has published on the topic in the mainstream climate science journals. However, in Anthony Cox’s world a climate scientist is someone who promotes an idea that Anthony does not agree with. We have ourselves a rabbit hole here, ladies and gentlemen.

In this strange world that Anthony Cox inhabits, an e-mail exchange about a webpage suddenly becomes an analysis and proof a study was faked.

Because Anthony Cox doesn’t think that Jo Nova, Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts believe the moon landings were faked, this becomes proof that no skeptic (this means climate change denier in the normal universe) could possibly believe the moon landings were faked. Perhaps the above is the full list of climate change deniers that Anthony Cox knows.

I am encouraged to create a list of greatest hits from Anthony Cox. I think the climate scientist definition will certainly make it, along with faketrendlinegate.

"I would describe a climate scientist as someone with research expertise in one of the disciplines associated with climate research and who has published on the topic in the mainstream climate science journals"

I agree; the point I make again since, I presume, you are deliberately ignoring it and are not stupid, is that the primary discipline [sic] associated with "climate research" is advocacy and denigration of sceptics.

Lewandowsky excels at this; he is not just a climate scientist but an exemplar, a first amongst equals, as it were.

"However, in Anthony Cox’s world a climate scientist is someone who promotes an idea that Anthony does not agree with."

This, however, is quite wrong; you, Agro, for instance promote AGW and I don't consider you a climate scientist.

And really, if you are going to misrepresent the analysis of Lewandowsky's survey by McIntyre can you do better than a "e-mail exchange about a webpage."

Lewandowsky's 2 papers [the second being the ironically titled "Recursive Fury"] based on his survey of sceptic comments go to the heart of the scientific process because the issue is not how Lewandowsky treated his data but whether he had any data at all. Geoff Chambers has a good summary here:

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/lewandowsky-the-liar/

And Jeff Condon had to resort to the threat of litigation to get Lewandowsky to remove a false citation:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/?s=Lewandowsky

This is not science of any sort; at best it is agitprop; and in this respect and for this reason Lewandowsky is a climate scientist.

For a real climate scientist's take on the current state of play of climate science see von Storch:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html