Trevor's logic is failing him again.In this case, it seems, non-experts can make a useful contribution because the science is minimal. Some of us have been saying this about climate science for some time. However, if you are a better statistician than Lewandowsky and Oreskes then you are not qualified to even comment on climate papers never mind co-author one. Think: McIntyre and Wegman, for instance.
Yet again, it comes down to who is on message and who is not. Say the right things and you become qualified; say the wrong things and you aren't. How can you take seriously anyone who reasons like that?
To take one of Trevor's quotes: "The paper amounts to nothing more than an evaluation of models, no research was involved, little knowledge of climate systems would even be required, just the ability to evaluate and compare data. Any mathematician, statistician or numerate person could do this."
If you replace "models" with "data" would that not also describe the famous hockey stick paper: MBH1998? Did Mann, Bradley and Hughes really scour the globe and collect tree ring data or was it just a question of putting someone else's data into a computer and seeing what they could make?
Lewandowsky is a psychologist who specialises in the beliefs of conspiracy theorists and the rejection of science. If anyone is qualified and experienced enough to speak on such a matter then I guess he is.
Of course, being an expert in his field means he dismisses climate change skepticism and this has the skeptics worried. Science has already chewed up the skeptics and spat them out, now increasingly they’re becoming the focus of psychologists as well.
Once again the skeptics are getting hammered as numerous reports have shown that climate change skepticism isn’t to do with science, it’s to do with politics and psychosis. But we knew that all along and have been saying it for years, the psychologists are only confirming this.
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS (1)
I understand the question perfectly, I also understand that the skeptics are already worried by this report.
This is NOT a technical paper, it is an assessment of selected climate models – namely those that incorporate natural variability. Any reasonably intelligent person could conduct such an assessment.
Both Lewandowsky and Oreskes are contributing authors. The Lead author is Dr James Risbey, who is a synoptic climatologist who specialises in climate models. The team therefore has a qualified and experienced leader to oversee the analysis and as such I have no objection as to who assists.
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS (2)
Lewandowsky didn’t write a paper on ENSO and climate change. If that’s what certain skeptics are saying then it’s yet more lies. Please read the paper itself instead of relying on second hand news. You can access the first page here, for free, from ReadCube (if you want the full report it’s ￡22.00):*
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038...
The paper amounts to nothing more than an evaluation of models, no research was involved, little knowledge of climate systems would even be required, just the ability to evaluate and compare data. Any mathematician, statistician or numerate person could do this.
PS – I never called anyone a denier (it’s not a term I use) and I never said “deniers” were conspiracy theorists. You’re inventing things that don’t exist in reality. Why do skeptics constantly do this?
* I have ReadCube installed on my computer but I think you can still get the first page without installing it, if not the abstract is here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v...
@Trevor... Do you even understand the question? Crazy Lew is a PSYCHOLOGIST. The paper is about ENSO and CLIMATE CHANGE.
@Trevor... So you're saying that him being an "expert" in PSYCHOLOGY gives him qualification and experience to write a paper on ENSO and CLIMATE CHANGE?
That's not really a question since you actually did say that.
"Lewandowsky is a psychologist who specialises in the beliefs of conspiracy theorists and the rejection of science. If anyone is qualified and experienced enough to speak on such a matter then I guess he is."
And you're defence of that argument is claiming that it is not a technical paper?
Really?
Dude just admit it. You either didn't read the question or just misunderstood it. You're main reaction was just to spout off how "deniers" don't understand science, they're conspiracy theorists, yada, yada, yada...
Its all part of the stupidity that is occurring. Trevor pretends that skeptics have been chewed up and spit out. Let's be perfectly clear here. 95% of your models are overestimating. In any other field you know very well that 70% in one direction or another would be ample cause for concern that bias is occurring. Further, anyone who says that your estimations are biased are viewed as "skeptics" and/or deniers.
If I say that we will only see 1.2-1.5 degrees of warming by 2100 and that we will see little to no warming for the next 15-20 years, people like Trevor know very well that my predictions are more likely to be true than that of the IPCC. He knows very well that the hugely overparameterized models may help with understanding the climate, but they are not nearly as useful for predictions.
At the same time, he knows that the other group of people that yell about a climate apocalypse and the end of humanity are as far away from the IPCC reports as the most ardent "denier" is.
So some liberal wants to make a name for himself while making psychology even more of a pseudo-science than it already is. He stupidly singles out one group to write about and makes assinine claims, while ignoring the crazies that think the world is ending.
And what of those alarmists that pretend the world is ending. Do they have their own conspiracy theories about the Koch brothers running everything and seemingly brainwashing the masses??? You bet they do.
So it may be that the climate "scientists" have chewed up and spit out my view. It may be that their analysis is more in-depth, than I can manage working in another field. BUT, there is one inherent, persistent and nagging problem. My view is simply closer to realty. If you take the models that are currently on point with the temps and they are right on point with what I am saying. They don't meet the IPCC stance and they sure as crap do not meet the standard of those idiots screaming about killling the earth or the end of humanity.
The truth is that this psychologist uses psychobabble to insult those who have differing views than he hold. This is already a known logical fallacy.
Everything Crazy Lew says in the video has been repeated here numerous times by Deniers. But, you are right about one thing - it does not take a genius psychologist to know that Deniers are fearful, paranoid ideologues prone to a belief in stupid conspiracy theories.
Any person, even you and I should be able to publish a paper on any subject, and it should stand and fall on its merits only.
Saying that the stuff I have read from Lewandowsky has had little merit.
Your referencing wuwt shows your mindset. Keep making stuff up if that makes you happy. It's really pathetic really
For those that don't know, Crazy Lew is a third rate psychologist who can't stand CAGW skeptics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wVfxoPqPA
I know Climatology is a fringe science but I'm not sure how he would be qualified to write a paper on this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/20/lewandowsky-and-oreskes-are-co-authors-of-a-paper-about-enso-climate-models-and-sea-surface-temperature-trends-go-figure/
