Lv 4
Ian asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 7 years ago

Does it bother alarmists that Lewandowsky lied?


Frontiers finally gave an exact and clear reason why his paper was retracted. They also stated quite clearly that they received no threats of any legal action. NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

Of course crazy Lew and his pal John Cook claimed the paper was pulled because of legal threats even though they knew this was not the case at all.


I know Lewandowsky is a third rate psychologist and not a climatologist but I am wondering if it bothers any alarmist that he lied.

I find it more troubling that crazy Lew, whose shoddy paper should never have been published in the first place,was able to get it published. I think the peer review process needs a complete overhaul.


Youtube thumbnail


@Baccheus... "but you are flatly wrong about the legal threats"

Ah, so when Frontiers itself says they received no threats they are actually lying? Why would the journal itself lie about receiving legal threats? Is this some type of conspiracy?


Update 2:

@Jeff M... "The author, also, did not `lie`."

So just because there were no legal threats and that crazy Lew said the paper was retracted because Frontiers caved into legal threats does not make him a liar? I guess to an alarmist like yourself it doesn't. That's why you had no problems claiming Stanley Park is usually covered in snow in mid January. Even though it's not, to you it wasn't a lie because you were championing the cause of fighting man made climate change.

Update 3:

@ Gary F... "Another Denier conclusion based on what they want want to believe - not evidence (" NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH") - what a surprise. ."

Well yeah... beside the FACT that Frontier said they received no legal threats http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recu...

and crazy Lew does


Yeah, besides THAT EVIDENCE I guess there is none.

FACTS: The nemesis of alarmists.

Update 4:

@pegminer... I also complain about politicians but I've never been a politician. I also think several bankers should have been charged with fraud for the 2008 economic collapse but I've never been a banker either. I'm in favor of homosexual marriage and I'm straight (okay maybe if Matt Damon asked... maybe...).

Yes, I'm my opinion the peer review process is flawed and I have never submitted a paper for peer review.

Update 5:

@Jeff M..."And I never stated 'Stanley Park is covered in snow in mid January." What I did state was that average temperatures for January were above normal,"

"I went for a walk along the seawall today in a t-shirt and jeans. Some there were even shirtless. Usually, during this time of year, it's snowy and below freezing in the part of Canada I am"


EVIDENCE: The nemesis of alarmists.

8 Answers

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Ha! Ha! Crazy Jeff M is asking for an explanation on how he lied when you clarified it several times. These fellows can't see the forest for the trees.

    Then crazy Jeff states, "Of course a denier such as yourself is use to lying aren't they?" Jeff is use to lying himself. He goes off his nut at trying to defend liars and at the same time calls honest forthright people liars and thinks he is sane at the same time. He claims that scientists never pushed for an Ice Age and when he is shown several facts that prove that, he asks for even more proof. When it is shown that his guru H. H. Lamb was a big pusher for an imminent Ice Age, he merely shrugs it off and asks for more proof.

    No it doesn't bother the greenies that Lewey lied. The greenies thrive on lies and deception as we have PROVEN on this site many times.

    The theory of the Big Lie was succinctly expounded by Adolf Hitler, an acknowledged master of the genre. Here is what Der Führer wrote in vol. I, Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf (in James Murphy' translation):

    "...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

    Then you have people like Life Experience who admittedly go with numbers of articles. Little does this person know that a lie has to be repeated and in the case of AGW and Climate Change this is so. He is being manipulate by the press, not true scientists.

    Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

    Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

    Life Experience opens his answer by this statement, "I've been focused on solutions to global warming for decades, but I've only been interested in the science and never really paid attention to the politics."

    Ha! Ha! Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    Life has just admitted that he 'focus' on phoney science and goes by the number of articles for or against and calls that 'science'.

  • 7 years ago

    I've been focused on solutions to global warming for decades, but I've only been interested in the science and never really paid attention to the politics. I wasn't even that aware of the IPCC. Lately I've been hearing more and more from people who pass off anthropogenic global warming as a political stunt so I've decided to look into it a little more. It has been quite a shock to me to see people parading out less than a handful of supposed fraudulent papers and claims and toting them as a catastrophic failure of climate science.

    I had never heard of these names before but man, they are all over the Internet wherever there is someone denying global warming. "Where was I?" I ask myself. Why haven't I heard of these people? So I research them and find out there was no fraud. It was all a misrepresentation. Then I realize "no wonder I've never heard of these people. There's an ocean of climate change science and deniers are grasping at the one or two incidentals they think makes their point."

    So no, I haven't even heard of Lewandowsky. I'm not interested in the politics of climate change.. only the sea of evidence.

    As for climate change scientists being alarmists, well there was a study that searched for peer reviewed papers with the key words 'climate change' and 'global warming' for the year 2013. The researcher found 10 884 papers. Only two did not support man-made global warming. That is sure a lot of alarmists who support anthropogenic global warming -- virtually everybody involved. If there is valid evidence that opposes this, where is it?

  • 7 years ago

    I agree that the methodologies in the paper were surprisingly squishy, but you are flatly wrong about the legal threats. I have read some of the emails that were released under FOI; apparently you have not and you are ranting about something you don't know.

    But mostly I am surprised by the denier anguish over the conclusions. Of course deniers are prone to believe in conspiracies. You either believe what all scientists say (see the National Academy of Science and The Royal Society) or you believe that all of science, academia, publishing, government and modern-energy private enterprise are in one massive conspiracy or you understand the climate change is a real risk. Climate Change deniers believe in a massive conspiracy by definition.

  • 7 years ago

    Lewandowsky is someone I only hear about in denier questions.

    Your statement "I think the peer review process needs a complete overhaul." makes me curious. Have you ever published a paper in a journal, either with or without peer review? I hear lots of people that know nothing about peer review complain about it. I also think a lot more people complain about it than offer useful suggestions on how to overhaul it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I think it`s very apparent in here that AGW `denial`is linked directly to conspiracy theories. The author, also, did not `lie`. The study, which was retracted, was due to legal reasons. Namely that the responders did not give consent to be used in the study with their names published. If you do not thihnk that the author lied, which in my opinion he did not but it matters what your definition of lie is, does that mean this post is a lie in itself?

    There are many people in here that believe scientists in the world, and the peer review process itself, as well as almost every scientific organization in the world is under some form of control regarding their scientific statements. You are even one of them. You think that global temperature measurements have been unneedly adjusted to increase temperatures and so on. You may even believe that it is not warming or it is cooling. In your opinion does this constitute a conspiracy theory?

    Others, including maybe you, think the ozone hole is government propaganda, fluoridation is, acid rain, chem trails, and so on. Where does it end? Anyone who doesn't think that most 'deniers', or those who think scientists are fixing data to make a profit, are conspiracy theorists chances are they are conspiracy theorists themselves.

    Edit: Please explain how they lied. In your own articles you posted it states just as I did. this does not constitute a lie. Of course a denier such as yourself is use to lying aren't they? And I never stated 'Stanley Park is covered in snow in mid January." What I did state was that average temperatures for January were above normal, which they were, as a response to your statements, and others, that it is cold this winter as a way of showing the heat has merely been redistributed. You took that and claimed that I said there was usually ten feet of snow in mid January.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Have you ever taken a pjysics or atmospheric science course?

    Wuwt exagerates, lies or hides critical details.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Another Denier conclusion based on what they want want to believe - not evidence (" NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH") - what a surprise. .

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    And I should believe liars like you and Watts, Why?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.