Wednesday, August 29, 2012 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Moonlanding was staged, 74% of climate alarmists say

Update: poll results

You may still vote but analogously to the Lewandowsky poll, I decided that a sufficient number of votes have been submitted and we may reveal the final results:

You see that out of the 219 votes, 84% of the people are climate skeptics. Among the climate skeptics, 3% are conspiracy theorists. Among the people alarmed by climate change, 74% are conspiracy theorists. ;-)

You get the point, don't you?

Just to be sure, I am not saying that the results of this "poll" should be taken seriously. And I hope you realize what's the main reason they shouldn't. However, I surely do claim that the "poll" by Lewandowsky et al. was exactly as "serious" as this one.

Off-topic, breaking news: TRF is getting hundreds of hits from to this 2010 TRF article on the elixir of youth, well, a fraudulent Harvard stem cell research claiming to have found one. Ms Shane Mayack was finally found guilty of misconduct today:, Nature News
Original article posted 15 hours ago:

Where can you find out whether climate skeptics are conspiracy theorists?
A poll is included in this blog entry

A blog at the Guardian and many other sources have promoted a "research paper" by an Australian professorial fellow (whatever it means) called Stephan Lewandowsky (plus co-authors, Dr Cignac and Dr Oberauer) and named
NASA faked the moon landing  — Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:

Motivated rejection of science (PDF full, in press, Psychological Science)
in which the authors inform us about their "scientifically sounding" poll of 1,100 people that has "established" a strong correlation between climate skepticism and conspiracy theories such as
  1. "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" and 
  2. "moonlanding was shot in Nevada" and 
  3. "Martin Luther King was killed by CIA" and 
  4. "[first-hand] smoking doesn't increase the odds for cancer" and
  5. "the U.S. government was behind 9/11",
aside from many others. Mr Lewandowsky has "therefore" explained the existence of these conspiracy theories by the belief in free markets (no kidding) and reclassified climate skepticism as the newest conspiracy theory.

If it's not a strong enough cup of tea for you yet, you must look at an "additional detail" that was pointed to me in an e-mail from Joanne Nova, see also her blog:
Lewandowsky – Shows “skeptics” are nutters by asking alarmists to fill out survey
The question is: Where did Mr Lewandowsky et al. find the conspiracy believers that were so important for them to establish the correlation with climate skepticism? The shocking answer is that while those 1,100 participants were visitors of blogs, none of the skeptical blogs you know – Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, Joanne Nova, your humble correspondent, Tom Nelson, CarbonSense, GWPF, and others – have participated in the "scientific survey".

Instead, the blogs exploited in this "scientific survey" were hardcore lunatic alarmist blogs such as Deltoid, Grant Tamino Foster, Scott Mandia, and 3-5 others. To find out whether climate skeptics are paranoid, Mr Lewandowsky asked the visitors of the alarmist blogs whether they are paranoid! ;-)

I mean: Why would anyone even pay any attention to such "scientific polls" which are clearly not scientific? To show what I mean, let me include a poll here, too. You are kindly asked to decide whether you are a climate skeptic or not; and count how many "conspiracy theories" above you believe. And you should participate in a poll.

The poll could measure individual correlation coefficients between individual conspiracy theories and individual tenets of the global warming doctrine as well but my point is that even the overall correlation coefficient is untrustworthy so you will only be asked whether you believe in a majority of the 5 conspiracy theories above or not. Consequently, you must include yourself into one of the four groups. Here is the poll:

Are you a skeptic and/or conspiracy theorist?
  free polls 

If you need the URL for this poll only, try this one.

Just like in the original experiment, I may assure you that police won't investigate you whether your answers are accurate. BTW if TRF were a pure climate (skeptical) blog, I would know what the results would approximately look like. But because there are clearly non-paranoid alarmist visitors to this blog, I am not so sure! ;-)

Incidentally, the term "conspiracy theory" is somewhat vague. It's a label that is usually used to dismiss a hypothesis. But some hypothesis that some people call "conspiracy theories" may still turn to be right. Just to be sure, I don't believe any of the "conspiracy theories" in Lewandowski's paper. One could be more inclusive and count the disbelief in cosmic inflation or string theory as conspiracy theories, too. It's of course a matter of definition; whether something is included as a conspiracy theory doesn't prove that the content must be right or wrong.

BTW I realize that there are people in all the four categories. I also think that the belief in a staged moonlanding is a much better criterion of insanity than the climate panir or climate skepticism. Because the folks who matter are those who don't believe that moonlanding is staged, it is pure demagogy to link non-paranoid climate skeptics to the paranoid climate skeptics, much like it would be pure demagogy to link non-paranoid alarmists to the paranoid ones.

A funny addition.

Willie Soon has brought my attention to a 2009 letter to the editor that he and five co-authors sent as a reply to claims that climate skepticism is analogous to the belief that the moonlanding was staged. They make the case that there's no consensus about the dangerous man-made climate change and mention this beautiful "detail":
One of us, Dr. Harrison Schmitt, actually stood on the moon, drilled holes, collected moon rocks and has since returned to Earth. Man’s landing on the moon is real.
Now, the only way for the climate alarmists to question the credentials of Dr Schmitt et al. to discuss whether climate skepticism is on par with the moonlanding conspiracy theories is to say: But Mr Schmitt, you're a denier so your trip to the Moon was just a video trick orchestrated and paid by the Big Oil industry. ;-) We only trust real NASA experts such as Mr James Hansen who are really living on the Moon.

The alarmists are saying very similar things – preposterous, manifestly indefensible, ideologically motivated ad hominem attacks on inconvenient people – all the time.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (21) :

reader Shannon said...

What a blatant use of amalgam ! These alarmist guys are trying to use diversion to elude their mistakes. And they think people will see only the fire ?
On the picture why is the guy wearing a beekeeper outfit ? :-)

reader Luboš Motl said...

At this moment in our poll, about 66% of climate alarmists and 2% of climate skeptics are conspiracy theorists. ;-)

Why beekeeper outfit? Because the Moon is probably full of bees. Well, at least in many cases, one can't avoid noticing that "bee" of BackReaction must be living on the Moon.

reader jeff id said...

Interestingly, that article accused me of denying the temperature record while comparing me directly to conspiracy theorists. It incorrectly cited a noconsensus article where I complained about lack of data access as me not believing in the data.

I am considering a demand for retraction based on research fraud and libel.

reader Luboš Motl said...

That's awful, Jeff. Truth to be said, I think that no one will get this deeply to that rubbish paper so if I were a judge, it would be hard to argue that they have damaged you too much. But in principle, I tend to think it is a libel.

Read e.g. this

on the Australian defamation laws... Good luck.

reader xamel said...

I must apologize for one of those 2 votes, I probably need stronger glasses, as I thought that I'm choosing option with minority of conspiracy theories, and it turned out I'm full time conspiracy theorist. Mea culpa.

reader Russell Cook said...

One other thing about the Lewandowsky paper: Who does he rely on for his references? Why, none other than the usual suspects seen in similar papers analyzing the motivations of 'deniers' - Boykoff, Dunlap, Freudenburg, Lahsen, McCright, Mooney, Oreskes, Schneider. Each in turn cites a single source in their own writings to say skeptic climate scientists are paid by 'big coal & oil' to manufacture doubt about global warming: anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. No need to trust me on this, you may look it up for yourselves.

Gelbspan, meanwhile, seems to have every appearance of being the grand master of efforts to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists.

Folks can analyze 'deniers' motivations all they want to, but when a cornerstone premise within all of these papers - that skeptic scientists are corrupt - is literally unsupportable, then 'poof' goes every bit of that analysis.

reader Tom Trevor said...

I can't take the poll because I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories, that is less than a minority.

reader papertiger0 said...

that poll is manipulative. Same thing I get from all of the alarmist sites. Herding me toward this or that. And instead of talking about it, they say "Hurry, hurry, or it's the end of all life on Earth!"

Are we living in a bad Star Trek movie all of a sudden?

reader chrispy said...

I'm disappointed so many people voted honestly. If we all pick the second option that would "prove" climate alarmists are all conspiracy theorists.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear paper tiger, that was the very point of the poll to be manipulative. Didn't you understand it from the beginning?

And you seem to have completely missed the *main* trick behind the poll: that the alarmist or skeptical activist visitors may pretend to belong to the opposite climate camp and answer the poll while saying that they believe conspiracy theories.

*This* is the main reason why my poll could have "proven" that 3/4 of climate alarmists are conspiracy theories (while it's only 1/30 among climate skeptics); and why the Lewandowski shitty paper "proved" that climate skeptics are more likely to be conspiracy theory believers.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Chrispy, the poll shows (now) that 74% of alarmists believe in most of these conspiracy theories. I think it's still enough because 74% is a majority so this majority may declare a consensus, debate is over, and include "Moonlanding was staged" among the mandatory propositions that a politically correct person who cares about the planet has to believe. ;-)

reader Jeff Condon said...


I spoke with some friends on the matter and it might be interesting to see their response to a properly formatted complaint.

I just need to find the time now.

reader Luke Lea said...

"The alarmists are saying very similar things – preposterous, manifestly indefensible, ideologically motivated ad hominem attacks on inconvenient people – all the time."

Sounds like they are adopting Hitler's big lie strategy: publish a mind-staggering untruth and repeat it over and over and over again.

reader papertiger0 said...

Certainly, I understand the aim of the poll. My comment is mostly to point out that Lewandowski left out two choices,
I am an alarmist and I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories. and, I am a skeptic and I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories.

This paper makes for a handy indictment of the peer review process handed down as tried and verified stainless truth.

It could be used as a bait for the climate liars.

Let's take a survey about climate alarmists, asking only climate skeptics about alarmist opinions then submit our "findings" to the "prestigious" Psychological Science. See how long it takes them to shout it down, and for what reasons.

reader anonymous said...

Lubos, this poll just shows that most of the sane people ignore your blog and/or your poll. In your position I would be alarmed by the fact that 14% of your readers are completely nuts, or - perhaps more probable - that they would swindle in a poll to "prove" a point.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Even if you believed that the answers in the poll genuinely reflect what the visitors think, the poll results would show that 82% of the TRF readers are completely sensible when it comes both to climate and conspiracy theories; additional 2% TRF readers are reasonable when it comes to the climate, and additional 4% are reasonable when it comes to conspiracy theories.

At any rate, a vast majority (82%) of the TRF readers would be declared sensible on both counts by this poll.

Moreover, the actual percentage is higher because most of the respondents who claimed to believe in conspiracy theories were faking their opinions to hurt the other side of the climate debate. Most of the 12% who answered to be paranoid climate alarmists are non-paranoid climate skeptics who wanted to have fun in seeing that most climate alarmists are loons. In the same way, most of the 2% of the respondents who answered that they were paranoid climate skeptics were actually climate alarmists who wanted to hurt the image of climate skeptics in a symmetric fashion.

I am not "concerned" that dozens of percent of participants have swindled the poll. It was inevitable and the same thing was true in the Lewandowski poll. It was the very point of this poll game that results of similar polls shouldn't be paid any attention to, especially if the participants are collected among visitors of "one type of climate websites" only.

Of course, we could say that this ability to "prove" that most climate alarmists believe that the moonlanding was staged etc. shows that *all* ad hominem attacks against the skeptics we read about the climate skeptics are just atrociously unscientific Goebbels-style propaganda.

reader anonymous said...

Hi Lubos,

I was referring to the 12%+2%=14% of people that answered that they believe in the majority of conspiracy theories. You think that this is close to the real figure? Of course not. What I deduce from this is that conspiracy lunatics are over-represented in you poll and/or many of the people that claimed to believe in conspiracies actually don't and just marked it to hurt the other side. Either way it's not very flattering.

That's all what I am saying ... So I guess we agree that internet polls are completely pointless and that the claim in the title is by no means supported.

Now you can sue me ...

And BTW, I am no asshole (I think) ...

reader Luboš Motl said...

I have already answered your idiotic question so why are you asking again? Are you so slow or just an obnoxious repetitive asshole?

Clearly, by construction, almost all or all of the 14% people who answered that they believed conspiracy theories were people concerned with the climate trying to hurt the image of the other climate camp.

reader anonymous said...

Dear Lubos,

Thank yu for your anser. Actually, I don't know what this "ad hominem" thing is. Perhapps you could post a link?

reader Rehbock said...

Anonymous, you take both yourself and sanity too seriously. You also don't appreciate that being nuts is not necessarily correlated to intelligence.
I do believe that high iq and reading this blog are likely correlated. So is a willingness to challenge the conventional beliefs especially ones own.
Perhaps many start skeptical but end up believing there is a conspiracy because what is published as fact and proven science etc is so obviously false they come to think others must be able to see the same thing.
I believe one should never be too sure of what one thinks is. Studying his posts i find many of my prior beliefs have been overturned by better analysis. Many who follow him, and perhaps even he on occasion, may see collusion, conspiracy or malice where there is in fact merely ignorance and stupidity. I have come to believe him correct on "climate science" . Science is not a democracy and neither does it matter whether more or fewer think themselves right. I think Dr. Motl has no need to have me point out the problems with your post. But I did want to. This old left spin lawyer thinks he knows enough science politics and law to be much less alarmed about the sanity of those who read dr.motl than the ignorance of those who don't think about what he writes.
Of course I could be wrong....

reader Casper said...

Loondowsky has shot himself in the foot. Since only idiots believe in the mainstream political narrative, his poll proves once again that climate skeptics are more intelligent than believers.