Seeing such an innocuous comment from Richard Betts caught up in the Lewandowsky/Cook nonsense is good for some uproarious laughter here right now.....

I have to say that I can't spare any time or interest for Lew-crap right now, this all seems too absurd.

I did scan the data sheet to see if any comment of mine was swept up in their net, and I am laughing so hard at what 4th rate losers these clowns proved to be! This is pure unadulterated nonsense posing as pseudo-science.

The comment of mine they have merely notes that mathematician Kevin Judd was working closely with Lew (they were co-founders of the ShapingTomorrowsWorld propaganda blog) and they there was a connection with the SkS treehut clowns.

Let me see..... I noticed some propaganda garbage flowing from the Univ. of Western Australia, I wondered where such garbage originated, and I spent a few moments googling to find the responsible parties. This has now become some kind of "conspiracy ideation" of "Kevin Judd, Puppet Master"???

For the record, I have no idea if Kevin Judd is puppet master of even his own puling ideological incompetence, all I noted was that he was the other co-founder of the STW blog along with Lewspeak.

Lew calls this a "Kevin Judd Puppet Master" (conspiracy ideation, I suppose?)

Let's get clear, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, if you should gather more comments in your net: I don't think you are some grand conspiracy, I think you are inept nutters who have risen far beyond your "Peter Principle" levels of incompetence. I puzzle over how any university worthy of the name ever employed such charlatans. Chew on that for your next paper, guys.

p.s. Their link to my WUWT comment does not seem to work but I can't be bothered tracking down that thread or comment now. I do recognize it as my own comment.

http://wattsupwiththat.
com/2012/09/12/the-cooklewandowsky-
social-internetlink/#
comment-1077056

Comment by Skiphil

re: Kevin Judd, he definitely seems to be the other key
player along with Lewandowsky, and they are closely tied
to SkepticalScience

======================================================

note: the grandiosity of naming their blog "ShapingTomorrowsWorld" with such clowns opining on everything beyond their competence is extreme enough to render any criticism of it a "conspiracy ideation" -- i.e., if you criticize people with such gargantuan mega-maniacal aspirations as "shaping..... tomorrow's...... world......" you are by definition implying that they are in some kind of conspiracy to ..... shape...... tomorrow's ...... world.

Fortunately they seem to lack any of the competences of past revolutionaries etc.so they are unlikely to have any actual impact beyond irritating those of us slandered by them.

I hope someone is letting Richard Betts know that he has been sucked into the dark whirlpool of skeptic conspiracy ideation, merely for posting such an innocuous observation. I expect he will be hugely amused.

Despite my wish not to waste time with Lewandowsky & co., I have now looked up my quoted comment to review the context of that WUWT thread. If I decide to abandon my web anonymity I may well file a formal charge of scientific misconduct with the journal and the University of Western Australia, because I believe the representation of my comment in that study is egregiously dishonest, misleading, and inept.

For anyone wanting a fresh angle on the Lewandowsky/Cook fiascos, I think that the wrenching out of context of my one brief comment listed in the "Recursive Fury" SI is a clear example of academic and scientific incompetence (or worse) by Lewandowsky/Cook et al.

Sure, I responded to another's comment which noted Kevin Judd's involvement with this UWA-based war on climate doubt, but in that thread I laid out a series of SIX substantive comments which (although at times scornful of the UWA participants, to be sure) were based in facts and arguments about the potential for misuse of academic and scientific auspices for "propaganda" purposes.

Thus, Lewandowsky/Cook's treatment of one brief comment, I submit, is a clear instance of "punitive psychology" and scientific misconduct. Here is a brief overview of my comments, in case anyone cares to review how grossly misleading it is for Lewandowsky/Cook to present one comment ripped out of context as "Kevin Rudd, Puppet Master".

This dismissive approach to "conspiracy ideation" seeks to disparage and discredit those with critical views who engage in reasonable objections to any (alleged) inappropriate behavior by more than one academic or scientist. I.e., it is automatically suspect "conspiracy ideation" even to note various facts about the publicly proclaimed cooperative ventures of people one alleges may be engaging in academic or professional misconduct. There is no "conspiracy" alleged in my comments if "conspiracy" implies anything secret, or anything more than the very PUBLIC cooperative activities that the participants themselves are boasting of and publicizing.

======================================================================

"Climate podcasts by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Judd and other members of the UWA climate science group are licensed..."

Climate Science
In the media

The UWA climate group is reaching out to the public in several ways, including through brief radio broadcasts and opinion pieces in the local and national media.

Radio broadcasts

We broadcast short segments on climate science at fortnightly intervals on RTR FM 92.1 in Perth, as part of their Understorey environmental program on Wednesdays, 11.30 AM WAST.

Our broadcasts are also cross-posted on Skeptical Science, which allows listeners and readers to post comments.

Climate podcasts by Stephan Lewandowsky and Kevin Judd and other members of the UWA climate science group are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

[Skiphil]
Ryan, I think it’s about the purpose(s) of universities and whether any lines can and should be drawn between research and teaching about research vs. propaganda for a cause. Especially with publicly funded operations, taxpayers in any country have every right to monitor and be concerned about potential sectarian, activist, and/or propagandistic uses of their funds. We can be sure there would not be this kind of funding for the “freedom of speech” of “skeptical” bloggers, but it does appear that public funds have found their way to Lewsandowsky’s activist blog for “the cause” and also probably to John Cook and SkS to the extent they are providing support operations….. that is a legitimate public concern for taxpayers of that country. Other observers are free (our freedom of speech) to raise the matter, although of course we do not get a vote on the politicians who are enabling this specific instance.

The six "Skiphil" comments on that same thread:

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Comment 5

Comment 6

Consider what "conspiracist ideation" is supposed to be about according to the opening sentences of the "Recursive Fury" paper:

[emphasis added]

"Conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions. Conspiracist ideation generally refers to the propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations...."

But many of the examples Lew/Cook et al. are trying to work from discuss open, public evidence easily found (just a Google search away), not any allegation of a "secret plot." Much of the activity on the threads related to LOG12 aimed at trying to determine how Lewandowsky and friends could be so obviously biased, inept, and publicly committed to prejudicial research methods.

Lew/Cook et al..... malicious or merely incompetent??

How about both?