Thursday, January 28, 2016

Lysenkoism in Nature's Comments

Well maybe "Lysenkoism" is too strong a word, but it's really irritating when the winner of the Lukewarmers Way's coveted Climate Blogger of the Year Award, Brad Keyes, has his comments deleted -- and they were really good pithy comments! They were in this Nature post by,...  by transparent charlatan, Stefan Lewandosky and someone else. Well, anyway, I made copies of the comments for myself,  so here's a (sort of) cleaned up list of Brad's comments:

Update:  Cleaned up spacing to make it more readable.

Brad Keys Comments in Nature Thread

Brad Keyes 2016-01-27 07:33 PM

The above article is a heinously antiscientific attempt to make excuses
for obscurantism, deletionism and Phil Jonesism ("Why should I make my
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong
with it?") Dear Lewandowsky and collaborator (whose name I've forgotten),
do yourselves a favor and wake up to the fact that THE MIDDLE AGES ARE
OVER. You can either be priests or scientists. Not both.


Brad Keyes 2016-01-27 07:14 PM

In Lewandowsky's psychedelic one-man mental cinema, that's where.


Brad Keyes 2016-01-27 07:25 PM

"Asking for a retraction is implicitly suggesting misconduct on the part
of the authors." Implicitly? Sigh. What's confusing you this time, Ken?
There's nothing "implicit" about it. Cook's study should be retracted
BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES MISCONDUCT. Was that explicit enough for you? That
you refuse to read the many freely-available explanations demonstrating,
clear as day, the misconduct involved in the writing of Cook's paper is
not Professor Tol's problem.

     <<< Marked as Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-27 07:10 PM

Research integrity probably also includes not suggesting that others are
not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just
because you can imagine these weird New Rules which conveniently help you
postpone your defeat in an argument, Ken, it doesn't follow that they
actually apply anywhere outside your cranium, in the material universe the
rest of us cohabit. Here's a New Rule you can take to the bank: when you,
Ken Rice, say something is "probably" true, we can safely deduce that it's
make-believe. But for amusement's sake, I wonder what you think of Michael
Mann's "research integrity"? I'm talking, in case you forgot, about the
guy who told Andy Revkin of the NY Times that McIntyre and McKitrick's
paper was "pure scientific fraud." I can't wait to see your next act of
cognitive escape-artistry as you contort your way out of admitting that
Mann just voided his "research integrity" under your New Rules.


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 04:00 AM

Aaaand there it is. Click bait. What an apt metaphor for your entire
"career" in the climate debate.


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:25 PM

While Lewandowsky and Bishop state they are all for open access and
transparency they are calling for the critic to be scrutinised in the same
way (with equal weight and intensity) as the scientists who publish. This
is a most puzzling statement. No, it makes perfect sense given
Lewandowsky's bad experiences with scrutiny. Put yourself in his shoes and
consider what tends to happen when the disinfectant of sunlight
illuminates his work.

     <<< Not Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:20 PM

<i>Research integrity probably also includes not suggesting that others
are not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.</i>
Sigh. Nothing could be less "probable" than that, Ken. I won't even ask
where you pulled this deus ex machina from. Research integrity REQUIRES
that researchers police untruthfulness in others if and when they come
across evidence of it. If you see something, say something.

     <<< Not Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:12 PM

It is questions that were raised about the blog survey study that
Lewandowsky characterized as being in 'bad faith' Certain climate
psychologists ought to worry less about our bad faith and more about their
bad science.

     <<< Not Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:42 PM

not because of its low quality, nor because of scientific misconduct
(there is none as far as I know) Richard, does this mean you're not
persuaded by José Duarte's reasoning that the paper is serially
fraudulent, as articulated here for example? (Or is fraud possible without

     <<< Not Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:30 PM

Glenn, How Science Works 101: Methodological criticisms stand and fall on
their own merits WITHOUT the slightest effort at replication. Replication
can at most call into question the "answer," not the "working." But I'm
sure you understood this, right? ;-)

     <<< Not Deleted >>>


Brad Keyes 2016-01-28 03:35 PM

Admittedly I haven't carried out an exhaustive search, but I really am
struggling to find them. Even Naomi Oreskes admits there is "plenty of
debate going on" in the literature between skeptics and believers. That
you can't find it is meaningless, doubly so when you haven't looked for

   <<< included link >>>

  <<< Not Deleted >>>



Note that there are more deleted comments than the two that the post shows as explicitly deleted. This sort of makes me think of how Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth omit the word "Peace" when they call themselves Nobel Prize winners.

List of Links:


  1. As usual, you're too generous to me.

    I was interested to see that this comment, at the Conversation, still survives (at 11 hours and counting):

    "I may have overmade my case there—I realise you weren’t actually accusing ‘deniers’ of laughing at your misfortune—but if you take people like John Cook and Lewandowsky seriously, with their glorified hate speech dressed up as scholarship, I almost expect you’d believe things like that. It’s complete crap, anyway. Just meretricious propaganda."

    1. I liked this comment of yours:


      “People might accept global warming is real,”

      I DO accept it’s real.

      “but how much do they accept what is happening”

      I fully accept what’s happening. I think. (But then, I would say that, wouldn’t I?) Am I missing something?

      “and the potential of what will happen?”

      You mean the potential of what COULD potentially happen.

      Which I also accept.

      But I’m still yawning because, frankly, the world has bigger problems.


  2. It's interesting that you mention

    "transparent charlatan, Stefan Lewandosky"

    Fun linguistics fact: that's the only sequence of four English words in which 'Lewandowsky' and 'transparent' can go together!

  3. proof of god's existence - or that a Universe has a sense of humour (anagrams)

    Stephan Lewandowsky = What Lysenko Spawned