Lewandowsky's EGO.

Lewandowsky’s EGO.

by Anthony Cox
Stephan Lewandowsky is at the very top of the academic pile; he is an exemplar; he has more degrees and awards than Speed Gordon.

In terms of the accepted standards of intelligence he is smart. How then can such a smart man be so stupid?

Lewandowsky supports AGW. AGW is a failed theory; that is beyond doubt.

As well as supporting AGW Lewandowsky has supported all the methods to promote and prove AGW such as the consensus. The consensus is a stupid idea which is fundamentally anti-science. It is anti-science because as Popper has shown with his Black Swan analogy scientific validity is not based on a majority view, it is based on replication, predictability and the absence of any contrary proof of the Null Hypothesis that AGW is wrong. AGW has no replication, no predictability and a plethora of Null Hypothesis supporting evidence.

Lewandowsky knows all this; and he knows that we all know that pro-AGW scientists have admitted to exaggeration and lies; he also knows we all know that the peer review system is irreparably broken as the emails showed and that the IPCC has been found wanting. To ignore all this evidence would be stupid yet Lewandowsky pretends it doesn’t exist.

Can Lewandowsky’s continued support of AGW be due to Noble Cause Corruption? We have seen Lewandowsky support Peter Gleick’s indefensible behaviour so has he sacrificed his intellect, and his morality, at the altar of the Noble Cause of saving the planet?

Noble Cause Corruption is one explanation, that is Lewandowsky and his ilk are suffering from misplaced and tainted altruism. But Noble Cause Corruption is not the only possible explanation. People support AGW for a variety of reasons: money, and the governments of the Western world are spending like drunken sailors to ‘solve AGW; ideology, and part of AGW ideology is of a most vile kind which supersedes the usual run of the mill misanthropy; and of course ego and power.

AGW, by offering the world as a stage and the narrative of saving the planet, provides vindication of the highest possible kind. This combination must be intoxicating to academics like Lewandowsky who, in the normal course of events, would have expected to live out their working lives in the musty ivory towers of academia with little or no public recognition or access to huge amounts of publically funded grant money.

It is obvious that ego and power have infected the academics supporting AGW. Karoly’s arrogance is well known, which is astounding from a leading exponent of AGW who makes so many mistakes, Flannery sprouts doom and gloom about sea level rise but has a house by the sea and disdains any suggestion of inconsistency with that or his ideas of super-organisms; the Climate Commission and other pro-AGW agencies and NGOs can’t get anything right and neither can the BOM.

And look at Karl Kruszelnicki who is incapable of admitting any mistake however obvious and egregious.

This is the key with people like Lewandowsky and the other pro-AGW supporters; they cannot admit there is anything wrong with AGW. One only has to look at Leweandowsky’s infamous survey of climate ‘deniers’. This paper, co-authored with the baby-faced John Cook, would have to be in the running for the worst ‘scientific’ paper of all time; its many faults are categorised here.

The list of faults of this ‘paper’ are too numerous to list, but one aspect of it is so incredibly stupid that it bears repeating. Lewandowsky wanted to show ‘deniers’ were conspiracy freaks and generally irrationally inclined to anti-authority theories of the grassy knoll, pro-smoking variety and, most apparently, disbelief of the moon landing.

That is, ‘deniers’ are disbelievers of the veracity of the moon-landing. To say this and base a ‘scientific paper’ on the assumption that ‘deniers’ are also deniers of the moon landing ignores the fact that ALL of the surviving moon astronauts are sceptics.

This is clearly beyond stupidity and it dovetails with the machinations, lack of transparency, denigration of disbelievers and implacable support of the AGW narrative which people like Lewandowsky indulge in.

The only explanation possible is that Lewandowsky, one of the smartest people the system has produced, is not being altruistic in a Noble Cause way but has invested his ego in AGW to a point where his sense of self would be compromised if he recanted to any extent.

It doesn’t matter to Lewandowsky that he is undermining a scientific and academic system which is supposed to accommodate new scientific discovery in an evolving fashion but which still preserves the scientific apparatus. In supporting AGW in all its ridiculous fatuity Lewandowsky is removing that inherent flexibility which allows science to grow; he is placing his ego above the very system which has allowed him to reach its top.

AGW belief is a religious one and its supporters manifest the traits of fanaticism; their sense of self, their ego, is defined by their belief. Lewandowsky like Kruszelnicki cannot admit or concede anything wrong with their belief in AGW because their sense of self-worth would be threatened by such a concession. For them the science, as with dogma of any kind, is settled. Lewandowsky clearly shows this with his follow up justification of his original survey. This egregious follow-up has been withdrawn due to its persistent misrepresentation of Jeff Condon’s own climate analyses, but Lewandowsky will still not admit to any error or wrong.

Religions generate their own morals, good and bad; as Lewandowsky shows the religion of AGW has yet to even develop a morality beyond the infantile and destructive egoism of its leading exponents.

See also Australian Climate Madness  and Jo Nova's Who is Lewandowsky's "Research Team"...why it's Mike the Denier!


  1. There will most certainly come a time when some scientists who have doggedly supported the flawed and disproved hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming will declare that they were wrong. In science, the public heroes are those who verify NULL hypotheses or prove, with hard repeatable evidence a new hypothesis. The not so well known heroes are those scientists who accept that their alternative hypothesis is wrong. Such heroes need a slab of integrity in their character.
    Yet again Anthony has identified those who need to display integrity and declare that their climate science hypothesis(es) is/are wrong. Those declarations will facilitate political honesty and free this country, indeed planet earth, from the shackles that threaten the growth of living standards in countries far less fortunate than Australia.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!