By Andrew Bolt ~
Professor Stephan Lewandosky concluded sceptics were more likely to be crazy conspiracy theorists on the basis of an online survey placed on blogs he won’t name and eliciting just three replies from conspiratorial sceptics unknown – or possibly even one replying three times.
Rather than explain and defend his extraordinary methodology and how it passed peer review, he writes.
If I am not mistaken, I can indeed confirm that there were 4—not 3—versions of the survey (unless that was the number of my birth certificates, I am never quite sure, so many numbers to keep track of… Mr. McIntyre’s dog misplaced an email under a pastrami sandwich a mere 8.9253077595543363 days ago, and I have grown at least one tail and several new horns over the last few days, all of which are frightfully independent and hard to keep track of).
Versiongate!
Finally this new friend from Conspirania is getting some legs.
About time, too, I was getting lonely.
Astute readers will have noted that if the Survey ID’s from above are vertically concatenated and then viewed backwards at 33 rpm, they read “Mitt Romney was born in North Korea.”
To understand the relevance of Mr Romney’s place of birth requires a secret code word.
This man purports to be a serious researcher, with Australian Research Council grants to his name.
Lucia Liljegren of The Blackboard patiently explains to him some of the problems with his extraordinary paper. Here is some of her long post on Lewandowsky’s blog, to which she gets no answer:
As for your childish claim that people are complaining that your paper represents some sort of conspiracy: No. That notion appears to have generated itself in your own fevered imagination.
As far as I can see people are criticizing your survey and interpretation as incompetent.
They would like you to fully describe your methodology. Some bloggers would like to know if they happened to be the ones you contacted and they are asking you to reveal those blogs so they can know whether they were involved. I have no idea why you have jumped to the conclusion that criticism of your methodology or interpretation or natural curiosity are evidence that one thinks you have conspired with … uhm.. who? Yourself? (That’s not a conspiracy.) To do… what? Poor research? (That would be an odd thing to ‘conspire’ to do.)
But people’s opinion that you are incompetent and their curiosity about which blogs you invited is not a conspiracy theory.
Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am, and his book Still Not Sorry remains very widely read.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Annie Apple
Carl
Ditzy Dee
Doc'
Grumpy Old Man
marlin6
mjmotley
Aussie
papundits
Guest Contributor
patpacer
Joe from PA
sosUSA
steevesna
T Lee Humphrey
TonyfromOz
Turtle
Posted on Sun 09/09/2012 by papundits
0