Lewandowsky booster, Bostrom, invokes 10:10 no pressure “defense”

While his “recently published … forthcoming” paper with the headline-grabbing title,

“NASA faked the moon landing -Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”

has still not appeared in print, the sorry saga of Australian “cognitive psychologist”, Stephan Lewandowsky continues.

Rather than address any questions about his data and methodology, Lewandowsky is choosing to turn himself into a “highly partial and contrived PR machine”. Just like Michael <how dare you question my hockey-stick> Mann and – as I had noted a few weeks ago – the University of East Anglia’s prince of spinners, Neil Wallis, formerly of the now defunct U.K. tabloid, News of the World.

I’ve lost count of the number of self-serving “revisionist” blog posts Lewandowsky has authored since he began his campaign in self-promotion on Sept. 3, but I believe it may well be eight or nine by now.

Some chap by the name of Doug Bostrom appears to be one of Lewandowsky’s “lead” defenders and boosters.

In one of his latest boosterisms (Bostromisms?!) of Lewandowsky’s “recently published … forthcoming” paper (the “findings” of which have been dutifully “churned” and re-churned since July of this year), Bostrom has invoked a variant of the “10:10 no pressure” post-disaster “defense”: The title, according to Bostrom, was “a joke“.

For the record (in light of recent post-moderation comment-purges in that particular corner of the blogosphere), in response to Lewandowsky’s latest defensive diversionary descent into obfuscation, Carrie N. had posed a reasonable question:

Carrie N.

Booster Bostrom jumped to the rescue:

Booster Bostrom says it's a joke

After all this time, the “truth” finally emerges: the title was “a joke”. Amazing. Simply amazing.

So I’m quite sure that being an advocate of brief, clear messages, when communicating “(climate) science” Lewandowsky is busily preparing a press release which he will send to all the media outlets (and anti-skeptic-friendly blogs) that have given his “recently published … forthcoming” paper so much airtime.

No doubt Lewandowsky will request that they to let their readers know that the “title” of his “recently published … forthcoming” paper was “a joke” and (in accordance with the advice inherent in Booster Bostrom’s concluding question) that one should not take him or his paper “too seriously” ;-)

Perhaps in this obviously long overdue press release, Lewandowsky will even include details of the issue of Psychological Science in which his magnificent obsession opus can/will be found!

At the very least he should get in touch with fellow psychologist, Adam Corner, who was first off the mark to “churn” Lewandowsky’s “recently published … forthcoming” paper in the U.K. Guardian on July 27. Here’s how it was billed:

Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?

New research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked

Sure looks like the Guardian and/or Corner most definitely did not get “the joke”.

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Lewandowsky booster, Bostrom, invokes 10:10 no pressure “defense”

    • Well, I can’t say that this is exactly surprising! It was something I had intended to check earlier, as I had found several articles written by him on another site – each of which included an attribution to … skepticalscience.com :-)

  1. Hey Hilary, I was away for a few days, so actually had time to do a bit of thinken instead of just readin. Anyway, one thing that popped into my head, was how is it that people who boost AGW with “the science is settled” seem to be the same people who poo-poo research that shows that organic growing methods are not better then conventional methods. One of my buddies swears that any researcher who finds organics wanting, are bought out by Monsanto. Yet he swears up and down, that AGW is occuring, “just look at the science!”

    I predict that this study is gonna turn out bad for the Leweskyites, when it is done properly. I think that the conclusion will be the opposite, that AGW’ers are the conspiracy fanatics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s