José Duarte, PhD

Category: scientific validity

  • New Yorker article

    —

    in , ,

    The New Yorker has a nice article about our BBS paper on the lack of intellectual diversity in social psychology. I cringe a bit at the title: Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? This was never about political parties, and the lack of diversity goes much deeper than even political philosophy (conservative, liberal, libertarian — that…

  • No results

    —

    in , ,

    A colleague perused the the Cook rater forums and sent me this example: “I got one last night, though, that I thought was funny – I rated it as “Explicit >50%”, because it *was* attributing all the warming to human GHG emissions.  It just claimed there wouldn’t *be* much warming, asserting that the IPCC had…

  • The art of evasion

    —

    in , ,

    Here’s an update on the Cook 97% scam. They apparently have no answers. Cook and some of his crew had a chat event at Reddit. Last I checked, they never addressed any substantive issues in the report, even though various people asked them about it. They don’t argue against the fraud reports, the validity issues,…

  • Harms

    —

    in ,

    Hi all. I’m working on a side project, and I ask for your help. Have you been harmed by others’ judgments or perceptions of you as a climate skeptic? Please send me your stories. Climate skeptic is broad and vague, but what matters here are others’ perceptions of you as questioning human-caused warming, or questioning…

  • Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%

    —

    in , ,

    The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. Let’s walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific…

  • Reality is what it is

    —

    in ,

    Quick but important point of clarification… Someone sent me this paper as a presumed example of bias or invalid research: Eidelman, Scott, Christian S. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar. 2012. “Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (6): 808–20. (Link) I don’t see anything wrong with it. I…

  • How data is often overrated

    —

    in ,

    This is something I wrote some time ago, and have quickly updated. Data is overrated. This is a terrible, terrible thing for a scientist to say. Well, except that it’s true, so it’s a good thing for a scientist to say. I don’t question, remotely, the central empirical premise of social science or any other…

  • More scams

    —

    in , ,

    Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013), titled their paper thusly: NASA faked the moon landing—therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. And in their abstract they say: “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV…

  • Lewandowsky fraud

    —

    in , ,

    What a summer. I’ve also called for the retraction of the following paper: Lewandowsky, Stephan, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles E. Gignac. 2013. “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.” Psychological Science 24 (5): 622–33. (Link) The title draws a link between belief in the…

  • Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts.

    —

    in ,

    UPDATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2014: (This post was my initial take. For a better and more up-to-date report, go here. For follow-up, go here.) The paper includes a bunch of psychology studies and public surveys as evidence of scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change, even a survey of cooking stove use. This vacates the paper. Lots…