Older readers, at least, will know the rest.
“..therefore (Climate) Science is a hoax.”
The paper so titled, by Stephan Lewandowsky et al. can be found here:
[No it can’t. After the abstract, I get a message: “View all access and purchase options for this article,” followed by a “Get Access” thing that is locked. I have the article. If someone can explain how to do a tiny URL I can provide it.]
It claims to demonstrate that climate sceptics tend to believe crazy stuff:- for example, that the moon landing never happened.
Lewandowsky and his oeuvre have been discussed to death, you might think, particularly by me, both here and previously at
https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/category/stephan-lewandowsky/
Not so. In the hundreds of articles that we critics of the paper wrote, not one of us, I think, drew attention to the main flaw in this flaw-filled paper. While claiming to prove that climate sceptics were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than normal people, it actually proved the opposite. The on-line survey on which Lewadowsky’s paper was based clearly demonstrates that climate sceptics are much less likely to believe conspiracy theories than the population at large.
For example, the Wikipedia article on moon landing conspiracy theories cites opinion surveys which found that between 6 and 20% of Americans doubted that the moon landing had taken place, compared with 1% of climate sceptics in Lewandowsky’s survey. We climate sceptics, according to Lewandowsky’s paper, are far less likely to believe conspiracy theories than the average citizen.
Which is odd, because Lewandowsky is surely right, although his research proves him wrong. Of course climate sceptics are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. We’re sceptics. We doubt the official version. And if the official version is wrong, that means that there was a cover up, which is a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Speaking only for myself of course, it seems obvious that my scepticism about the official story on climate change is linked to my perverse tendency to doubt any official story about anything. This is a psychological trait, probably linked to my distrust of parental authority. Ever since I got an adult library card, I’ve been a keen devourer of books that challenge the official version about absolutely everything. I’m a fan of all theories that claim to prove the experts wrong, from Immanuel Velikovsky’s theories of cosmic catastrophe and his alternative chronology of the ancient world, to the circumnavigation of the globe by a Chinese eunuch before Magellan, to the faking of Tacitus’s history by a Renaissance prelate.
I was intrigued to discover years ago that Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is also a student of Velikovsky and an ancient chronology sceptic. I vowed to keep this secret to myself, since, in the wrong hands, it could be used to ridicule the climate sceptical movement. Now that discussion has moved on from the psychological foibles of sceptics to soaring electricity bills, the truth can be told.
Does anyone else share my eccentric preferences in reading matter?
Of course, the perversity of my opinions has no relevance to their truth or falsity. There are many areas of human endeavour where scientific certainty is unattainable, and unfounded speculation is useful and even necessary. Cosmology, the chronology of ancient civilisations, and the authentification of ancient texts are pseudo-sciences, where truth is necessarily decided by consensus rather than experiment.
Climate science is another such pseudo-science, where experimental replication is impossible -with one important difference. Climate science makes predictions. And these predictions will necessarily turn out to be true, or not.
We may never know whether the universe started with a big bang or always was; whether a Chinese eunuch discovered New Zealand; or whether Cheops lived in the 9th century BC and not the 30th; but we sure as Hades know that Gaia is not dying, Manhattan & the Maldives are not under water, Global Warming hysteria is on its way out, and Greta Thunberg has turned into a normal protesting adolescent.
All reasons to feel greatly relieved, on the eve of World War Three. It means I can get back to studying the important question of whether the Ludovisi throne, discovered in 1887 and supposedly carved in the 5th century BC, is or isn’t a 19th century forgery. 97% of experts say I’m wrong, so I’m optimistic.
Climate Scepticism 
It’s available on sci.hub
https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/0956797612457686
w.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Willis. The link doesn’t work for me. This is my 8th attempt to post here on my own blog. What’s the matter with WordPress?
LikeLike
Geoff, WordPress seems to have put in place another update very recently. Whenever this happens, it seems to cause glitches. You are not alone in your difficulties. The good news (insofar as there is any) is that the glitches tend to go away after a day or two.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark for the information. In my frantic efforts I did manage to like my own post, I see.
Something I was trying to get at in this article was that the supposedly clear division between hard science based on hard-data-plus-reproducible-experiments and the rest of our woolly thinking is illusory. Here’s some woolly thinking to meditate.
Today it’s announced that Microsoft is cutting back on billions of investment in Open AI. I understand nothing of this stuff, but buried in an article quoted at length by Andrew Orlowski on X was this:
“Last week, OpenAI launched GPT 4.5, its latest model that – well – Sam Altman says ‘is the first model that feels like talking to a serious person.’ It is not obvious what it does better, or even really what it does, other than Altman says it is ‘a different kind of intelligence and there’s a magic to it [he hasn’t] felt before.’”
So, major billion-dollar improvements in a technology that is going to revolutionise our world can only be described in terms of a billionaire’s vague feelings of “magic,” and what it’s like to talk to a serious person.
I like that feeling too, which is why I’m here, and why I’m sceptical about so many things, including AI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoff,
I suspect I share some of your reading habits. I have Gavin Menzies’ two books about the early 15th century Chinese sailing expeditions on my book shelves. I have read (and found myself reasonably persuaded by) the one about the 1421 expedition. I have yet to get around to reading the one about the 1434 expedition – it’s very much on my “to do” list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Thanks Mark for the information. In my frantic efforts I did manage to like my own post, I see.”
Via the CliScep web page, I am able to ‘Like’ posts, but not ‘Comments’!?!
To ‘Like’ comments, I have to view the page via WordPress.
Other WordPress sites I follow behave differently. WP appears to be an inconsistent shambles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
from @grok
You’re asking about the paper “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, and Gilles E. Gignac. Let’s break this down and think through it critically.
This paper, published in Psychological Science in 2013, investigates the psychological mechanisms behind the rejection of scientific consensus, particularly focusing on conspiracy theories and their link to attitudes about climate science. The authors conducted a survey-based study to explore how belief in one conspiracy theory (e.g., the moon landing was faked) correlates with skepticism toward other scientific claims, like climate change. Their core argument is that such rejection isn’t purely about evidence or logic but is often “motivated”—driven by ideological, psychological, or worldview factors.
Here’s what you might consider when evaluating it:1. What’s the Main Point?
The study suggests that people who endorse conspiracy theories tend to exhibit a pattern of distrust in established science. For example, if someone believes NASA staged the Apollo landings, they’re more likely to doubt climate science too. The authors frame this as “motivated rejection,” implying that personal beliefs or identity can outweigh data in shaping opinions. It’s less about the science itself and more about why people resist it.2. Strengths to Consider
3. Potential Weaknesses
4. Controversy Around It
This paper stirred up a hornet’s nest when it came out. Critics, especially on platforms like X’s predecessors (blogs and forums), claimed it was a hit piece on climate skeptics, lumping legit questions in with fringe conspiracies. Lewandowsky himself became a lightning rod—some accused him of pushing an agenda, while supporters said he was just exposing uncomfortable truths. There’s even a meta-twist: a few skeptics claimed the study itself was a conspiracy to silence dissent, which kinda proves his point about conspiratorial thinking!5. What Should You Think?
My Take (Without Preaching)
The paper’s got solid psych chops and highlights a real phenomenon—people don’t always reason from first principles. But it’s not flawless. The methodology’s been debated, and its scope is narrow—it’s more about conspiracy fans than the average Joe questioning climate models. If you’re digging deeper, I could analyze the stats or chase down critiques from X or the web. What angle are you leaning toward?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Immanuel Velikovsky <cringe>. Carl Sagan’s long boring chapter debunking Velikovsky is the only one in all of his books that I read that I didn’t finish. Oh well, I still used to enjoy the American Spectator back in the 90s when it seemed like every other month they were doing a cover feature on the ID (intelligent design) movement. I even once voted for a presidential candidate who did the obligatory stint as a missionary for a religion started by a transparent con man.
LikeLike
Ron,
I just did a post at one of my other blogs on dialoging with Grok. The tone and style are very familiar:
https://canmancannedfacts.blogspot.com/2025/02/chatting-with-grok-on-sandusky-case.html
I copied the actual conversation on three linked pages. The third one was about Steve McIntyre and Michael Mann. The first two are about my contrary position on the Jerry Sandusky case which I suppose fits well into the topic here. BTW I’m absolutely right about the Jerry Sandusky case! It may turn out to be a noble lost cause, but the story has a lot of potential. As always, check out my pinned tweet:
https://x.com/DombroskiMike/status/1762832310246719650
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe, just maybe, it’s far more likely that die-hard sceptics will stick their heads down the rabbit hole to see if there’s anything interesting down there. But they won’t tend to keep their head down the rabbit hole; they’ll come up for air and assess whether what they found down the rabbit hole is worthy of an Alice in Wonderland script or whether in fact it holds up to rational scrutiny in the light of day. This is what being sceptical means. It means you’re far more likely to investigate whacko theories and you’re far more likely to put them to a stress test, which means you’re far more likely to reject the really whacko theories which don’t stand up to the evidence, but you’re also far more likely to seize upon the handful which do and worry them (as well as worrying the Settled Science afficionados) like any good terrier. Which means that the Consensus Crowd are far more likely to produce motivated research, based upon motivated reasoning, which ‘proves’ that sceptics are far more likely to engage with ‘conspiracy theories’ – because they’re worried.
I read Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision; I also devoured Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods and his other books. Being somewhat lazy, I never really bothered to read up on the literature formally debunking Velikovsky, but I only took it seriously for about five minutes in my impetuous youth. I’m still not sure about some of the stuff Hancock uncovered though and in fact I’m reading The Natron Theory by Marcell Foti at the moment, which seems very intriguing. I’m fairly convinced that the consensus narrative we’ve been spun by establishment archaeology about the origins of civilisation is itself a mythical narrative.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Like Jaime, I read Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision, Von Däniken, Hancock, Dr Paul Burnton’s Quest for the Overself, Jung & many others including (browsing) most world religion texts from my 20’s.
My driving desire was to expand my knowledge (Scottish Academy Schooled till 16 (1973) then out to work.
Now 67, and still seeking wisdom, but all that reading/digesting has stood me in good stead. If I now become a “sceptic” at least I can say I have an open mind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mike Dombroski
“Immanuel Velikovsky <cringe>”
I remember my bitter disappointment when I finally had to let go of Velikovsky. He was right about a couple of things though. Tree rings & carbon dating are dodgy methods for dating objects, and ancient chronology is a mess of circular reasoning.
Velikovsky was a classic case of the motivated reasoning that Lewandowsky goes on about. He was a psychoanalyst in Tel Aviv before the war, & cheekily published an analysis of Freud’s own dreams. He objected to Freud’s fathering of Mosaic Judaism on the Pharaoh Akhenaton, & set out to find Egyptian support for the truth of the Exodus story, leading him to revise Egyptian chronology. His theory of clashes between planets as the source of common world myths defies physics, unless you accept the plasma theory of the Electric Universe guys (who have come up with some serious questions about solar system objects that defy explanation) and his own ancient chronology doesn’t work.
He moved to the USA in 1939 and wrote fiercely anti-British articles on Palestine for the New York Times. I wonder if his vision on interplanetary catastrophe wasn’t influenced by the kind of comics I use to head my articles here. They’re full of tales of planetary collisions, fiends destroying worlds with fire or ice or chemical weapons etc. – just the kind of thing to turn the mind of a sensitive East European genius unused to the crudity of popular American culture.
LikeLike