kim2ooo says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:08 pm

H/T David;
[” There’s one I haven’t reported yet, required a bit of effort to do right and folks seem to have lost interest.

Basically, John Cook in cahoots with a Uni of Western Australia professor Steven Lewandowsky conducted some kind of denial social experiment using students as guinea pigs.

John Cook:

I’ve been conducting a psychological experiment with UWA cognitive scientists testing for the effects of blog comments on readers’ comprehension. The first stage of the experiment was live on SkS and we’ve analysed the data and found that for a warmist blog post, there was no difference in reader comprehension when the reader was exposed to all warmist comments or no comments. However, when the reader was exposed to all skeptic comments, their comprehension dropped.

So it’s officially been quantified – reading the comments threads on denier blogs will make you stupid.

(2011-09-21-Need a handful of comments from SkSers for our blogging experiment.html)

They exposed the students to examples of internet posts in one of 4 categories:

Warmist post, warmist comments
Warmist post, skeptic comments
Skeptic post, warmist comments
Skeptic post, skeptic comments

… and ummm, analysed something-or-rather, which isn’t too clear.

So how did they source these ‘internet posts’? They manufactured them themselves!

So get this, the tree-hutters were asked to add comments on the topic of climate change — pretending to be skeptics/deniers — and these were then used in a formal university experiment.

John Cook:

As the second part of our experiment on science blogging, we’ll be showing 4 conditions to lab participants at the Uni of W.A. The condition for this thread is Warmist Blog Post, Skeptic Comments. So would be great if a handful of SkSers could post scathing, very skeptic comments to our “How we know…” blog post – posted here in this forum thread. We need exactly 10 skeptic comments.

The 4 threads used to capture theses cases are:

2011-09-21-BLOG EXPERIMENT CONDITION 1_ warmist post, warmist comments.html
2011-09-21-BLOG EXPERIMENT CONDITION 2_ warmist post, skeptic comments.html
2011-09-21-BLOG EXPERIMENT CONDITION 3_ skeptic post, warmist comments.html
2011-09-21-BLOG EXPERIMENT CONDITION 4_ skeptic post, skeptic comments.html

(each contains a similar introduction as per JC’s quote above)

Do skeptics have a tendency to suffer Tourettes? They do seem to be trigger happy on the explanation mark key.

So why wouldn’t they just grab the real skeptic and warmist comments from his own blog? Oh would it be that he deletes all the skeptic comments? Or are they not crazy enough for his experiment? Or is he just too academically sloppy to provide real data? Take your pick.

And it gets worse.

After having exposed these experiment participants — i.e. real people — to manufactured data does he seek to make amends for any misunderstanding that might create?

Well he does have one concern…

John Cook:

Steve recommended we hand the participants who read the denier blog post a flyer as they leave, explaining what was wrong with the denier blog post (just to ensure we don’t convert too many into deniers). So that’s something I need to whip up shortly as the experiment will be run soon.

But on the topic of that manufactured data…

Glenn Tamblyn (someone gets it, bold is his):

Once your experiment is complete it might be good to actually do a post on it, showing all 4 versions and commenting prominantly that both warmist and skeptic comments were written by the same people

John Cook (hoodwinking people – What, Me Worry?) :

[title] Will definitely post about the experiment

Probably after it’s been accepted or published though, best not to pre-empt the peer-review process.

Not sure if I’ll post the actual article and comments – that will be something to ponder way down the track. Could have a bit of fun with it.

(2011-09-26-Blog Experiment.html)

No John, it’s not about posting details of the experiment on your blog which no one reads. He’s telling you it’s unethical to expose people to manufactured data which may influence their opinion

about major controversial topic and then not giving an ass about it.
Apr 2, 2012 at 7:05 AM | David ‘ ]
kim2ooo says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:21 pm

This lost some of Davids’ formatting…follow the link…go to bottom of comments …find David April 2

Watts Up With That?

Dr. Stephan Lewandowsy’s recent claim that because skeptics and lukewarmers alike ask to see emails, it amounts to conspiracy theory

So now there’s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them.

…has inspired Josh yet again.

View original post 92 more words

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s