Conspiracy believers apt to deny warming - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - NBCNews.com

Believing that climate change isn't happening or that it's not human-caused requires a belief that thousands of climate scientists around the world are lying outright, Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote in their new paper.
...
The responses came only from the eight pro-science blogs, the researchers reported.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Should donations to Michael Mann's Climate Science Legal Defense Fund be tax-deductible?

I'm not an attorney or tax expert, but think it is unlikely that donations used to pay legal expenses related to an individual's private interests could lawfully be tax-deductible.

The Blackboard » Lewandowsky can reveal this?!

So, evidently, this presumption of privacy permits Lewandowsky to reveal the contents of the bloggers replies. I guess the emails aren’t that private, are they?

Lewandowsky hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence” « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

What can I say? Prof Lewandowsky, expert in conspiracies, thinks we are postulating a conspiracy — but the bad news for him is that we are postulating straight out incompetence, no conspiracy required.

How does Lewandowsky define “conspiracy”? However he wants.

Graphical Perceptions | Musings from the Chiefio

Which brings me back to the issue of perceptions. A relationship is postulated. It is put in a graph that looks nice. It seems to fit the data in normal times. Then “something different happens” (and a Grand Solar Minimum” is quite different). Does it still hold? We don’t know. The data don’t cover that situation. But the graph leads us to a clear conclusion; despite the lack of suitable data.