Is Stephanie Pappas As Stupid As She Pretends To Be?

A conspiracy of one?

By Stephanie Pappas

A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs.

The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up.

University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky based the findings on responses from an online survey posted on eight science blogs. According to the paper, Lewandowsky approached five climate-skeptic blogs and asked them to post the survey link, but none did.

Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact “real skeptics” for the study and then lied about it.

Conspiracy believers apt to deny warming 

The researcher is accused of malfeasance, not conspiracy. You can’t conspire with yourself. By any polling standards, this poll was a farce, and by any journalism standards Stephanie is a hack.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Is Stephanie Pappas As Stupid As She Pretends To Be?

  1. Lou says:

    I always thought it was the other way around. Democrats are bunch of paranoid idiots. This is coming from my previous experiences with so called liberals back in the old days over nutritional science (no offense to Steve as I know he is a vegan but I’m speaking strictly from science).

  2. gofer says:

    My vocabulary is failing me for words to describe where this whole farce has descended. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper into the realm of absurdity and it’s becoming “comic book science”, with all the descriptions of the horrible future. It’s hard to believe the President would make a statement insinuating they could control floods, droughts,and fires. It speaks volumes about those in the audience. They have gone off their rockers. It’s insanity and all because of an appeal to authority…….”scientists say”, as if their word was infallible. What kind of nut would vote for somebody that thought they could control the weather. Sane people would think they need to get psychiatric help.

    What’s next? TV ads say,”if you’ve been harmed by CO2, call this number you may be eligible for govt. money from the Obama “stash.” As Bill Cosby said, “don’t ever say, it can’t get worse because then WORSE happens.” When I think it can’t get anymore crazy, somebody ups the ante for craziness. These kind of stunts are acts of desperation because they are worried the climate gravy train is going to derail.

    Van Jones was is a 9/11 Truther. Is he a denier?

  3. gofer says:

    The paper is not what skeptics believe, but what alarmists think about skeptics beliefs, since no skeptics participated.

  4. Brian G Valentine says:

    My theory is, Dumbocrats became complete losers with the enviro movement. LBJ was nobody’s fool, but ever since him, they caught a contagious disease from that hopeless paranoid, Rachel Carson. Something like an enviro-mental plague.

    • NoMoreGore says:

      They seem to have melded their eco-psychosis with their cult fixation on communitarianism. They can’t tell one from the other. They talk communist ideology and refer to it as science. Marxism divorces itself from hard core fact because the two are wholly incompatible. It substitutes fantasy for fact – so that all their Marxist dreams can be true…. and they seem to have done this with the climate issue as well.

      • gofer says:

        At the democrat convention, there was a lot of discussion about “community” and they were all a part of the “community”. Watching those people, it looked like they were waiting for their Unicorn rides. It was fantasy in motion.

      • Justa Joe says:

        Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social- political-economic theory first pioneered by Karl Marx.

        The lefties believe that their entire ethos is by definition scientific.

    • rw says:

      It’s been developing a lot longer than that.

      In the last analysis, I think it was birthed by the efflorescence of wealth in the West after WWII; the resulting affluence and security gave rise to the present pathologies.

      These things are important to document and reflect on. And this includes the fatuities of Dr. Lewandowsky – and Ms. Pappas.

  5. higley7 says:

    It’s NOT a conspiracy when it has been published what is intended as a result of the global warming scam. The Club of Rome and the UN’s Agenda 21 make it very clear what the ultimate goal is.

    The goal, which they failed by a hair to attain in Copenhagen 2009, is a one-world government which would be totalitarian and socialist with the world divided up into 10 interdependent districts with trade and all industry heavily regulated by the central power of unelected officials. In the US, the plan is to turn about 60% of the country back to wild lands with humans forbidden, a buffer of wild lands with very limited human activities, several large military reservations, limited farm lands, and very limited human settlement crowded together in small cities. It’s basically the set up of the country as described in “Hunger Games,” but without the human sacrifice.

    BUT, as we represent 3% of the world population and they want only 500 million total in the world, then the US population would be 15 million. 19 out of every 20 people would have to be gone, and that’s not gone to other countries, that’s just GONE. That’s truly a holocaust sized goal.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      It is a conspiracy. What you just described is one of the greatest conspiracies in history.

      Conspire = to do with the same spirit, i.e. a common spirit. Thus the concept of an agreement. Legally, there need not be any concealment. People just assume that by definition there must be an effort to conceal, else what would be the point. But one doesn’t avoid prosecution by not concealing anything. No matter how open, even if one advertises the whole thing, it still meets the definition of the crime of conspiracy: agreeing with another to commit a crime. “To do something with a common spirit”.

      One can also conspire to do something that is not illegal, and then there is a requirement to conceal from one or more persons, but one could still advertise it to others. One could even inform one’s subject in an oblique way (e.g. Club of Rome documents) but when challenged by the subject, deny that the subject has properly evaluated the words or the context. Still a conspiracy.

      Let all of us who love life conspire, legally, to investigate the conspiracy of the Great Climate Hoax so that we can more fully expose its practitioners to the light of day.


  6. gofer says:

    We read and look at history. I watch a lot of the Military Channel and they show a lot of the carnage of Hitler. It’s like watching a movie and it’s difficult to imagine it was real and there were people in the world, not that long ago, who were plain evil and cruel beyond belief. Are we so naive to think it’s impossible for those types to exist in today’s world? We already see some of them, but they are in far off lands away from our grasp of the reality of the situation. Is is possible they are around us but present themselves as the nice, lovable types?

  7. Dave N says:

    Lewandowsky is the epitome of hypocrisy. He conspires to bring about the downfall of skeptics, yet believes that skeptics are consipiring to bring about the downfall of alarmists. Total moron.

  8. omnologos says:

    Lew’s paranoia borders on mental illness. He genuinely believes we are all conspirators, hence his studies about conspiracy.

  9. klem says:

    I don’t get why the skeptic side is giving this guy so much attention. His study was biased, everyone sees that, even the alarmists know that it was biased and give his study little credence. So please fellow skeptics, stop talking about this guy, stop giving him publicity and let him fall back into obscurity. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Once his name disappears from the blogosphere, he and his work will be forgotten.

  10. David says:

    Klem, you couyld not be more mistaken. The liberal media endlessly quotes from bogus studies like, 97% of climate scientist say” . Our brightest kids, mis-educated at Ivy league schools, repeat such non-sense, and it needs to be exposed. Why do you want it ignored?

    • klem says:

      I realize this guy is well known in Australia. In N America this guy is a complete unknown, but the more you folks keep talking about him, the better known he will become. Keep it up and he’ll end up with a book tour, the liberal media in N America will want to interview him, Bill Maher will have him on the show to poke fun at Republicans, etc. The more you talk about him the more public traction his shoddy research receives. That’s all.

  11. Eric Webb says:

    We should be asking Debby Wasserman Schultz and Obama, along with many others in the Democratic party this question, “Are they as stupid as they pretend to be?”

  12. sunsettommy says:

    Stephanie could not pretend to be smart.

  13. cdquarles says:

    Remember the ‘half of all marriages end in divorce’ stuff? Fact: the divorce rate is roughly half of the marriage rate (per 1000 population) and per the Census Bureau numbers two thirds of all marriages end with the death of a spouse (just what is implied by the marriage rate and divorce rate).

  14. Sundance says:

    After reading the article it is clear that she isn’t pretending. She obviously hasn’t read Lewendowski’s paper or she acceptaed the flawed quantitative methodology. Those that spread papers like Lewendowski’s are an entreched group of media hacks and the only recourse is to write to her employer’s omnibudsman and expose her lack of professionalism. The progressive side that is trying to build the case that those that question science methodology and models that have yet to, “….distinguish our predictions from those of fortunetellers” (see Revkin article and link below) are well organized and have done a great job of recruiting useful idiots like Pappas to print their propaganda. Pappas is simply a tool to be used and abused and the alarmists have done a better job thus far, of using her. Climate realists have yet to organize and take advantage of such tools and are losing that battle. Over at Bishop Hill the climate realists themselves are accepting and using the term “pro-science” to describe sites like Skeptical Science. This makes Bishop Hill’s readers automatically look to be whackos because now the media can allude to people like Lewendowski as belonging to the “pro-science” camp, while those in the Bishop Hill camp can now be painted as the camp that is not “pro-science”. Another own goal by climate realists.

    Here is Revkin poking the alarmist beehive. Can’t wait to see Jow Romm’s head explode over this.

  15. Justa Joe says:

    Art Bell (yes that Art Bell) and Whitley Streiber, believers in CAGW and the govt UFO cover-up, are the creators of the Climate Epic “The Day After Tomorrow”. This film was lauded by the likes of Geoff Jenkins, head of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change in the UK. I find this universal AGW skeptics = conspiracy nuts quite humorous considering that the first thing warmists will utter is that all opposition to the UN IPCC is due to funding by “big oil”. When it comes to conspiracy theories it seems to depend upon whose ox is being (Al)gored.

  16. rw says:

    I see that Stephanie repeats the 97%-of-all-scientists-agree meme.

    Maybe all this stuff is put together by a malevolent computer program. Maybe none of these are real people, since what they say is so interchangeable: Lewandowsky, Stephanie Pappas, Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Joe Romm, Tammino, Jak, TonyD …

    After all, I’m getting most of this stuff off the Web …

  17. scizzorbill says:

    Dear Steph: Your chat with us wee folk was very good, and right down the party line. However, there is one small detail that destroys the entire message. There is no global warming. Sorry. Currently, the planet is cooling, and has been for 12 years. The previous 5 years showed no significant increase. Oh! One more thing. Citing consensus as proof of anything is is a fools game. Consensus/opinion is faith based. No facts needed. Thank you for the lecture.

  18. Shooter says:

    Oh, Stephanie. Don’t you know satellites don’t detect any warming? Oh, wait, those satellites were funded by the Rockefellers for their NWO. THEY ARE THE DEMONS.

    I’m seriously tired of this word “denier”. It’s nothing but a straw man.

  19. Shooter says:

    SERIOUSLY. The real “deniers” are those who don’t know THE PLANET IS NOT WARMING. SERIOUSLY.

    • Me says:

      While she believes in the study she denies it is Bull Shit. 😆

    • gofer says:

      Normal people would be happy that the warming has stopped, but they can’t have their doom destroyed. No doom….no money.

      • Jason Calley says:

        “they can’t have their doom destroyed. ”

        YES! That is exactly what I see from so many of the CAGW crowd. They get angry, they start name-calling, when you say something (no matter how well grounded in observable, testable fact) that endangers their doom. As a certain wise man pointed out long ago, people cling to their fears, their angers, their disappointments, more strongly even than they hold on to their pleasures and happiness. As you say, “they can’t have their doom destroyed.”

  20. Mike Odin says:

    Minus 38C in Greenland–
    new record for date?–

  21. Chuck L says:

    No, Steve, she is stupider.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s