Sample size who believe NASA faked the moon landings
Recall the recent paper by Stephan Lewandowsky entitled “NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” (see here).
Look at the title again – it directly links belief in the faking of the moon landing to scepticism of the alarmist claims of mainstream climate science.
Recall also that the survey was posted on 8 websites, all sympathetic to the consensus position, many of which are vociferous critics of any kind of questioning of the Cause.
Recall further that in my original post I queried how many responses would actually have been from sceptics, given the demographics of the sites in question, despite the fact that the paper claims the sample size to be over 1000.
Bishop Hill has obtained a copy of the raw survey data (Excel spreadsheet here so you can check for yourself). The column entitled “CYMoon” lists the responses to the question:
The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio. (source – PDF at page 28)
using the following key:
- 1 – Strongly disagree
- 2 – Disagree
- 3 – Agree
- 4 – Strongly agree
Counting the responses in this column gives the following result:
- Disagree or strongly disagree – 1 or 2 (i.e. the moon landings were not faked): 1135
- Agree or strongly agree – 3 or 4 (i.e. the moon landings were faked): 10
Since there are such a tiny number of moon landing deniers, I decided to take a look at the actual responses to the climate questions from the ten that believed the moon landings were faked. Astonishingly, the responses reveal that six of the ten either agree or strongly agree with ALL of the following statements:
- I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree.
- I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree.
- I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years will cause serious negative changes to the planet’s climate unless there is a substantial switch to non CO2 emitting energy sources.
- I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has caused serious negative changes to the planet’s climate.
So in fact, out of the sample of 10 that believe the moon landings were faked, a majority (60%) accept the consensus position on climate science.
Analysis of the moon landing deniers (click to enlarge)
Australian Climate Madness 
Well, it’s not that 97% they keep trotting out, but they would “strongly agree” with the methodology. 😉
Thanks Simon for exposing the slippery use of statistics…..
‘Tis too bad that the daily rags and idiot boxes swallow the dodgy bait hook line and sinker !
HA!! Major foot shoot by Lewandowski.
I am so glad my taxes don’t support this [snip]!
…. oh … wait…
Love your work.
Ah, nothing like lies, damend lies, statistics and the ever desparate warmist attempts to denigrate anybody who disagrees.
The sample size is really too small to draw any solid conclusions and if it proves anything, it is that both sides have their eccentrics. Good fun though.
[REPLY – Of course it is – it’s total nonsense! But Lewandowsky used that flawed reasoning to include a sensationalist title for his paper which hooked in the Guardian and the Telegraph in the UK]
[snip – totally agree, but can’t publish it – Ed]
Ahem…as for me…well:-
“I haven’t seen what s/he’s said, but let me say I support what it is s/he said,”
“Hang on, you haven’t seen what s/he said?”
“But I support what s/he said.”
Is that ok? Just following your lead Bill..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9230706/Is-this-the-most-on-message-politician-Australian-minister-agrees-with-PM-without-knowing-what-she-said.html
” So in fact, out of the sample of 10 that believe the moon landings were faked, a majority (60%) accept the consensus position on climate science ”
Sample size apart, this is a bit more believable. On the other hand, it also indicates that responders may be taking the p**s. Historically a common problem, best illustrated in studies by anthropologists of “primitives”, writing down everything they are told, not realising it is mostly bs.
Lewandowski needs to take a break from studying how other people’s brains work, and subject his own to review.
Good work Simon. People like Lewandowski think they are preaching to the converted, because they are still funded for their faux research.
“and if it proves anything, it is that both sides have their eccentrics.”
Last I heard it was yet to be proven that Lew had surveyed even one skeptic.
So let’s not start the “both sides do it” tap dance.
Only the true believers bring the crazy.
You are quite correct in your comments. But I would go further. The two ticked against strong skeptics are likely to be rogue results. One ticked 4 on all conspiracy theories, the other ticked 4 on all but one.
I have done extensive analysis of the results. As to be expected from where the survey was available, at least 75% of the responses were from alarmists. Lewandowsky did not point this out, neither did he compare skeptics to alarmists views.
Many alarmists will still maintain the link between “free-market” ideas and rejection of the science. There are multiple reasons to believe the results are not representative of the true skeptic population