How warmists such as Lewandowsky discredit their cause Ben Pile exposes the grave flaws in Professor Stephan Lewandowsky's ludicrous paper suggesting sceptics of climate alarmism were like moon-land-conspiracy nuts, and concludes: The consequence of this should be alarming to everyone who takes an interest in the climate and other scientific debates, no matter what their view on climate change. Lewandowsky demonstrates that the academic institutions do not produce dialogue that has any more merit than the petty exchanges â flame wars âthat the internet is famous for. Dressing political arguments up in scientific terminology risks the value of science being lost to society â its potential squandered for an edge in a political fight. After all, if Lewandowsky's work is representative of the quality of scientific research in general and the standards the academy expects of academics, what does that say about climate science and the quality of the scientific consensus on climate change? If the scientific argument about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is only as good as Lewandowsky's claim that âRejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets," then perhaps climate sceptics should be taken more seriously. One question remains: how did Lewandowsky's paper survive peer review? Thanks to reader Rocky.