Anyone else think Lewandowsky simply told the triuth?

How about a link or two?

"Frontiers in Psychology last month retracted the paper, Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation “in light of a small number of complaints”, the journal said on its website.

A year-long investigation “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study,” it said. However, the probe found “the legal context (to be) insufficiently clear”. "

if these people truly think every single paper that gets pulled is due to lying then they must be truly sad individuals, indeed. Anyway, I know there are many sites (including yahoo! answers) where a number of individuals claim the concept of climate change is a conspiracy.

Nope. Lewandowsky is a proven liar who posted his polls mainly on alarmist websites and that it was mainly alarmists that filled them in. I'm sure there are some conspiracy nuts who are skeptics and I'm sure there are some conspiracy nuts who are alarmists. It was a hack study designed to smear all skeptics. That it was published at all is an embarrassment to Frontiers and the peer review in general. Online polls are notoriously unreliable. An online poll created and used by someone with preconceived notions about climate change skeptics should be treated as horse manure by everyone. That it wasn't treated that way by alarmists, establishment journals and MSM is a bit worrisome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wVfxoPqPA

What would be the endorsement value to a climate scientist, if the World's Governments (thru the United Nation's IP CC) start governing CO2?

How much power and money would be transferred (directed at) these climate morons, if they get their way?

One can only see the idiocy written on the wall, if on would simply look at the wall.

You're too busy reading what people study. Get off your bum and see the world! It's bigger and more full of life than you understand. Most of that abundant life is because of CO2 and I promise you won't fry in the extra heat.

The idea that people couldn't possibly disagree with you without some sort of mental problem means is pretty sad.

The very fact it's psychology means you have lost the scientific debate, idiot, otherwise you'd be citing real science, which you can't, because it doesn't support your RELIGIOUS belief system.