Lewandowsky thinks failure to get or find email is conspiracy theory

The choice of Hoggan’s DesmogBlog, fierce defender of Peter Gleick must be a coincidence…

Er, why does he have to beg permission to release emails that HE sent??? That sounds a bit odd. Plus I don’t know how much stock I’d put into whatever format he used to try to prove that sent them… though maybe that’s more foolproof than I’d expect. Heh, given the number of spoofed emails I’ve gotten supposedly from “myself” trying to sell me weight loss products (I weigh 115 soaking wet) over the years I don’t have a lot of faith in what the headers say.
– MJM

“People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. ”
Lewandowsky is playing a game. He’s asserting that any responses he received are in confidence, and so he cannot release them without permission of the authors. That’s just a clever ploy to distract everyone’s attention from the fact that he needs no such permission to release HIS emails which he claims he or an assistant sent. The replies are not the evidence we seek, it is the existance of the original request that is being challenged.
All Lewandowsky need do to set the record straight is release his original requests. As they are his, and his alone, they contain no confidential information (other than email addresses perhaps) that he has any moral, ethical, or legal duty to protect.
Fess up Lewandowsky. Who did you send the supposed emails to, date, time, and what did they say? It is up to those you accuse to decide if they wish to keep their responses private or not. You have no say in the matter. All you need do it show us the evidence that you sent what you say you sent. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that you send the emails in the first place. In this case, absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

I use Kwiksurvey and generally it is a good and cheap survey instrument, but this summer its site was hacked and a lot of data was lost on surveys in progress. They did a really good job of restoring what they could (and I got the survey data I needed back, but in a limited form which made it difficult to analyze).
However I question why a university would use this site – I just it because it is FREE. But a university??? Really???

I’m not holding my breath for a response by Prof. Lewandowsky.
Speaking of responses, I saw an interesting one on RPjr’s site yesterday from David Arpell. Now I am hesitant to sound critical of David here, knowing how tight he and Anthony are, but in this instance I will risk it. In a responce to another commenter who stated that China’s CO2 production now exceeded that of the US and Europe combined, David provided the actual figures to show how wrong the original commentor was. China produced only 8.5 gigatons verses the 8.9 combined number of Europe and the US. Huge difference, not even close really. Well, yeah I guess it is rather close. Close enough for it to be a fair bet that it will only be another couple of years before China has overtaken both regions combined. It certainly is close enough for the original poster’s point to stand – that efforts to reduce US and European emissions will have no effect on CO2 induced climate change.
The more interesting comment by David was something to the effect that per capita, China’s output was only 37% that of the US. I am curious as to the point David was trying to make with this statistic. The only point I can take away from it is that he believes Americans should live at the level of the average Chinese peasant. Now if David Arpell wants to crap in an outdoor toilet and then shovel it into his organic garden, more power to him. I’m going to stick with flush toilets and shopping at Safeway.

Looks like someone’s painted himself into a corner and is counting on belligerence and bluster to win the day. After Dr. Gleick’s spectacular implosion, you’d think people would be a little more careful about this sort of thing.

Lewandowsky is just following Gleick’s example for what to do when caught lying.

* further

Has anyone suggested that Dr. Lewandowsky’s poor scholarship and inadequate methods were proposed to him or aided by other parties? Other than a conspiracy of one (inadequate approach) and doubtful abilities to formulate an argument, I have yet to see any conspiratorial thinking or evidence. OTOH, a method to try to “devaluate” the sceptical position by getting a rise and inordinate (hyserical) feedback from the blogosphere to prove a point about the targets of his invective (I am hesitant to use the d-word.)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/recursive_denail_fury/
It is now deleted from my favourites, shame really it use to be a good site.

Lewandowsky, Gleick, and others seem to resemble characters in old Roger Corman B-flicks such as The Little Shop of Horrors and Bucket of Blood, wherein a nerdy misfit’s inept attempt to rise within a subculture and get a girl meets with improbably wild success– for awhile– only to be turned into a period of bloody cover-ups and a final horrific revelation as the artifice unravels. More popcorn!