Readers may recall these two recent WUWT stories:
- More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team
- Lewandowsky’s bear-baiting behavior
Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect. – Anthony
Lewandowsky – Strike Two
Guest post by Jeff Condon (originally published on the Air Vent) Hat tip – Skiphil.
–
So Dr. Lewandowsky did it again. He, and his coauthors, falsely used my name in order to support some kind of psychology paper on climate skeptic bloggers titled – “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.” There were a lot of false (and funny) claims against bloggers on the internet, however, the Lewandowsky team chose to again single out my name in particular regarding specific false attributions of beliefs regarding the global temperature record. Readers will recall that in his previous contributions to scientific understanding, Lewandowsky et al. had made the claim:
and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).
Being surprised at the accusation, I pointed out in multiple emails to Dr. Lewandowsky that the Air Vent blog has published many articles using those exact records (here for instance) both on line and in peer-reviewed literature and no such claim regarding global temperature had ever been made by me. I have even created on-line global temperature results which have been compared favorably to many of the professionally funded series by others publishing global temperature series for climate science. A short chain of emails ensued where I explained in detail how my scientific positions have never supported his accusation. After a short while, with no hope of resolution, I was forced to go directly to the editor of Psychological Science, who eventually agreed to remove the citation.
Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich
Like pulling teeth right?
Humorously, the Air Vent was the single blog which made the citation list. I am not a naturally vindictive person so I took the editor at his word and let the matter rest. I have not had time to follow through as to whether the citation removal was completed, however Stephan Lewandowsky has continued to link to the unpublished original, University of Western Australia hosted, libelous document.
It seems that Lewandowsky is apparently less forgiving than I have been. He recently published a new paper based on blog reactions to his previous scientific breakthrough. This new paper astoundingly contained an even less supportable claim:
“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”
My bold!
I would link to the paper, except that his new editors were far more rational than Eric Eich, and on notification, have simply removed the paper from publication. They have additionally agreed to remove the false reference before any publication continues. Original link here. I am impressed with the quality of the Frontiers in Psychology Journal response, and hopefully Lewandowsky will now let the unfounded personal attacks rest.
As Dr. Lewandowsky and his team were aware, the conspiracy claims against me regarding the adjustment of temperature records were unsupported. This is was a psychology paper of which I am at least an “alleged” subject. A misrepresented data point, like so many other bloggers, who’s identity was unethically revealed. Since I did originally take the time to inform Lewandowsky of my actual opinions on temperature records, and since he was fully aware that the article in question did not support his claims, it is my opinion that Lewandwosky and his coauthors intentionally introduced false data into a peer-reviewed paper. Ironically for a paper on conspiracy ideation based on others (read non-authors) pre-conceived bias, the authors scientifically irrational accusations were completely unnecessary to the point their paper purports to make…..
.. unless one believes in the Lewandowsky conspiracy.
You go Jeff!
Jeff Condon you need to get your mind right. Obviously you’ve got a severe case of counterfactual thinking and constipational ideation going on if you didn’t even realize that you’ve been arguing that the temperature records only show warming because of adjustments. This can be corrected by an aggressive course of shock therapy and large daily doses of LSD, combined with intensive study of materials presented on the S.k.S website.
/sarc
Well done sir, BTW I admire your blog very much.
Jeff CONDON excuse me. I hate it when that happens.
Good response, Jeff! Amazing (but not surprising, really) that Lewandowsky could continue to be so reckless. For the True Believers, who really think they are in a street fight ala Michael Mann and Peter Gleick, the end justifies any means. We can expect worse to come from Lewandowsky et al., but at east you made them take notice.
P.s. It is right around the one year anniversary of the misbehavior of another miscreant in the Mann-styled Climate Wars, Peter Gleick. One year later and Gleick has skated merrily away from his malfeasance with hardly a ‘tsk tsk’ from his allies and enablers. This would be a good month for blogs to press journalists and the US Dept of Justice to revisit these matters.
Congratulations, Anthony. You know you’ve made it to the top of your craft when the opposition identifies you by name.
Now, what were the names of these sophomoric perpetrators of nefarious misdeeds? I forget…
When are you going to cover “Condensation Driven Winds” – also at Condon’s site?
As the ‘science’ slips away from them, Warmists are desperately trying to deflect attention away from the failure of their predictions. This is but noise and fury signifying nothing.
Jeff, it might pay you to consider retaining counsel in Australia to advise on the potential for a libel action. Australian libel laws are pretty strict.
Might seem a bit extreme, but nothing shuts such people up better than contemplating an expensive libel payout.
Congrats Jeff! Well done!
congrats jeff.
more good news:
Barclays, Deutsche Bank lose top carbon analysts: sources
LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Investment banks Barclays and Deutsche Bank have parted ways with their leading carbon analysts, sources at both firms told Reuters Point Carbon on Wednesday, as banks continue to pare back activity in the battered emissions trading market…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2173589?&ref=searchlist
The paper is still up.
Is the “Recursive Fury” article being taken down permanently by Frontiers in Psychology? Or just long enough to get the false claim about Jeff Condon’s views removed from it?
The excerpted quotation from ambitgambit leaves out one set of ellipsis dots that ought to be present, and creates a highly misleading impression of what the original blog post said.
Careful cross-checks of the article’s other quotations from blogs may reveal further distortions.
@JunkPsychology
From what I understand, it is taken down with the expectation that the offending statement about Condon will be removed, and then the author can resubmit the replacement. What isn’t known yet is if this will be an automatic replacement, or one that has additional scrutiny as a requisite for reinstatement.
I would think that the editor would be more wary now, and perhaps give the paper a thorough inspection before making it available again. I certainly would if I were in that position.
For whatever reason on earth could Lewandowsky’s ‘contribution’ to any form of knowledge advancement possibly be worth any degree of monetary compensation however minute that compensation might be? I’m real serious here. What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.
Well done bro. When I read that reference I had a good chuckle and figured you’d be all over Dr. Loo’s sorry butt. he could have written an interesting paper on conspiritorial ideation taking examples from all sides (big oil, etc ) and showed how the internet has a tendency to foster such thinking. That would have been interesting. My sense is the ethics committees at those boys universities should get some mail.
I’ll give the good Doctor the “recursive” part, but the “fury” part seems to be a projection.
—-
Fury:
intense, disordered, and often destructive rage
—
The Erinyes are usually called the Furies, in English. For those using the Greek names, they are often referred to euphemistically as Eumenides “gracious ones.” The Furies pursued particularly heinous criminals and drove them mad with their pursuit.
Just saying.
He still has it posted at his web site.
Jeff,
I am given to understand that defamation is a crime in Australia. As Lewandowsky’s preachings appear on a web site hosted (on behalf of) the University of Western Australia, it would be subject to such laws.
Perhaps Lewandowsky can come to appreciate that even ivory towers (eventually) offer no defence under the rule of law.
They got the con bit right! are they now saying that cover-ups, lies and dishonest people don’t exist?
hmm, A strange cognitive inference is a foot!
M Simon says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Two years ago; oh, wait.
You likely mean the recent publication of the paper here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/an-appeal-to-the-climate-science-blogosphere/
Tom J on February 6, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.”
Wow, that’s perfect. I feel sadness for the man, but that doesn’t keep me from hoping that he is relieved of his position of employment.
Anthony,
It would be great if there is a resubmission requirement with some teeth to it.
But, to put it mildly, the article in its current form doesn’t look like the product of rigorous review— and one has to wonder how strict the peer review process is for anything that gets submitted to Frontiers in Psychology.
Mods can I post it? lol
REPLY: Sure, Anthony
They think they can operate how they so desire without respect to persons or for that matter the law. (Notice I didn’t include ‘science.’) Strike one against them!
Jeff, while you’re in communication with the editor, you should probably call attention to the biases and qualifications of the reviewers that were likely “suggested” by Lewandowsky.
Good result.
I suspect that after a while serious journals will tire of acting as the toilet wall upon which errant schoolboys wish to scrawl their latest juvenile rants.