As if there could be any more ludicrous antics from this plonker, we now find that Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky pulled a bait and switch on ethical approvals for his psychological research papers at the University of Western Australia that were designed from the start to smear climate skeptics. It’s so unreal, it can only be called science fiction, or perhaps Lewdicrous SciFi.
Steve McIntyre observes in More False Claims from Lewandowsky:
…I’ve been mildly interested in Lewandowsky’s claims about people subscribing to contradictory beliefs at the same time, as for example, the following:
While consistency is a hallmark of science, conspiracy theorists often subscribe to contradictory beliefs at the same time – for example, that MI6 killed Princess Diana, and that she also faked her own death.
Lewandowsky’s assertions about Diana are based by an article by Wood et al. entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories”.
He goes on to say:
…nowhere in Wood et al 2012 is there any explicit statement that only two respondents purported to believe in the Faked Death theory that was highlighted in the abstract. Had readers been aware that only two people purported to subscribe to this theory, then they would obviously not expect “many people to give high endorsement to both theories”. Unfortunately when zero people subscribed to both theories, one cannot justifiably assert that “In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered”.
Got that? Zero.
A new FOIA on the ethical approval process for Lewandowsky’s research has been obtained by Australian Climate Madness.
Simon there has done a Yeoman’s work in getting to the bottom of Lewandowsky’s machinations, and it illustrates vividly why FOIA is so important in verifying if researchers have behaved ethically and professionally when nobody is watching them.
Shub Niggurath has done a summary of the whole affair laid bare by Simon’s work and it is a case study in noble cause corruption in my opinion:
The now-withdrawn Lewandowsky Fury paper (link) is possibly one of the egregious examples of ethically compromised research encountered.
…
The approval was granted as a “follow-up” study to the ‘Moon’ paper. The ‘Moon Hoax’ paper was itself was approved under an application for “Understanding Statistical Trends”. As recounted here, “Understanding Statistical Trends” was a study where Lewandowsky’s associates showed a graph to shopping mall visitors and asked questions (link pdf). This application was modified to add the ‘Moon hoax’ questions on the day the original paper was accepted for publication. The same application was modified for the ‘Recursive Fury’ paper. Each modification introduced ethical considerations not present in the previous step. Nevertheless, three unrelated research projects were allowed to be stacked on to a single ethics approval by the university board. In this way, Lewandowsky was able to carry out covert observational activities on members of the general public, as they reacted to his own work, with no human research ethical oversight.
Complaints to the University of Western Australia have been deferred, complaints to journals (including mine) have been ignored.
Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity when it comes to Lewandowksy’s bogus ‘science’? Or are you all too timid and complicit in protecting one of your own?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wut. So asking people questions is an issue of ethics in human experimentation? I assume by this that we’re all on board with the idea that the students need ethical waivers if they wish to query the teacher.
Sorry to say, the answer to your last question is no. Lewandowsky created a meme, and even though now thoroughly discredited, the acolytes will continue to use it until called upon it.
He is a member of the enlightened ones and as such must be protected for now. It will be a good sign when the worst offenders get tossed out of the enlightened ones protection.
Anthony, you ask “Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity when it comes to Lewandowksy’s bogus ‘science’? Or are you all too timid and complicit in protecting one of your own?”
I am glad to see someone else asking the same question that I have been posing for weeks. You can refer to my contributions to WUWT. I have asked the same question wherever I can. I am afraid you will get the same answer as I have got. NO!!! As Roy Spencer put it in the same sort of question. No-one has the gonads to stand up to The Team, backed by the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, all the other learned scientific organizations, and virtually the whole of academia. We are David fighting Goliath, without a slingshot.
Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity when it comes to Lewandowksy’s bogus ‘science’?
But, if they did that with Lewandowsky, then they would have to do it for all the scientists.
Oh, wait… never mind.
🙂
Ethics smethics!!!
Perfect.
They’ve jumped the shark by accusing everyone who disagrees with the most radically alarmist views on climate of mental illness.
This brutal tactic might have worked, had it been tried a few years ago, but since the number of people who have doubts about whether more taxes will save the climate now constitutes a majority, the joke is falling flat.
I learned recently that it was Dr Seuss who coined the word “nerd”.
(This is not off topic.)
“Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity when it comes to Lewandowksy’s bogus ‘science’?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO! this what passes as science and academic behaviour these days, you only have to look back at the first batch of Climategate emails to see how this sort of scientists conduct their research.. and ultimately themselves. And to think he’s now been allowed to come and teach in the UK!!
“Plonker”
Definition: A peddler of pseudo-science, and/or a senior figure in an ineptocracy, such as ‘Climate science’. More commonly used in the context of someone who has difficulty in walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Lewandowsky?
Steve McIntyre concludes:
As C.S. Lewis wrote: ““I wonder what they do teach them at these schools?”
“While consistency is a hallmark of science, conspiracy theorists often subscribe to contradictory beliefs at the same time – for example, that MI6 killed Princess Diana, and that she also faked her own death.”
Another example would be the idea that a particularly cold season is just weather but warm one is climate, no? Or early snows burying the western US is just weather, but tropical storm Sandy was global warming.
Seems to me I hear those contradictory arguments from the same people who spin tales about big oil funded conspiracies. I think Lew is onto something.
Unfortunately this person did operate in my land. Please, can some other country adopt this self exalted brilliant man. Note, I did mention ‘self’ appraisal. Sadly, we have these types, taking over a scientific debate and at the same time ruin the standard of science, trashing it. I think he should wear one of those trackers so we know where he will appear next with another irrational ‘master-piece’.
Truth is the foundation of all virtues. Without truth, there is no moral foundation. A purposeful omission is as crafty as a lie. By their fruits ye shall know them. The revolution comes when those in authority are realized to be otherwise untouchable. When a civilization is in decline, it does not slide, it totters. Once tilted, the descent is inexorable.
Patience friends, the lamp of climate ignorance is sputtering. It is a strange thing, that lamp, for though it is fed precious oil and burns, it casts a penetrating darkness.
No-one has the gonads to stand up to The Team, backed by the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, all the other learned scientific organizations, and virtually the whole of academia. We are David fighting Goliath, without a slingshot.
I don’t expect anyone in academia to stand up to the team, after all, the academics are mostly self-centered cowards. But we do have a slingshot; and that would be mother nature. CO2 has nothing to do with the recent small warming up-tick. (ok, maybe a tiny bit) The simple fact of the matter is that cold winters and cool summers will finally make fake-Dr. Mann and his team’s bs unsupportable and then one day everyone will say that they were skeptical all along. Someone will even say that he had a computer model that showed that we were entering a cooling phase all along. (I’ll find him and @ur momisugly#$@ur momisugly#$-slap that fellow)
Now some may say that calling most of the academics self-centered cowards is over the top. It might even get me moderated for the first time ever. But time after time throughout history the majority of academics have sought to protect their job rather than stand up for the truth. Besides, they are mostly state worshiping rent seekers.
And when you blow a gasket and do something remotely out of the ordinary (to try and draw attention to an egregious transgression of intellectual ethics in furtherance of the manipulation of all of society and to the detriment of the poor), you will be labelled a “kook” who doesn’t go through the proper academic channels.
They own those institutions and they ain’t gonna be held to account. In my own state, the %$^% Virginia Supreme Court redefined the University of Virginia a “private corporation” to thwart Cuccinelli and protect Mann/UVA from embarrassment. Ahhh, my tax dollars at work against me.
Lawsuits are an expensive and blunt tool, but they sometimes work. Maybe.
The emperor has no clothes.
philjourdan says:
“Sorry to say, the answer to your last question is no. Lewandowsky created a meme, and even though now thoroughly discredited, the acolytes will continue to use it until called upon it.”
No. They will continue to use it even after its been refuted, debunked, disproven, and thoroughly invalidated.
Case in point: 97%. Need I say more?
@John West – You are correct. I meant that they will use it with impunity until proven wrong, then they will move on to the next unsuspecting target and use it. They will continue to use it, just not against those who are informed and prove them wrong.
Jquip @ur momisugly 1.16pm
Unless I’m mistaken you have misunderstood a point at issue here – getting approval from UWA for one study by submitting necessary relevant details, and then piggy-backing two further and unrelated ‘studies’ without submitting relevant details, just handwaving to the university rules.
The problem with Lewandowsky isn’t that he’s a clown. The problem is that too many people don’t know he’s a joke.
Re: Peter Miller
“ineptocracy”
That is a great word. I like it.
ICPP!
Peter Miller says: “Plonker” Definition: A peddler of pseudo-science
Is that right, I always thought it meant someone drunk on cheap wine. ie: drinker of plonk
Markstoval, you write “But we do have a slingshot; and that would be mother nature.”
You are correct. However, we have to wait for Mother Nature to give us the right ammunition. That is taking a long time, and I am not sure how much more time we have, before irreparable damage is done.
mikemUK — “Unless I’m mistaken you have misunderstood a point at issue here ”
Wouldn’t doubt in the least that I’m confused here. As I understand it, Lew baby is in the dock for not get an ethical sign off to ask questions. Which, certainly, would be a violation of process. But if so, I’m completely lost on the idea that you need permission to ask questions. Or that it is somehow related to human experimentation rather than basic chit-chat.