Stephan Lewandowsky’s ethical lapses allowed his science to be published without oversight

Cook_lew-ethics

John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky – smear masters hiding behind “ethically approved” research.

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The now-withdrawn Lewandowsky Fury paper (link) is possibly one of the egregious examples of ethically compromised research encountered.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?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Opinion, Post-normal science, Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Stephan Lewandowsky’s ethical lapses allowed his science to be published without oversight

  1. Jquip says:

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. Tim Walker says:

    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.

  4. Jim Cripwell says:

    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.

  5. JohnWho says:

    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.

    :)

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Ethics smethics!!!

    Perfect.

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    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.

  8. RobRoy says:

    I learned recently that it was Dr Seuss who coined the word “nerd”.
    (This is not off topic.)

  9. Mycroft says:

    “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!!

  10. Peter Miller says:

    “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?

  11. David L. Hagen says:

    Steve McIntyre concludes:

    That Lewandowsky should make untrue statements will hardly occasion surprise among CA readers. However, drawing conclusions from a subpopulation of zero does take small population statistics to a new and shall-we-say unprecedented level.

    As C.S. Lewis wrote: ““I wonder what they do teach them at these schools?”

  12. Ken G says:

    “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.

  13. Lil Fella from OZ says:

    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’.

  14. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    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.

  15. markstoval says:

    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 @#$@#$-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.

  16. Alex says:

    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.

  17. Hans Erren says:

    The emperor has no clothes.

  18. John West says:

    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?

  19. mikemUK says:

    Jquip @ 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.

  20. Gunga Din says:

    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.

  21. tommoriarty says:

    Re: Peter Miller

    “ineptocracy”

    That is a great word. I like it.

  22. rogerknights says:

    Hans Erren says:
    November 8, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    The emperor has no clothes.

    ICPP!

  23. Robin Hewitt says:

    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

  24. Jim Cripwell says:

    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.

  25. Jquip says:

    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.

  26. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    Pleading for his peers to do something about his faux science only makes you look weak, anthony.
    Lew is not worth this much attention. He is just another academic hack, rent seeking and posing with non-academics and other proven academic hacks.
    Psychology is a disreputable science precisely because his peers won’t, for whatever reason, police their own. Lew’s phonied up work is fairly comoonplace in psychology, from what has been shown in the past.
    Lew is a loser. Don’t let neverwuzzers like him get under your skin.

  27. Dale Hartz says:

    Anthony, you operate an ethical, legitimate and creditable website. You downgrade yourself by giving some of these guys any space or time. They are gleeful to see skeptical websites publish or mention their nonsense.

    So why not ignore them like they don’t accept any skeptical views.

  28. Tom J says:

    To refer to Lewandowsky’s shenanigans as noble cause corruption is to give them far more dignity than they deserve. Everything that comes out of his mouth is more like an ignoble barf eruption.

  29. Mac the Knife says:

    Jquip says:
    November 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    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.

    Jquip,
    Is this more of your ‘game theory’ dissembling? Setting up a strawman to knock down? Really???

    Honesty, integrity and self-respect are not ‘games’ or ‘theory’. They are absolutes. You either have them engrained….. or you don’t. If you have them engrained, you are ethically bound to not lie, cheat, or mislead to ‘win’ personal or political advantage. It is clear that ethics do not constrain Mr. Lewandowsky. How ’bout you?

    In the movie The Alamo, John Wayne stated it succinctly “There’s right and there’s wrong. You gotta do one or the other. You do the one, and you’re living. You do the other, and you may be walking around, but you’re as dead as a beaver hat.”
    MtK

  30. dbstealey says:

    Mac the Knife,

    Thanks, I have been looking for that clip ever since I first saw it. Couldn’t remember what movie it was from. There’s a lot of good advice there. Got it bookmarked now.

  31. Jquip says:

    Mac the Knife: “… you are ethically bound to not lie, cheat, or mislead to ‘win’ personal or political advantage. ”

    Fair cop, let’s try you out. Ah wait, we cannot as you didn’t address the substance of the post. One might accuse you of an ethical lapse by misleading things rather than addressing the topic. So short bus words for you:

    Do you consider asking questions, like this one, human experimentation?

  32. M Courtney says:

    Dale Hartz says:

    So why not ignore them like they don’t accept any skeptical views.

    Sorry, I strongly disagree.
    The people we disagree with might be right. They should be heard. We should defend their right to be heard so we can learn from them.
    And then when they are fools they can be exposed as such.

  33. Anything is possible says:

    Lil Fella from OZ says:
    November 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    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’.

    ======================================

    He’s over here now (UK) – thanks for nothing!

    Will you take him back if we let you regain the Ashes?

  34. wayne says:

    I agree with Dale Hartz , why let WUWT be their greatest loudspeaker?

    What happened to all of the great science contrarian papers and articles spelling out why they are all wrong? Not all of those papers, like any, even the proponents “peer reviewed” pseudo-sceince, are not 100% correct but the bulk of the information held within is correct and this is one of the only sites to find it. Hit ‘em where it hurts.

  35. A.D. Everard says:

    It will be interesting to watch the scramble over to the other side when all this DOES break, because break it will. To me, though, this is already criminal. I used to think these people were misguided, but now I know better – this is all very deliberate and has been for a long time.

    By the way and O/T – Bishop Hill is down, I’m getting a “No such account exists” message. The Bish was there this morning.

  36. M Courtney says:

    Mr or Mrs Anything is possible, Steady on!

    We don’t want Lew to work in the UK.
    We don’t want Lew to work in Oz.
    We don’t want Lew to work anywhere if he’s going to keep on working without integrity.

    But we do want to keep the Ashes.

  37. Txomin says:

    Lewandowsky needed to fool the “system” (that is, very specific people needed to be fooled). In other words, the “system” was not complicit but taken advantage of (that is, very specific people were taken advantage of). Lewandowsky will find it harder to do this again. And this is so partly because of our host, Mr. Watts. Thank you, my friend.

  38. Khwarizmi says:

    The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is just an Orwellian epithet designed to pathologize people who recognize problems with official accounts of certain events. It is the modern version of the words blasphemy, sacrilege or heretic, deployed to create and maintain taboo.

    When an extremely alarmed taxi driver grew desperate in his effort to change my mind about climate change on April 27th last year, he resorted to asking if I thought “it” (climate mania) was “all just a conspiracy.
    I replied, “Yes I do! But if you prefer to call it a Universal Failure of Intelligence that resulted in thousands of western politicians and journalists and climate experts marching in goose-step to warn us of an imminent danger that turned out to be nothing more than a sexed-up fantasy, then that’s fine by me. Just so long as you understand that it was a fantasy.”
    The driver was a skeptic by the time I paid my cab fare.

  39. Mac the Knife says:

    Jquip says:
    November 8, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    Mac the Knife: “… you are ethically bound to not lie, cheat, or mislead to ‘win’ personal or political advantage. ”
    Fair cop, let’s try you out. Ah wait, we cannot as you didn’t address the substance of the post.

    Jquip,
    Certainly I addressed the substance of the post. It is clear that ethics do not constrain Mr. Lewandowsky.

    Perhaps you were referring to your comment at 1:16pm? Clearly you did set up and knock down a strawman, as I pointed out. As such, I believe you have already ‘tried me out’, even as I have ‘outted your try’. ‘Nuff said for today.
    MtK

  40. KNR says:

    ‘Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity when it comes to Lewandowksy’s bogus ‘science’?’

    in the name of ‘the cause ‘ ALL THINGS are justifiable.
    This is the man the RS choice to hand a load of cash to and that Bristol University choice to take on when he escaped from Australia.
    Frankly if I was student at Bristol I would demand to have my work marked on his ‘standards ‘ as I could put any old rubbish in and pass no problem .

  41. Jquip says:

    Mac the Knife: “Certainly I addressed the substance of the post.”

    A review from the big, bold bit in the OP — “Each modification introduced ethical considerations not present in the previous step.”

    That is, his survey questions raise ethical considerations because they fall under human experimentation as defined by the University. So now that you’ve studiously avoided the topic and question at hand, and continue to attempt to mislead and derail with Red Herrings, then we have established that you are an unethical individual. Or just plum stupid,. I’ll let you pick which.

  42. KenB says:

    I guess with time and the way truth tends to come through eventually, there is a huge opportunity for others to study and report on Lewandowsky and the curious pairing with Michael (I am a victim) Mann, the wonderful background of the CRU emails, the use of propaganda and its role in the memes associated with Global Warming, should spawn a whole new industry, something to keep warm in a cooling world!!

  43. KenB says:

    Actually it’s a Lewmann disaster for them!

  44. johanna says:

    Jquip says:
    November 8, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    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.
    ———————————————————————
    Jquip, it is not about “needing an ethical sign-off to ask questions”, as even a cursory reading of the relevant posts would reveal.

    At a fundamental level, if you are going to ask questions of people and use their responses for your research, you need to inform them and get their permission.

    But what Lewandowsky did was much worse. He wrote a form letter to UWA claiming that his new paper was just based on reactions in the public domain, thus not requiring any scrutiny for ethical purposes. What he actually did was participate in a debate on his blog, and use that material (inter alia) for his “Recursive Fury” paper, now withdrawn and never likely to be seen again. He not only misled UWA, he broke just about every rule in the book about both ethics and research methodology.

    The paper itself is so riddled with errors, misattributions and just plain libel that it is now snuggling up with Gergis et al at the bottom of the sea, in between the Treasure Chest and the mermaid.

    Oh, and Bishop Hill has crashed for me as well. Hope it’s nothing serious.

  45. Grant says:

    I believe Diana was killed in a car crash because she entered a tunnel supported by pillars with no guard rails in a limo driven by a drunkard. Yes we went to the moon, those strange horn noises in the sky are from TRAINS, Shell oil is not drilling in the Arctic with nuclear bombs and Ozwald made a decent shot that was not impossible or surprising.
    So why would I believe in catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming?

  46. u.k.(us) says:

    I kinda like to think of myself as a “Fury”.
    So, now what… next victim ?

  47. charles nelson says:

    Jquip.
    Asking questions of individuals, recording the answers, then using the data collected as the basis for a ‘scientific’ theory, requires a degree of structure and strictness which clearly was not present in this case.
    Your obtuse clinging onto this small irrelevant point marks, whilst wilfully ignoring the ‘big picture’ marks you out as a ‘Believer’…tell me it’s not so!

  48. John Whitman says:

    Stephan Lewandowsky has one of these of ethical systems:

    1) a mystical ethical system, a supernatural entity is the source of ethical values

    2) a collectivized ethical system, ethical values are derived from criteria about what is good for society.

    3) subjective ethical system, all ethics are merely arbitrary based on ones emotions and whims

    4) an individual focused ethical system based on the nature of individual human capacity for reason and knowledge.

    I think Lewandowsky’s lack of professional integrity is caused by his ethical system being based on subjectivity. It looks like he is just making up stuff in his research and justifying it ethically by his arbitrary whimsical emotions such as righteous feelings.

    Wrt those commenters suggesting that Lewandowsky is too unimportant to be getting so much skeptical attention, I am in partial agreement. But also think that periodically mentioning his work in the context of its demonstrated falseness is necessary for speeding and aiding science’s self-correction process.

    John

  49. john abercrombie says:

    Science and Lewandowsky. Two words that should never appear in the same sentence.

  50. OssQss says:

    If one defames another in public, they are liable for damages if such is an untruth. It is that simple.

    Sue, or shut up is what I have been told.

    In most cases, the perpetrator has monetary gains in play from such liable action.

    When faced with the repercussions of their actions, most perpetrators fold quickly.

  51. david moon says:

    Jquip says
    “Do you consider asking questions, like this one, human experimentation?”

    That depends- are we having a conversation or are you trolling for comments to use in your next “research” paper?

  52. Stephen Pruett says:

    Lewandowsky stated his case to the ethics committee in precisely the way that was required to establish that it would not be regarded as human experimentation that needed to be evaluated by the committee. Opinions voluntarily made public without interaction between the researcher and the subject do not fit the definition of human experimentation. Of course, he actually did directly interact with human subjects and named them, which fits the definition of human experimentation and violates one of the central tenets of ethical human subject research, not revealing the identity of the subjects. Therefore, he violated an important ethical principle in human experimentation and violated policies shared by virtually all universities. At my university, this would definitely result in some type of sanction, possibly dismissal.

    With regard to previous comments painting scientists with a broad brush as self-serving, cowardly, and caring only about their funding, I have not found that to be the case for scientists in other fields and it probably isn’t true for most climate scientists. Most of us are scientists because we have a passion for science, and we realize that our objectivity and credibility are essential. The reason I became skeptical of CAGW was that the climategate emails and subsequent defense of them by a relatively small group of climate scientists were so unlike the attitudes and actions of any scientist I know that it was instantly clear they weren’t acting like scientists. So, why would I trust their science?

  53. Paul Westhaver says:

    Lewandowsky and its interests have not risen to my level of interest. I don’t care what it does or who it talks to or what it writes or if it reproduces. It is like a noise like a tray dropped in a busy cafeteria. Quickly ignored and of no consequence.

    I am more interested in the Tera watts of energy that just dumped into the earth’s atmosphere from the huge flares we are encountering.

    Lewandowsky only has a voice because A Watts gives it a voice. Shun it.

  54. Merovign says:

    Won’t somebody, anybody, in a position of authority stand up for decency, honesty, and integrity

    http://bit.ly/19w1c3D

  55. As a person with some education in clinical psychology I would recommend to rather ignore Lewandowsky et al. Developing mental disorder is not uncommon in the field. And tell me, who will take too seriously somebody, who has a paper provided by bold investigation disclaimer even by a journal of a second class quality and without resolution so long? His publication list looks obsessed by cognitive psychology of disinformation, computer modeling thereof. People usually think psychology is science trying to find out how the human mind works, but sometimes, not completely rarely it is rather more about manipulation of the mind and Lewandowski has pretty close to the psychological manipulation field throughout his career. Even it is not primary intention, When you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. Even he maybe thinks he successfully deconstructs climate skepticism and generally the “conspiracy nuts” and gaining support (– which is rather result of his rather indecent attention seeking at the edge of open slander, to put it mildly, without actually presenting any evidence, and maybe also protective behavior of those in the field who share his extreme views, media attention snowballing and halo effecting it), the mind usually works differently and in result he actually rather popularizes the climate skepticism by seeding cognitive dissonance – which almost inevitably must arise in normal person, when reading his pushy, unrestrained, emotionally saturated texts, not speaking if seeing his characteristic directive talking demeanour which almost evokes a fanatical preacher. He looks like actually having quite protruding typical technocratic, false-objectivist type of reasoning – which is so typical with people of mediocre, not too high intelligence with underdeveloped emotional part of it, seeking only-truth, never able to concede it can have different facets, because such mindset is unable to handle pluralist notions without uneasiness – that’s likely what attracted him to the field of disinformation research in the first place – for his own cognitive dissonance and uneasiness he likely felt towards manipulation products present in everyday life (because world is simply not the place of ultimate truth and happiness) not able ignore it, motivated to research it, find the weakpoints and overpower (although so much futile it can look from normal person point of view) -maybe for then minor personality problems of his own character tending to manipulation by projective identification, which one can see marking of in his discourse. And because people of this type apriori assume control over themselves the more they project – he thinks that also other people must think the way as he thinks and who don’t he deems deviated, dangerous, worth to be feared, labeled as such and ultimately eliminated from public discourse as likely mentally challenged, but without ability to actually diagnose them, because there is (at least so far) no diagnosis reserved just for different opinion (-which is classical fallacy of Dunning-Kruger effect often occurring with psychologists, who don’t have any specialized education in clinical field and only assume they can evaluate mental health by association, without actual empathic talent, training and skills developed for it – which btw is almost impossible with the personality type of Lewandowski to successfully achieve without major therapeutic break-trough during training therapy), so he actually doesn’t realize, that majority of people don’t suffer from emotional problems he has with imperfect reality (although he desperately tryies to project such identity there and manipulate it to realize it and solve it for him by “magic power” of mass), so it will not take his labeling at face value without facing compelling evidence – and if not provided it will actually polarize against his point of view – of course if even able to understand what he actually means, which sometimes is not easy.
    This is just what falls into my mind.

  56. Chris G says:

    Perhaps we should all read Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals:

    1 “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
    2 “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
    3 “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
    4 “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
    5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    6 “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
    7 “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
    8 “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
    9 “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
    10 “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
    11 “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
    12 “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
    13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    Do any of these look like they could describe Lewandowsky?

  57. Felflames says:

    Deception and misinformation can be powerful tools if wielded correctly.
    However, Truth is something far more powerful. It will crack any armor, see through any subterfuge.
    Once Truth glances over and sees what is happening, it is only a matter of time before all the lies and misinformation is swept away .

  58. Blade says:

    You can tell just by looking at their photo that these two were the repulsive creepy loner geeks in their childhood schools who were beat upon mercilessly by the cool kids. They are now getting even with the world in any way that their limited intelligence and skillset allows.

    Someone had to say it.

  59. Barry Woods says:

    I received the EXACT same reply from UWA as Steve McIntyre…

    http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/uwa/20130501%20uwa%20reply.pdf

    which of course did not address ANY of the concerns I raised with UWA.

    A copy of my complaint is here (sent to UWA and Frontiers)

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/11/03/the-subterranean-war-on-science-a-comment/#comment-282971

    not the best, (Frontiers had imp[osed a stupid deadline) could have done with a good edit, but I was on holiday, and wrote it on a tablet, with my family being annoyed wasting my time on it.

  60. Barry Woods says:

    Ethics issues: ‘Recursive Fury’ Lewandowsky, Cook, Marriot et al

    I had directly interacted with Lewandowsky via email (for LOG12). I had also commented on his blog Shaping Tomorrows World..

    Worse. I had interacted with Michael Marriott (‘Fury’ co author), on his blog Watching the Deniers… Asking him to tone down – his attitude towards me. publically labelling me (and anthony), Denier, Disinformer, Verified Bullshit (red rubber stamp on a Watts graphic – on my article) and worse (for a psychology researcher) Dunning Kruger..

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/watts-explains-why-lewandowsky-paper-on-conspiracy-theories-is-wrong-its-a-conspiracy-between-john-cook-and-the-prof/

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/

    labels also applied by Marriott to Anthony Watts.

    Marriott also had had a very public battle with Jo Nova (also named in ‘Fury’) and Marriott was behind the smear of Jo’s husband as being an anti Semitic conspiracy theorists! (language that Lewandowsky repeated in one of his videos)

    hardly a wise choice by Lew as an independent researcher for Fury.
    Marriott was attacking Watts Up and Jo Nova’s blog posts about Lewandowsky and LOG12, and directly interacting with me.

    (Cook’s conflicts are even worse, ie a vested interest, with Sks’s involvement with Al Gore’s climate reality project, for starters)

    Marriotts behaviour alone, I believe, when I spelt out to Frontiers in a telephone call to Frontiers, resulted in the paper being pulled the same afternoon for investigation. up to that point they had recived complaint for over a week. and were treating it like an academic spat, not ethics violations.

  61. Gail Combs says:

    Robin Hewitt says:
    November 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    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
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Is there a difference?

    Oh sorry the peddler of pseudo-science is drunk on power.

  62. Clovis Marcus says:

    Just one point…the link to Frontiers in the Shub Niggurath quote says this:

    “The article has not been retracted or withdrawn.”

    Contradicting Shub’s assertion.

  63. Gail Combs says:

    Jim Cripwell says: @ November 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It already has been done. We have a whole generation (or more) of people raised with psuedo-science instead of science in high school and grammar school. Kids who haven’t learned to read properly much less reason. Many of these state crippled kids have gone on to get useless degrees in fields that will no longer exist if CAGW collapses.

    The only question is whether they will wake-up and there will be a back lash or their brainwashing will last a life time and they will just hop on the next psuedo-science bandwagon manufactured by the power mongers. So far in just my lifetime we have gone from “the Price of Progress” to pollution control to the ozone hole to global cooling to global warming.

    “Woodrow Wilson, the nations 28th president, believed that the scholar and the policymaker were engaged in a common enterprise.http://www.wilsoncenter.org/about-us

    Seems Ike was a bit late in his warning.

    Woodrow Wilson is the US president who signed the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, almost a hundred years ago. He also said:
    “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” from his book The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913) Pg. 24 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811
    or see excerpts of the book @ : http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/WWilson_NewFreedom.html

    They have to throw around the word “Conspiracy Theorists” and indicate they are “Mentally Ill.” This is to counteract the curiosity of people. There is now a tremendous amount of information floating around on the internet, much from primary sources such as that quote above, all at our finger tips. Worse you do not even have to go to the library and spend hours digging for it. (Also public libraries can easily censor material.)

    How many times have we seen Anthony called all sorts of names so the herd will not bother to read what is written here? Labeling someone a ‘mentally ill conspiracy theorist’ is the quickest way to censor someone. On other boards it has gotten to the point I dare not link to this website.

    The worse part is connecting conspiracy theorist to mental illness which allows incarceration without trial and once your record contains involuntary admission to a mental institution all credibility is lost. It happened in the Soviet Union and it is happening in the “Free World” today.
    SEE: http://metatalk.metafilter.com/22127/ or for an example of ‘Friends’ conspiraring to get someone committed because he believes in ‘conspiracy theories’ : http://ask.metafilter.com/227005/Unhealthy-conspiracy-theories

    If you really want to become ill read the article : Electroshock for Children and Involuntary Adults
    by Dr. Breggin. “In June 2005 in south Carolinia, I was the medical expert in the first ever malpractice trial in which a jury found a doctor negligent for referring a patient for ECT.”

    http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273

  64. Gail Combs says:

    My above comment may seem ‘way-out’ because I could not find the actual illustration I was looking for. So consider this, many states hare laws which permit the involuntary commitment of people for mental illness alone. It is not necessary to show that the person has ever committed an illegal act. One of the targets are old people who are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of the way. First it is cheaper than a nursing home and second it allows relatives to ‘Inherit’ without murder since the mentally ill are incompetent to manage their own affairs. (Easy to get a court order for power of attorney)

    Many statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not define mental illness but let professionals define it any way they see fit.

    INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT: HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICATIONS
    John A. Menninger M.D.

    The legal definition of the term mental health, as spelled out in each state’s statutes, varies considerably. Except for Utah, the statutes do not include specific psychiatric diagnoses, but instead define mental illness in terms of its effects on the individual’s thinking or behavior. Some definitions are rather vague; for example, in the District of Columbia mental illness means “a psychosis or other disease which substantially impairs the mental health of a person.” Most definitions include some deleterious effect of the illness. For example, in Georgia mentally ill “shall mean having a disorder of thought or mood which significantly impairs the judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life.”…

    This is where the danger of what Lewandowsky is doing comes in. If you get enough of these crap papers it becomes justification for claiming mental illness in the minds of the ‘Professionals’ especially since the ‘patient’ has to pay for treatment.

    Florida Senate Delays Broadening Baker Act Powers for Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants-Calls for a Study
    Florida’s nurse practitioners and physician assistants were hopeful the Senate would vote to allow them to have the authority to order the involuntary commitment of a patient for mental-health evaluation under the Baker Act…. Currently, nurse practitioners and physician assistants can perform an evaluation, but cannot sign off on voluntary or involuntary examination paperwork to admit someone to treatment under the Baker Act. Instead, they must wait for a physician or law enforcement official to perform another evaluation and sign the paperwork.

    So all it takes is the word of a cop and a nurse to sign off on the involuntary examination paperwork and sent you to a mental hospital for evaluation. If you then refuse treatment that it is considered a sign you are ‘mentally ill’ Nice catch-22 :>)

  65. Gail Combs says:

    Jquip says:
    November 8, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    …Fair cop, let’s try you out. Ah wait, we cannot as you didn’t address the substance of the post. One might accuse you of an ethical lapse by misleading things rather than addressing the topic. So short bus words for you:

    Do you consider asking questions, like this one, human experimentation?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You are missing the entire point. It is not the “asking questions” that is the problem it is using the internet and sites such as Sceptical Science where skeptics would not be caught dead after the first couple tries an have been censored or if persistent have been outright banned as the SOURCE of his ‘Statistics” It is the worse than going to Orthodox Jewish Synagogues to study the beliefs in Jesus among Christians! Actually you would get a lot better information from the Jews.

  66. tteclod says:

    I don’t follow the nonesense creatures such as Lewenducky peddle, but I am often forced to endure the memes. It’s nice to know why the memes are false.

  67. tteclod says:

    I’ll go a step further: Lewenducky knows his cause is ignoble, at best.

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Barry Woods…. Thank you.

  69. tteclod says:

    Since I’m dummer than MtK, I’ll play this game for the entertainment value, and ’cause I’m bored waiting to drive to the woods and murder defenseless antlered animals.

    Asking questions can be a form of human manipulation. For instance, I can ruin a weekend with family by asking my retirement-age and somewhat feeble mother pointed questions about her belief in deity. The ethical oversight is specifically targeted at creatures such as Lewenducky who target the public with questions intended to /=(_)(/, with people. At this juncture, it is clear that he intentionally manipulates research and reports to mislead the public. Such creatures should not be permitted the authority that association with scientific organizations affords.

    Should students need ethics committee permission to ask professors questions? !-!!=_!_!_ no! Professors and students are private individuals who have agreed to engage in academic study and instruction. Consent and competence to consent is pre-established. Random individuals in shopping malls, however, are no more informed regarding participation in purportedly scientific surveys than the antlered mammals at which I will point my firearm.

  70. “The article has not been retracted or withdrawn.”

    Contradicting Shub’s assertion.

    The article has been taken down at the journal publishers’ website. Per Lewandowsky, the journal is trying to publish it (again) without setting off legal issues. Which means, if and even if it comes back, it won’t be in the same form. For the state the paper’s in right now, ‘withdrawn’, ‘taken down’ etc are distinctions without a difference. If it is not withdrawn or retracted, where is it?

  71. rogerknights says:

    If it is not withdrawn or retracted, where is it?

    In limbo?

  72. Clovis Marcus says:
    November 9, 2013 at 1:40 am

    Just one point…the link to Frontiers in the Shub Niggurath quote says this:
    “The article has not been retracted or withdrawn.”
    Contradicting Shub’s assertion.

    Frontiers actually state:
    “Frontiers has provisionally removed the link to the article while these issues are investigated”
    I actually have original link to the article fulltext from March:

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full

    -and as anybody can check the link is redirected back by the site to the abstract.
    So directly contrary to the claim in the note it is not only link removal it is article full-text removal. Which is even worse than withdrawal or retraction, because it usually implies a legal responsibility is involved – as clearly in this case. Also there were complaints not only about slander, but also, if I remeber it well, about research ethics and fraudulent data use, so if the article full-text access was completely removed, not only hidden, it practically means retraction too, though maybe provisional, of the article under publication standards, despite the contradictory claim in the note “not been retracted or withdrawn” – which could be there for practical reasons, because if the Frontiers would not expressly state this attached to the article official abstract and at the same time wouldn’t make the article accessible, it could be (despite in legal sense it is published under Creative Commons) withdrawn from scientific databases, because they recognize only original publishers, so they could deem the article retracted, especially if retraction reported, which is quite easy and which I think Frontiers – a relatively very young journal most probably really wouldn’t be happy about because it could pretty mix up its ranking.
    In my opinion Frontiers can’t afford ever restore the accessibility of the article full-text. The risk of legal repercussions given the authors approach and the whole parade of names slandered in the article – and not only bloggers, but including for example US senator – for calumny is in my opinion quite high in this case – because there of course would be motivation to seize opportunity and make some political points on the potential suit, not speaking that swiss laws are rather not very favorable for potential defendants, which good to note of course would include not only publisher but all authors of the article if anything like that initiated and would be pretty expensive for them, not speaking if found guilty, which I think is not impossible in Switzerland, it would pretty sure mean end of their career – which as I look into the article they maybe deserve, because such parody on science one sees not quite often.

  73. ATheoK says:

    “tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says: November 8, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    As a person…”

    Well, you’re on his list of conspiracists now along with us the rest of us.

    Normally, your advice to ignore us would be good advice; i.e. ignore the offensive person till they mature. Only, it is unlikely that lunaticdowsky will mature much.

    Which leaves us with the necessity of combating lies with the truth.

    Lunaticdoozy’s lies are combatted by the continual search for truth performed by the science minded Anthony, McIntyre, Willis, JoNova, Donna, the Good Bishop, and many many others. Yes, as you state, when sensible people get to perceive honest science and compare that against the fire and brimstone and ad hominem mouthing’s of lunaticdoozy and his anti-science illogical herd.

  74. ATheoK says:

    “rogerknights says: November 9, 2013 at 6:04 am

    “If it is not withdrawn or retracted, where is it?”

    In limbo?”

    Surely not…?

    Isn’t limbo much too temperate? Must be located where sun doesn’t shine and torment is eternal as the denizens read that and similar work to each other, forever.

  75. NikFromNYC says:

    Our slingshot is logic but it needs to be assembled and used out in the battlefield of public and scientific opinion, not merely spoken of within a blog that only skeptics delve into. Lewandowsky is a skeptic’s delight, since the very title of his study is trivial to ridicule:

    (1) A popular study debasing skeptics is called: “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax.”

    (2) Astronauts themselves are outspoken skeptics, so the paper fails the laugh test: http://a2.img.mobypicture.com/8e1234d649766adfef528feb438395b9_large.jpg

    (3) The Internet allows anybody to quite magically post (1)/(2) for free, to news and science sites and then follow up with details of the deception. The dozens of fatalistic posts here represent a vast opportunity cost, thus.

  76. RichieP says:

    In English English slang, ‘plonker’ has an earthier meaning, referring as it does to the male organ of generation. Often used as the description of a fool. Shorter words are also available.

  77. John Whitman says:

    We can give Lewandowsky a new blog handle.

    Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Conspired.

    John

  78. NikFromNYC says:

    Logic Slingshot Mark II, thanks to Willis’ plot and Mann’s Facebook account:

    This year the journal Science published a headline grabbing “confirmation” of the revolutionary history-reforming temperature Hockey Stick in which a simple Peer Review 101 plotting of the included spreadsheet format proxy data falsified instead of supported what a co-author led NY Times reporter Revkin to describe as a “super hockey stick” and which Mike “Hide The Proxy Data Decline” Mann repeatedly celebrated on Facebook:

    (A) Plotted Proxy Data: http://s17.postimg.org/mvmsorb2n/image.jpg

    (B) Snoopy Dance: http://s15.postimg.org/5x1hmvhcr/Mann_Celebration2013.jpg

    Marcott 2013…look it up, to discover the bizarre doublespeak nature of climate “science.”

  79. Mardler says:

    As a couple of contributors said above this fool is in the UK!

    Beware, Brits, he will soon be advising politicians here..

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22

  80. philjourdan says:

    @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.

Comments are closed.