Today has been entertaining to say the least. On Twitter, Ben Pile of Climate Resistance has been telling us all about how he learned that the Lewandowsky-Cook Paper#2 – titled ‘Recursive Fury’, which detailed all manners of conspiratorial ideation theory, was retracted, or was retracted and put back up, or is about to be, or something. Nobody seems quite sure of the behind the scenes machinations going on at “Skeptical Science” and Lew-world.
Pile pointed out that Cook’s buddy and SkS Tank Commander Dana Nuccitelli (context here) authored a post at Skeptical Science announcing the paper’s retracton/demise/flushing, but then, that post was inexplicably removed from SkS. But, it is still on Google cache here. I’ve saved a PDF of the page here.
The puffed up embargo notice for the SkS blog post is a hilarious touch, as it is now March 21st in Australia.
Some excerpts of that “disappeared” SkS post:
EMBARGOED UNTIL 20 March 2014
Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper
Posted on 20 March 2014 by dana1981
Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case. Thus in order to advance their agenda of delaying climate solutions and maintaining the status quo in the face of a 97 percent expert consensus suggesting that this is a high-risk path, contrarians have engaged in a variety of unconventional tactics.
- Funding a campaign to deny the expert climate consensus.
- Harassing climate scientists and universities with frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests.
- Engaging in personal, defamatory public attacks on climate scientists.
- Flooding climate scientists with abusive emails.
- Illegally hacking university servers and stealing their emails.
- Harassing journals to retract inconvenient research.
That final tactic has evolved, from merely sending the journal a petition signed by a bunch of contrarians, to sending journals letters threatening libel lawsuits. Unfortunately, this strategy has now succeeded.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing
The story begins with the publication of a paper titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The paper was authored by Lewandosky, Oberauer, and Gignac, and published in the journal Psychological Science in 2012. Using survey data from visitors to climate blogs, the paper found that conspiracy theorists are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change.
…
Frontiers Bails Out
However, nobody likes being called a conspiracy theorist, and thus climate contrarians really didn’t appreciate Recursive Fury. Very soon after its publication, the journal Frontiers was receiving letters from contrarians threatening libel lawsuits. In late March 2013, the journal decided to “provisionally remove the link to the article while these issues are investigated.” The paper was in limbo for nearly a full year until Frontiers finally caved to these threats.
In its investigation, the journal found no academic or ethical problems with Recursive Fury. However, the fear of being sued by contrarians for libel remained. The University of Western Australia (UWA: Lewandowsky’s university when Recursive Fury was published – he later moved to the University of Bristol) also investigated the matter and found no academic, ethical, or legal problems with the paper. In fact, UWA is so confident in the validity of the paper that they’re hosting it on their own servers.
After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits. Both sides have finally agreed to retract Recursive Fury.
It’s unfortunate that the Frontiers editors were unwilling to stand behind a study that they admitted was sound from an academic and ethical standpoint, especially since UWA concluded the paper would withstand a legal assault. Nobody wants to get caught up in a lawsuit, but by caving in here, Frontiers has undoubtedly emboldened climate contrarians to use this tactic again in the future to suppress inconvenient research. Academics also can’t be confident that the Frontiers staff will stand behind them if they publish research in the journal and are subjected to similar frivolous attacks. Frontiers may very well be worse off having lost the confidence of the academic community than if they had called the bluffs of the contrarians threatening frivolous lawsuits.
Hopefully editors of other climate-related journals will learn from this debacle and refuse to let climate contrarians bully them into suppressing valid but inconvenient research.
We are all scratching our heads at the “threat of libel” narrative. As far as I know, nobody in the climate skeptic community has instigated a libel lawsuit or even gotten a lawyer involved over the Lew paper. Mostly we just laugh about it. But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.
There’s another oddity; Ben Pile gives details about a notice at the top of the online version of the paper at UWA which floated up today (last edited March 18th according to the PDF properties) which explains that Courts in the USA have ruled that foreign libel rulings are unenforceable in the USA:
And to top it off, the original paper can still be seen at the journal, Frontiers in Psychology.
Seems like some serious randomness is going on. Given the unreliability we have witnessed from SkS in the past, maybe they are simply mixing things up in this pea-and-thimble game to keep us guessing. If so, have at it SkS kidz, we’ll watch with amusement.
Or, maybe they are just incompetent. Who knows?
As Johnny Carson used to say “That is some weird, wild stuff“.
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre leaves this note in comments
Anthony, you say “But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.” This gives an incomplete picture,
The Lewandowsky article made a variety of defamatory and untrue allegations against me with malice. I accordingly sent a strongly worded and detailed letter to the journal formally requesting that they withdraw the allegations and retract the article. I didn’t “instigate a libel lawsuit” or get “a lawyer involved” but the letter was a formal one. It was my hope that the journal would recognize the many defects of the Lewandowsky article and behave responsibly, as they eventually did.
UPDATE2: 3/20/14 10:00PM PDT. Now the paper at UWA that was available earlier at http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf has been removed from the server. Quite amusing that these guys can’t seem to find a permanent place to house their paper, which seems to be toxic now.
UPDATE3: 3/21/14 7:45AM PDT The paper at UWA that was available earlier at http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf seems to have been put back on the server. No explanation given.
UPDATE4: 3/21/14 10:20AM PDT Retraction Watch says:
Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted
A year after being clumsily removed from the web following complaints, a controversial paper about “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science” is being retracted.
…
The release of the news about the retraction has been a messy affair, with a Google cache version of an “embargoed” post about the situation circulating on the web yesterday, and then the story apparently breaking on climate skeptic blog Watts Up With That.
More here: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/
Note: WUWT didn’t break the story, that honor goes to reader Barry Woods, who advised Ben Pile, and Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill had it before WUWT did.
UPDATE5: 3/21/14 10:35AMPDT The formal retraction is up on the Frontiers of Psychology Website. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full
Ironically Dana goes full conspiracy theorist to defend a paper which tried to depict climate skeptics as conspiracy theorists.
This is the same guy seeing denial machinations whilst being paid by a company who’s business he never once managed to criticize, not even incidentally.
Shamelessness is easier for the idiots.
Really? He moved to Bristol? Yay!
Says the scientist from Perth, Western Australia
Ah, good Dana Nuccitelli. In an effort to show how skeptics view global warming he (probably) tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.
What Lysenko Spawned
But, if you got immunized then you would be okay for the GMO foods, right? And if you ate the GMO foods then you would be able to take the increased heat from AGW, right? And if your body heat increased so much that you became delusional and thought you saw men walking on the Moon, then you should pay more taxes, right?
At least that is how it is supposed to work. (The book “Brave New World” had it all wrong.)
I cannot believe that Logic and Critical Thinking are not REQUIRED courses for every student in college, but ESPECIALLY for those who gain degrees in SCIENCE. Dana wouldn’t see the irony in anything he says if it was tattooed on his eyeballs. I’ve long given up trying to understand him, now he’s just free entertainment.
Curious George says:
…Dana Nuccitelli… tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.
The funny thing about that graph is that a graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame.
Just as ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’, bogus charts like that can be contructed. What is amazing is the number of credulous, unthinking people that bogus chart has fooled.
@Aphan – the only required courses in college these days are leftist indoctrination. No thinking allowed.
“Brave climate heroes foiled by Big-Oil funded denialist machine.”
Film at eleven.
And to top it off, the original paper can still be seen at the journal, Frontiers in Psychology.
No, just the abstract, prefaced by this:
“This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints. Given the nature of some of these complaints, Frontiers has provisionally removed the link to the article while these issues are investigated, which is being done as swiftly as possible and which Frontiers management considers the most responsible course of action. The article has not been retracted or withdrawn. Further information will be provided as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.”
April 2014 issue of Discover Magazine page 74 (print edition);
20 Things You didn’t Know About… Hoaxes.
Item # 10; “You can predict whether people think climate science is a hoax based on whether they believe in conspiracy theories, according to a 2012 University of Western Australia study. Conspiracy theorist dismiss many scientific findings, such as the connection between HIV and AIDS”
Item # 9; “Some 37 percent if American voters believe global warming is a hoax.”
If you don’t understand how Discover is playing this….. hint they are as politically correct as anyone can be.
Senate elections are due this July and Western Australia is key to the outcome. We expect, as has happened in all other state and territory elections, that the Labor and Green parties will be swept into political oblivion, certainly true for Tasmania, we’re still waiting on the outcome for South Australia. Abbott will then be able to repeal all the crazy “carbon” policies put in place by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd pantomime of the previous 7 years. The Greens, in the Senate, have recently rejected Abbott’s attempt to repeal the “proice ohn cahbon” that Gillard said she would not introduce. The Greens, in typical anti-human style, are ignoring the mandate the Australian people gave Abbott. I wonder if Australia will get a rebate from the UN?
Accusing “contrarians” of abusing libel laws to suppress criticism is comical given the antics of Michael Mann.
“he ( Lewandowsky’) later moved to the University of Bristol.”
hey ! we dont want him ….you can have him back !!
Too much fun!
@ur momisugly John
No thanks!
Bristol University is a good university (i.e. World Top 100), so I have hopes they might be able to straighten him out.
Curious George says:
March 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Ah, good Dana Nuccitelli. In an effort to show how skeptics view global warming he (probably) tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.
=============================
And enhanced at Bishop Hill. 🙂
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/how%20to%20do%20graphs.jpg
I do think that using information for research without informing the subjects is questionable. Call it a poll or something else, but what’s to keep people from being non-serious with their answers when the intentions of the question have to be obvious? Also, how can you tell that your subjects are randomly chosen and representative when you use blogs as your population? Really to represent that type of material as Academic research is kind of laughable. I’m not sure that a high school class couldn’t improve on that scheme.
…mmmm…popcorn…
Anthony, you say “But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.” This gives an incomplete picture,
The Lewandowsky article made a variety of defamatory and untrue allegations against me with malice. I accordingly sent a strongly worded and detailed letter to the journal formally requesting that they withdraw the allegations and retract the article. I didn’t “instigate a libel lawsuit” or get “a lawyer involved” but the letter was a formal one. It was my hope that the journal would recognize the many defects of the Lewandowsky article and behave responsibly, as they eventually did.
“Accusing “contrarians” of abusing libel laws to suppress criticism is comical given the antics of Michael Mann.”
QFT
It looks to me as though this libel-threat is a cover story to enable a face-saving distancing from the poo-paper.
SkS quote: “Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case.”
With 97% of the “science” behind the “scientists”, one wonders why they need to produce this ill conceived, poorly executed and badly reasoned pice of research to back up their cause!
The sooner this Lew paper is flushed into the annals of history (so to speak), the sooner the “science” will be better off.
And thus continues the old idea if you repeat something enough times people will believe you. That is why the AGW crowd keeps repeating all of their lies in many different flavors.
So “pointing out how wrong someone is” is now referred to as “bullying”? Got it.