Editor of a related Frontiers journal resigns in protest over Lewandowsky paper retraction

Seems there’s a little too much emotion with this one, Ugo Bardi, who seems to have a burr up his butt for WUWT (in comments to his own article) while completely ignoring complaints like this one.

It is important to note that Mr. Bardi is NOT the editor of Frontiers in Psychology, where Lewandowski’s Recursive Fury paper was published, then retracted. He’s just some guy that works for the same publisher on another publication. His resignation would be akin to some middle level division manager at a company resigning because some other division manager made a decision he didn’t like, even though the decision doesn’t even affect his division.

He writes: 

After the recent events in the saga of the paper titled “Recursive Fury” by Lewandowsky et al., I am stating my disappointment by resigning from Chief Specialty Editor of the Frontiers journal

You may have followed the story of “Recursive Fury“, the paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and others that the journal “Frontiers had published in 2013. The paper reported the results of a survey that showed that the rejection of climate science was often accompanied by a similar mindset on other scientific areas. So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.

As it might have been expected, after publication, a storm of negative comments was unleashed against both the authors of “Recursive Fury” and the journal. What was unexpected, instead, was the decision to withdraw the paper taken by the editorial board of Frontiers.

I found the behavior of the publisher already highly objectionable at this stage. However, I could at least understand it (if not agree on it). They stated that “[Frontier's] investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article.” The authors themselves seemed to share my opinion when they said, “The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article

Unfortunately, now Frontiers has issued a new note where they backtrack from the previous statement and they seem to indicate that they found substantial problems in the paper. The new Frontiers’ note is discussed in detail by Lewandowsky himself in a post titled: “revisiting a retraction“.

The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don’t take a strong stance on this issue. Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can take, that is I am resigning from “Chief Specialty Editor” of Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the “Recursive Fury” case. I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.

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

You can read his full statement here: http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html?m=1

h/t to Barry Woods via Twitter

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Stephan Lewandowsky. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Editor of a related Frontiers journal resigns in protest over Lewandowsky paper retraction

  1. Joe Public says:

    An amateur publicity stunt.

  2. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Another definition of a “Global Warm-monger”: One who always picks up a stick by the wrong end.

  3. Louis says:

    DLTDHYOTWO

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    Good Ridance to the stuff that float on dirty water.

  5. Perry says:

    You go Bardi. You have no idea about how little I care.

  6. Espen says:

    Ugo Bardi is a Club of Rome member. ‘Nuff said.

  7. Streetcred says:

    Ciao, Ugo … careful the door doesn’t smack you on the butt on your way out. Member of the Club of Rome ? Good one weeded out, where’s the rest of these frauds ?

  8. jauntycyclist says:

    seems global warmers think any journal that takes down a paper with valid problems in it is ‘giving in’ to intimidation lol

  9. Peter Miller says:

    From his ‘Professional Home Page’: Ugo Bardi is the author of “EXTRACTED: how the quest for mineral wealth is plundering the planet.”

    “He is a member of the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Florence, where he teaches physical chemistry. He is active in research in subjects such as mineral resources, renewable energy, system dynamics applied to economics and more. He is member of the Club of Rome, of the scientific committee of the ASPO association for the study of peak oil, and of the scientific committee of the “Climalteranti” group active on climate change. Founder and former president of the Italian section of ASPO. He is chief editor of Frontiers in Energy Systems and Policy . His articles have appeared on “The Oil Drum,” “Energy Bulletin”, “Financial Sense on line” and on Cassandra’s Legacy.”

    Climalteranti is a green activist organisation.

    Just another greenie feeding at the teat of misguided government largesse.

  10. omnologos says:

    Have known Bardi for a while…the Italian climate debate is minuscule and that’s life. He is well famed for seeing Peak here and Peak there, starting from decades IIRC of Peak Oil doomspeech. There is plenty of material on the blog of a self-proclaimed Cassandra for any small psychologist mind to peruse and diagnose all sorts of conditions, really.

    Bardi is also an enthusiastic Mann supporter and has fantasized about having his own Magic Circle of good and convinced people. A potential cult in the making, considering also he’s got his own set of Supporters already who believe everything he says.

    As far as I am concerned these latest antics are not unexpected, just a sad cliché, the passionate Italian who immolates for a cause, only he doesn’t really, as I suspect any Frontiers monies (if any) have never been a major source of income.

  11. High Treason says:

    Club of Rome, all heavily affiliated with the UN, the chief promulgators of the cAGW myth. We must all note the comment from IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres on January 13th – Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model. This stunt should get us all smelling a rat about the true motives behind it all. Club of Rome (publishers of “Limits to Growth”) supports depopulation. Just wish they would start with themselves..

  12. ConfusedPhoton says:

    “The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general”

    Firstly, climate alamists have been intimidating those who disagree with them for years (e.g. see Climategate 1 & 2 releases).

    Secondly, most real scientists do not see Climate “Science” as actual science, more like astrology.

    Thirdly, climate “science” cannot have its reputation damaged since it is seen as pseudoscience. Built on years of data manipulation, cherry picking and mistruths.

  13. omnologos says:

    “All ready” not “already”…

  14. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    ‘Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.’

    Only if you are reading Archie Comics, bub.

  15. Mike Ozanne says:

    Aahhh diddums

  16. strike says:

    Don’t worry. This man still has lots of sources of income left. In Germany we call that: “he falls softly”.

  17. Harry Passfield says:

    “The founder of The Association for the Study of Peak Oil“. Say what??? That must be a fascinating group. I bet they alternate their time with the Association for the Study Of Paint Drying.

  18. Peter Miller says:

    Confusedphoton says: “Secondly, most real scientists do not see Climate “Science” as actual science, more like astrology.”

    Speaking as a scientist: I wish I had said that.

  19. charles nelson says:

    So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.

    Huh?

  20. DirkH says:

    charles nelson says:
    April 9, 2014 at 1:49 am
    “So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”

    You can spread your lies on the MSM where they might help you delude the idiots amongst the population; but what advantage do you gain from showing that you are either a liar or an idiot yourself here?

  21. DirkH says:

    Sorry Charles. I didn’t notice you quoted him. Try adding quotes next time, please.

  22. Quotes says:

    … did someone call me?

  23. thingadonta says:

    Well the journal now has the advantage of one less, less competent editor.

  24. knr says:

    So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer.,

    Actual Lew’s paper failed totally to even do this , its not just rubbish on a ehtical front its BS all the way down. Like a religion they start with an assumption that anything that supports the dogma is a unquestionable truth , even if make no sense or has no scientific validity. It is not a little ironic that those that claim AGW sceptics have no science often use an approach to the scientific mythology of which is the same as a recently dead wombat. NONE what so ever .

  25. George Lawson says:

    I would think that Frontiers is well rid of such a bigoted individual as Ugo Bardi. This is a man who has the timerity to believe that he knows the views of every global warming sceptic on Aids, cigarette smoking causing cancer, and other nasty afflictions. A disgraceful man who is prepared to lie and criticise good journalistic practice in order to promote his own twisted viewpoint at any cost. He is an insult to the profession to which he belongs, and one would hope that there is no publication in the World that would stoop to giving him employment.

  26. stormy223 says:

    Don’t
    Let
    The
    Door
    Hit
    You
    Where
    The
    Good
    Lord
    Split
    You

  27. Greg says:

    “I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.”

    OH! So he has not actually resigned. He’s just said he “intends” to.

    What’s the betting he’ll still be there in 6 months, when he realises his little shit-fit does not make any difference.

  28. Greg says:

    ” So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”

    We actually they were “found to” it was made up. That’s why the paper got retracted.

    If you can’t see that then it’s a damned good move that you resign from any position where you may have influence on what gets into any journal.

    You go, Ugo. We’re right behind you on that one.

    Oh, you are really going , aren’t you? No just “intending to”.

  29. Ken Hall says:

    “The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don’t take a strong stance on this issue. “

    How many decent, scientific method observing scientists have lost their incomes if they happen to attempt to have a sceptical paper published? How many good journals have been closed due to pressure from alarmists?

    How many good scientists have had to wait until they have retired, before they felt safe to comment on how poor, and anti-scientific, climate science is.

    It is about frikken time that real scientists stood up for scientific integrity and enforcing a scientific method in it’s entirety. Something which Lewandowski completely failed to do.

    If that forces out editors who wish to abandon the scientific method, and who defend the shoddiest of science, then good!

  30. Joe says:

    So they’ve been intimidated into saying they weren’t intimidated, even though the people claiming intimidation weren’t the originally intimidating ones, just some interested intimidating parties who align themselves with those who would intimidate skeptics with calls for war trials and imprisonment.

    And they say we’re conspiracy theorists????

  31. Solomon Green says:

    Of Lewandowski et al. 2013 Bardi writes:
    “So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
    The trouble about Bardi is that he did not do what any sensible person, particularly for one who has a scientific background, should have done. Before defending Lewandowski’s paper he could have invited a number of climate sceptics – and there must be some amongst his acquaintances – whether they believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. Since the paper was published I have spoken with somewhere between forty and fifty friends, all of whom are CAGW sceptics but all of whom believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. OK, a relatively small sample but enough to throw doubt on Lewandowski.
    Incidentally, one would have expected Bardi to know that HIV stands for “human immunodeficiency virus” and hence his reference to the “HIV virus” is nonsense.
    My wife often asks me why do so many still believe in CAGW in the face of all the evidence? I think that there are two answers. Many of us do not think for ourselves, something that the late Josef Goebbels exploited to the full. And of those that can think for themselves, most have a political or a financial reason (or both) for espousing the false conjecture.

  32. Col Mosby says:

    “We must all note the comment from IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres on January 13th – Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.””
    Odd since China’s main scientist expressed doubts about AGW not long ago. China is building
    mostly hydro and nuclear low carbon power because of their air pollution, not because they
    believe it wil affect the climate. And referring to China as a Communist country is quite a stretch.
    Cuba and North Korea are the only bona fide Communist nations these days and neither of them
    is doing anything with respect to climate.

  33. Rob Ricket says:

    These guys are clearly unbalanced and should be remanded to the custody of the brilliant Dr. Lew where they can plot the demise of civilization and a return to simpler times when humankind dwelled in caves and foraged for nuts and berries.

    Editor my a**!…this is an activist who (judging by his support for the slimy Dr. Lew) was predisposed toward abusing his editing position for “the cause”.SEE YA!

  34. dccowboy says:

    Oddly enough, I am a ‘Climate Skeptic’ who also happens to have a daughter that is a Doctor involved in AIDS research and I most decidedly believe that AIDS is related to HIV ( I also do not believe that AIDS was developed by the CIA and deployed in Africa as a bio-weapons test). I also do not believe that the moon landings were faked, nor do I believe in ‘chem trails’, or that the US government was behind 9/11, rigging the World Trade Center with explosives.

    If Mr Lewandowsky wants to look for ‘conspiracist ideation’ he need look no further than folks like Mr Bardi, who clearly has a firm conspiracy belief regarding ‘climate skeptics’.

  35. Jimbo says:

    Why did it take so long? Did another journal offer him a job if he resined? Who cares?

  36. “He’s just some guy that works for the same publisher on another publication.”

    LOL! “just some guy”. Ha ha, that cracked me up, thanks!

  37. philjourdan says:

    The Peter Principle at work, Or maybe he is just using it as an excuse to get out while the getting is good.

  38. Chuck L says:

    Don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.

  39. dp says:

    This is the second piece of good news from that journal in recent days. At this rate they may get some respectability.

  40. Jimbo says:

    Does Frontiers live up to what is advertised on the label?

    Frontiers – Author Guidelines
    Data Sharing
    Frontiers supports the policy of data sharing, and authors are advised to make freely available any materials and information described in their article, and any data relevant to the article (while not compromising confidentiality in the context of human-subject research) that may be reasonably requested by others for the purpose of academic and non-commercial research. In regards to deposition of data and data sharing through databases, Frontiers urges authors to comply with the current best practices within their discipline.
    http://www.frontiersin.org/about/AuthorGuidelines#InclusionofProteomicsData
    ———————————–

    Open Access Statement
    Frontiers’ philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Energy_Systems_and_Policy/about

  41. Andrew says:

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

  42. Oh yes? Intention to resign??? Not actually resign?? Hmmmmm. What a weak-kneed man of no moral virtue. If you are really resigning in protest, go ahead and resign. Be done with it. Otherwise stop being a drama queen and turn up for work on Monday and collect your pay cheque like the wages slave you probably are.

  43. Ian Blanchard says:

    Says a lot for Dr Bardi that he even gets the overview of the retracted paper wrong:
    “The paper reported the results of a survey that showed that the rejection of climate science was often accompanied by a similar mindset on other scientific areas.”

    If he can’t even refer to the right paper (Recursive Fury, which purported to be a study of the responses on sceptical websites to the ‘Moon Hoax’ paper, which IS the one reporting the survey results and has not to date been retracted or significantly amended), why should we take any of the rest of his commentary seriously?

  44. CodeTech says:

    Here’s the thing.

    HIV causes AIDS. This is something that can be PROVEN. Nobody with AIDS doesn’t have HIV. Before there was treatment, the vast majority of HIV positive patients went on to develop AIDS. That is called “a valid conclusion”.

    Cigarette smoking dramatically increases the chances of getting cancer. This is also easily documented (not secondhand smoke, that’s NOT documented). Also, there is a huge amount of junk science associated with smoking, including doctors that put down “smoking” as cause of death no matter what a smoker died of.

    Human influence, however, cannot be shown to cause climate change, global warming, global cooling, bigger storms, smaller storms, more rain, less rain, drought, floods, earthquakes, meteorites, comets, communicating with the dead, more snow, less snow, record snow, average temperatures, NONE OF THOSE. And to go one step further, the weather is NOT outside norms, neither are temperatures. Neither is ice melt, or freeze, or sea level rise or fall. NONE OF THOSE.

    So really, which side of this absurd exercise is scientific, and which is voodoo?

  45. WillR says:

    I think we should be grateful that a person so ignorant of the facts has moved on to where he will (hopefully) do less damage.

  46. GreggB says:

    “Solomon Green says:
    April 9, 2014 at 3:57 am
    … Since the paper was published I have spoken with somewhere between forty and fifty friends, all of whom are CAGW sceptics but all of whom believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. OK, a relatively small sample but enough to throw doubt on Lewandowski.”

    If memory serves (and I’m sure someone here can correct me if I’m wrong), your data sample is many times the size of Lew’s. I recall that he used a sample of 10. Have you considered publishing?

  47. wws says:

    Ugo Bardi is the kind of guy who gives Euro-trash a bad name.

  48. michael hart says:

    The Club of Florence has spoken…

  49. hunter says:

    He is protesting that rules of science based on things like ethics and evidence may be coming back into control. For club of Rome types, this is completely unacceptable. Club of Rome members have been falsely predicting disaster for something over 30 years. Having high level public push back by people who decline to allow them to continue to manipulate the public with false evidence and use unethical means is not acceptable to the Ugo Bardi’s of the world.

  50. Jimbo says:

    It is becoming commonplace for scientists to receive personal attacks (including death threats) for having stated their position on the climate problem. This violent reaction often takes the shape of mailing campaigns directed to the institutions of the targeted scientists. There are many examples of this phenomenon; it will suffice, here, to cite the most recent case; that of Professor Lawrence Torcello…….

    So did Ugo Bardi defend the rights of skeptical climate scientists and others to disagree? Below are a few things that sceptics have had to endure over the years. Mr. Bardi must be aware of a little science history and controversy of the past. Is this the way we settle science in the 21st century? What if you are wrong as per the IPCC’s future climate effects? Will you apologize to us?

    [PERSONAL THREATS]
    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.”
    [Gene Hasmi - Greenpeace]
    ———————————–
    [JAIL]
    “Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. ”
    [Lawrence Torcello - assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY]
    ———————————–
    [EXECUTE
    "At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives."
    [Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria]
    ———————————–
    [STRANGLE]
    “an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”
    Commenter at Climate Progess [subsequently deleted]
    ———————————–
    [STABBED IN HEART]
    NYT suggests ‘deniers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires
    WUWT

    OTHER EXAMPLES OF THREATS & NASTINESS
    • No Pressure 10:10 video showing blowing up sceptics & children.
    •  Weather Channel expert proposed withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
    • Attempting to get a journal editor fired because of disagreement with the Team.
    • Willing to redefine what the peer review process is to keep sceptical paper out.
    • Proposal to fire UK cabinet ministers who are against the consensus.
    • Burn sceptical book from Heartland.
    • Endless use of the word ‘denier’ by scientists, journalists, politicians etc.
    More…..
    More…..

  51. Does this now mean that the ‘Journal’ will now publish research of better quality and reliability ?

  52. alexwade says:

    This is a brilliant publicity stunt. Before, Ugo Bardi was just a relatively unknown alarmist. Now he is a CAGW hero who was unwilling to silenced and was willing to stand up for what he believes in. (And since he was willing to resign because of the politically correct belief, he will make more money now than ever before.) He can now claim that he resigned so as to not be part of an institution that intimidates climate scientists. None of those claims are true, of course. But you must remember the twisted logic of an alarmist: Michael Mann claims he is slandered while he goes around insulting people, Al Gore claims there is a Big Oil conspiracy while he takes Big Oil money for his former TV station, and so on. In one quick act Ugo Bardi elevated himself from small fish to big fish.

  53. Mickey Reno says:

    Ian Blanchard +1 – This Bardi idiot can’t even refer to the right paper. Then, like McKibbon, he thinks he’s damaging the world with his indignation. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

  54. Jimbo says:

    Espen says:
    April 9, 2014 at 1:12 am

    Ugo Bardi is a Club of Rome member. ‘Nuff said.

    Thanks Espen. It looks like it migh be the same guy as he talks a lot about energy. It would appear he is an advocate for alternative energy too. No surprise he resigned.
    http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=6166
    http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=6634

  55. Txomin says:

    It all simply says that pressure is being put to Frontiers (behind close doors) and so far it is not having the desired effect.

  56. 1957chev says:

    One less idiot working there…..How can that be a bad thing? McDonald’s is always hiring!

  57. Pamela Gray says:

    Poor widdo ting

  58. Jeff says:

    Lucky day for “Frontiers” journal. They now have the opportunity to replace their “Chief Specialty Editor” with somebody who is not a fool.

  59. Mark Bofill says:

    My, how sour the grapes are! Bardi needs to look up the term ‘confirmation bias’.

  60. Espen says:

    Jimbo: You can also find him in the list of full members on their site: http://www.clubofrome.org/?cat=51&paged=3

  61. MarkW says:

    A guy who has no idea the details and hasn’t been impacted resigns in protest.
    What a drama queen.

  62. “The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general.”

    I completely agree with the guy on that statement. For example, consider the bullying of Keith Baugues reported in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/what-defines-a-scientist/

  63. MarkW says:

    Greg says:
    April 9, 2014 at 3:27 am

    But you don’t understand. The paper came to the proper (as defined by him) conclusion, therefore it must be a good paper.

  64. Mike M says:

    Jimbo says: April 9, 2014 at 4:35 am “Does Frontiers live up to what is advertised on the label?”

    Good question and Ugo Bardi isn’t living up to the “without borders or discrimination” part for that matter posting his nonsense at cassandralegacy where every comment must be approved to be seen at all – unlike here where honest open debate is always welcome.

    The alarmists are filling the moat, lifting the draw bridge and lowering the iron gate as we surround them – let the siege begin.

  65. Mike M says:

    Chris B says: April 9, 2014 at 6:33 am ….

    I went to Youtube to watch that. Guess how fast I clicked the close window button when I read: “Comments are disabled for this video” ?

    Such people only listen to themselves…

  66. John Whitman says:

    Bardi wrote,

    [. . .] Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can take, that is I am resigning from “Chief Specialty Editor” of Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the “Recursive Fury” case. I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.

    - – - – - – - – - -

    Bardi,

    You maintain the honored practice of voting with your feet. But, you should have voted with your science instead.

    John

  67. rogerknights says:

    That image of Lewny reminded me a bit of the March Hare.

  68. John Whitman says:

    Lewandowsky is a part of the non-scientific exaggerationist clique that is causing the decline in public trust in science.

    The intellectual fate of the ideological basis for alarming climate from anthropogenic CO2 now rests in the hands of Lewandowsky, Mann and Oreskes. That is why its failure is inevitable and will be mercifully quite.

    John

  69. John Whitman says:

    Oops.

    Edit to John Whitman says April 9, 2014 at 7:23 am follows:

    That is why its failure is inevitable and will be mercifully quite quick.

    John

  70. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    One creepy guy defending another. End result is still creepy, so ta-ta, Ugo. It is truly unfortunate that your name belies your actions.

  71. Cold in Wisconsin says:

    “I found the behavior of the publisher already highly objectionable at this stage.”

    Objectionable related to “Recursive Fury” or other unrelated behavior? Could just be a crank who was looking to resign for other reasons. Might have even been an unpaid position.

  72. Craig Moore says:

    Not a burr. More likely an organic inverted pine cone sustainably implanted. What he wrote are the screams of a self-flagellating monk at the alter of AGW trying to pass his nugget of belief.

  73. NRG22 says:

    This was funny. It reminded me of my online gaming days when a player would rage quit.

    To which other players would ask, “Can I have your stuff?”

  74. t control says:

    “Intention to resign.” Yeah just like Eric Holthaus “intended” to have his vasectomy.

  75. barn E. rubble says:

    RE: April 9, 2014 at 4:37 am
    Andrew says:
    “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”

    Or better, don’t let your data hit you on the way out.

  76. Jim Brock says:

    Resign what? His contributing editor status? I gather that he still has his full-time job and has suffered no significant loss of income.

  77. JEM says:

    Poor Ugo. Wrong about so much, so loudly, for so long.

  78. George McFly.....I'm your density says:

    Oh diddums. Little Ugo is taking his marbles and going home

  79. Colorado Wellington says:

    Jimbo says:
    April 9, 2014 at 5:33 am

    Below are a few things that sceptics have had to endure over the years …

    There was also James Cameron’s threat of shooting at high noon but I think you left him out because he turned yellow and ran:

    http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/kulaki/media/Cartoons/JamesCameronatHighNoon.jpg.html

    Storyline:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/23/filmmaker-james-cameron-backs-out-global-warming-debate-he-organized

  80. Bruce Cobb says:

    Good, good. Perhaps it will give him some time to take a remedial English course, wherein he could learn things such as writing “risk to do” something is incorrect. The correct format is that you risk doing something. So, instead of saying “risks to do great damage to”, he should simply have said “risks doing great damage to”, and instead of “risks to deteriorate”, he should have said “risks deteriorating”.
    Of course, unfortunately for him, he’d still be an idiot, but at least he could be a somewhat educated one.

  81. mpaul says:

    He sounds … furious. Hey, wait a minute. That gives me an idea for a new psychology paper. Working title: Recursive Fury Remixed, Its Turtles All The Way Down. Ok, I got to work on the title a bit more.

  82. Colorado Wellington says:

    mpaul says:
    April 9, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Recursive Fury Reanalysed. With an “s” so it sounds more worldly.

  83. Severian says:

    Back when I worked at a large aerospace company one old timer taught me a good lesson. He said, stick your hand in a bucket of water, now pull it out. How long did the hole last? That’s how long you’ll be missed.

  84. Richard Day says:

    Buh-bye. And I really hope the door was designed by Acme and installed by Wily E Coyote.

  85. kcom1 says:

    Lewandowsky is a part of the non-scientific exaggerationist clique that is causing the decline in public trust in science.

    That’s the sad/funny/ironic part. He and the other exaggerationists think they’re helping their cause. In reality, they are just bringing shame and embarrassment to it and therefore damaging it.

    What actual effect does L think that nitpicking internet blog comments is going to accomplish? It’s such a petty little idea of what science is. It would be fine as a one-time political riposte in a blog or newspaper, but wasting time in an academic journal on it is just embarrassing. Thirty years from now, looking back, that paper will have no meaning at all, whether AGW turns out to be true or false.

    (Well, it might possibly be a signature example of AGW hysteria run amok, but nothing more than that.)

  86. george e. conant says:

    So Bardi is Club Of Rome too, icky, a de-populationista as well. Hmmmm. Kinda like Ted Turner who publically espouses that all the worlds problems are solved by removing 87.5% of the human population because we all use up too much “stuff”. I guess the problem for me is who gets to stay and enjoy all the “stuff” that we are using today and subsequently in the future? Looks to me like the plan is to get as many people to agree to self terminate and not procreate ( unless you are one of “them”) so “THEY” can have all the stuff along with trout streams and beachfront mansions and of course a remnant human population living on some veganesque mandated diet “for the world”. I have my own ideas about a lot of things and I am insulted that LEWs’ paper even dared to psychologically profile a whole diverse population of very smart people as fringe lunatics. So Bardi only INTENDS to fall on his own nerf sword… baw haw haw boo hoo hoo , maybe more of these kind of editors will follow him and more younger honest truth seeking editors will replace the lot. I for one simply want the truth, good or bad. One thing I learned from some wonderful native elders was how important truth was to the ancient traditional peoples. Lies were as bad a crime as murder. Why? Because an untruth could lead a people off a cliff and hurt or kill many. Speaking figuratively here, but you get the idea.

  87. RokShox says:

    From Lew’s latest STW post: “Although we have destroyed all correspondence and documents involving the allegations against us at the request of Frontiers…”

    I don’t understand how destruction of information can be treated with such a blasé attitude amongst the warmist set.

  88. John Whitman says:

    kcom1 says:
    April 9, 2014 at 10:55 am

    John Whitman said on April 9, 2014 at 7:23 am & April 9, 2014 at 7:29 am,

    “Lewandowsky is a part of the non-scientific exaggerationist clique that is causing the decline in public trust in science.”

    “That’s the sad/funny/ironic part. He and the other exaggerationists think they’re helping their cause. In reality, they are just bringing shame and embarrassment to it and therefore damaging it.

    [. . .]”

    - – - – - – - – -

    kcom1,

    I intentionally used the word ‘clique’ to describe them because they publically act like the puerile cliques found in American high schools. Specifically I think Mann, Oreskes and Lewandowsky appear, in public as intellectually close associates, to behave with similarly styled cliquish antics.

    John

  89. empiresentry says:

    If you can stand it, the following Bardi blog is a worship of Obama, the Savior. The savior is stopping the evil American destruction of the world because of our demand for oil.

    However, the Italians are not fooled. One says he is not convinced and calls this “populist Ecodemogoguery”

    Another “Obama was voted in by idiots and after his destruction will not be re-elected. Pay attention to what he passes {in secret/behind the scenes} quietly with decree-law (pen and cell phone}. We will see the outcome of any leader who takes his nation in destruction. This will be the positive outcome for the world {to be aware}.
    We will see that any junkie sociopath can sit in that chair. If he is, we will see in 10 years looking back the level of destruction he has caused.

    Looks like Bardi didn’t have very much success ramping up his paying supporters in Italy either.

    http://aspoitalia.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-bless-you-mr-obama.html

  90. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    Ugo’s 15 minutes are up. Who’s next?

  91. Don says:

    My other laughingstock is a Ugo.

  92. Don says:

    rogerknights says:
    April 9, 2014 at 7:13 am

    That image of Lewny reminded me a bit of the March Hare.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That image consistently reminds me of Bill the Cat… “ack!”

  93. Orson Olson says:

    Ugo wrote “So ‘Climate skeptics’ were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”

    This smear probably originates over twenty years ago with S. Fred Singer. Mind you, Singer did not doubt that smoking and cancer were linked – only that second-hand smoke did. (And as an environmental scientists myself, I agree with him to this day because the best evidence does not support the claim: the real motive of banning “ETS” – environmental tobacco smoke – is political, ie, to make smoking socially unacceptable.)

    As for HIV-Aids, during the 1980s and into the 1990s, there was a small but informed and often prestigious contingent of skeptics, the so-called “Aids denialists.” Having studied them in detail, including one Nobel laureate in medicine, I can only say that these people’s skepticism rested on an error that HIV-Aids ought to function like bacterial infectious agents, ie, rather simply and on contact.

    Their mistake rests on not understanding that a virus is unique infectious agent, more akin to mineral than old-fashioned Aristotelian definitions of “life” for biologists. Accordingly, most of these scientists tended to be rather old – their training and scientific work pretty much removed from modern genetic sciences – and thus reflected out of touch judgements.

    But Ugo’s conflation of “Aids denialism” with AGW skeptics is not a stance born of understanding criticism but of politically driven opportunism. Ugo Bardi’s connection with the Club of Rome and other extremist enviro-Nazi movement nicely illustrates the fact that Ruper Darwall’s recent history “The Age of Global Warming.” AGW-Believers are anti-industrial and anti-human. And very dangerous in power.

  94. David, UK says:

    Wow, what an ugly character. Just UGLY. I need to wash…

  95. Carrick says:

    This is a better link (the other adds ?m=1, which doesn’t show all of the comments):

    http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html

  96. Jeff says:

    Ugo needs to go it alone and launch Cassandra.

  97. JEM says:

    RokShox – if it was sent from a UWA or Bristol email addr then it may be fair game for a request under the appropriate FOI law, particularly since he’s indicated an intent to destroy correspondence related to university-sponsored work

  98. Cynical Scientst says:

    Has he actually READ Lewandowsky’s papers. Lewandowsky’s first paper is nothing more than a statistically incompetent analysis of an extremely poorly done internet survey! That alone makes it worthless garbage and ought to completely disqualify it from for publication in any reputable journal. His second paper is nothing more than a bunch of quotations from blogs taken out of context used to construct ridiculous speculations that the authors suffer from some kind of psychological disease. If Lewandowsky wants to do silly internet surveys or make nasty comments about people he disagrees with on the internet he should do it on his blog like everyone else. Psychology cannot be regarded as a proper grown up science if this kind of infantile stuff is to be accepted as publishable research in the area.

  99. John Whitman says:

    Ugo Bardi, by his very public resignation ploy, is not serving well the credibility of Lewandowsky. This publicity will tend to keep people thinking of the fatal survey and ethics flaws in the other Lewandowsky paper ‘Moon Hoax’ which is the essential basis of the retracted ‘Recursive Fury’. Ugo Bardi’s unwise PR on resignation reminds the public of the idea of retraction of fatally flawed ‘Moon Hoax’ as well.

    I just posted this at Lucia’s Blackboard post on ‘Consent’ in the research done by Lew et al for the ‘Moon Hoax’ paper published by the journal Psychological Science’.

    John Whitman (Comment #128241) at Lucia’s Blackboard
    April 9th, 2014 at 3:54 pm Edit Delete

    Lucia,

    You are clear in your focus on ‘consent’ issues.

    I suggest there is a need for simple applied reasoning about the issue of surveyor anonymity as a prerequisite before we can parse and interpret the written words of the codes of ethical and academic conduct of either the UWA, the Australian gov’t or the publishing journal ‘Psychological Science’. We need, in other words, the basic rational of the spirit of the issue involved in surveyor anonymity.

    For the “Moon Hoax’ paper, Lewandowsky was unquestionably the academic leader and main architect of the survey’s purpose, premises, execution and design.

    Given that undisputable role of Lewandowsky, how could a reasonable person deciding to take the survey not want to have the choice to accept the lead academics’s anonymity in conducting the survey? Simply, how could they reasonably not be given the choice to decline knowing who was conducting the survey? This is especially so given Lewandowky’s well-known highly antagonistic participation in the public dialog online with the very skeptics he was surveying gives a rational person cause to reasonably expect it would influence the survey’s intent, design and interpretation. It is simply common basic reasoning that survey takers should be given the choice to have the identity of the main academic involved because the surveyor might not be trusted by the survey taker to have integrity in using the surveyed person’s input.

    The university, gov’t and journal intellectually are in a very weak position if they avoid simple reasoning and, through complex and obscure parsing of their codes of conduct, authorize his anonymity to survey takers without asking the survey taker’s consent for the anonymity first.

    John

    John

  100. Eamon Butler says:

    ” So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”

    Anyone posting here on WUWT like to confess to being a conspiracy theorist? If yes, please indicate if you are a Sceptic or an Alarmist. Also what your favourite conspiracy might be.
    Just curious. I know it’s not exactly a very scientific study, but then, neither was the Lew paper.

  101. Magma says:

    [snip too stupid to print -mod]

  102. Magma says:

    And so WUTW shows its gutless side.

  103. John Whitman says:

    My wife says I would be handsome if I lost my gut. I vote for gutless . . . . . : )

    John

  104. Mark Bofill says:

    John Whitman says:

    April 10, 2014 at 7:49 am

    My wife says I would be handsome if I lost my gut. I vote for gutless . . . . . : )

    John

    I don’t know. I like to think of myself as fat and prosperous.

  105. Jonas N says:

    Interesting stuff:

    Two more Editors among Frontier’s journals are (allegedly, according to DesmogBlog) resigning over the Lewandowsky saga: Colin Davis (Univ of Bristol) and Björn Brembs (Univ Regensburg)

    Don’t know more about any of them, and haven’t found (or looked for) more information.

  106. rogerknights says:

    Jonas N says:
    April 10, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Two more Editors among Frontier’s journals are (allegedly, according to DesmogBlog) resigning over the Lewandowsky saga: Colin Davis (Univ of Bristol) and Björn Brembs (Univ Regensburg)

    If the heat keeps up on Frontiers, perhaps they’ll admit that the real reason they rejected Fury is that they took a second look at Moon Hoax and decided they didn’t want to be associated with such a loony author.

  107. Jonas N says:

    rogerknights

    Two things:

    Being an ‘editor’ at Frontiers doesn’t mean all that much, there are very many of them, and the duties and tasks they carry out are quite limited. In Ugo Bardi’s case, the whole ‘journal’ seems to consist om seven publications, five of which did not have Bardi as or among the authors. Essentially all other authors were ‘editors’ too. Notable is that the ‘Editorial Board’ consists of 170 individuals, while all in all there are a total 12 authors published in that journal.

    But more importantly, I too think that the stated reasons for the final take-down of ‘Fury’ are just the minimum information justifying that decision. I most certainly would hope that they factored in how exceedingly bad and deceitful both ‘Moon Hoax’ and ‘Fury’ are, that (at best!) there is no substance at all in that ‘data’, and thus realized that neither ‘science’ nor Frontiers are served by association with Lew and his scribblings …

    And I would expect them to never state so in public. Actually I was surprised by how explicit they were in their 2nd statement distancing themselves from the Lew-paper (and its versions) detailing what they wanted (instead!)

  108. JunkPsychology says:

    Anyone who quits the editorial board over this the Frontiers journals are better off without.

Comments are closed.