Lewandowsky thinks failure to get or find email is conspiracy theory

It sounds like a poorly designed trap and bluff on Lewandowsky’s part.
Unknown people are going to get egg on their face for lying(?) about his invitation, but he can’t release it?
Is he hoping that that people, who according to him, do (or do not) exist in his email outbox will step forward? One scenario has a possibility of happening but the other puts him in quasi-reality of his own making.
Lewandowsky’s stance then: Circular reasoning and an option for a logical explosion, similar to an egg which may or may not fall on ones face and break open.

This reminds of why in the Soviet Union all the best minds went into math, engineering or the hard sciences. The social sciences could be easily co-opeted and were completely manipulated by the government for propaganda purposes.
Lewandowsky shows us that the best minds still don’t go into the social sciences.

Anthony – why should he need to answer you at all? You accused him of something and seem to think it is up to him to defend himself. How is that different to Alexwade’s comment regarding the accusation levelled at Mitt Romney?
REPLY: I have no idea about the Romney/Alexwade thing as this is the first mention I’ve seen of it. Science is supposed to have standards. If you can’t show your method and data to be reproducible (and so far Lewandowsky can’t/won’t) then it isn’t science. As the data gatherer, quality control is his responsibility. It seems clear he made no effort to ensure a balance in sampling, leaving participation to the whims of email delivery.
I’ll continue to ask those tough questions (as is my right) while you continue to be an unquestioning cheerleader for the Team. Be as upset as you wish. Cheers, -Anthony

Why is this dude sending e-mails to blogs?!
“Greetings, OT post here…I am studying AGW skeptic attitudes towards the butterfly effect on weather and oh, by the way, also how badly prone to truly insane conspiracy theories.”
Ah, sneakiness was indeed in order, to avoid ridicule and WUWT crowd blowback.

REPLY: it does have a SPAM log, and all quarantined emails are saved, but I routinely delete it. So there’s no record back to 2010 unfortunately. For example in just this past week, I deleted ~20,000 spam emails.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even that wouldn’t be definitive. Most anti-spam strategies have layers of defense. The first layer employs rules that are 99% accurate and never let’s them into the email environment itself. Those 20,000 emails deleted from the spam folder are the ones that were passed through to the second layer for additional inspection and stuck in the spam folder pending manual deletion. The first layer probably deleted another million emails or so!
Which is why if you have something important to communicate, and you haven’t exchanged email with that particular person before, it is important to find an alternate means of confirmation (phone call, post in tips and notes, even a comment in a thread will work). It is also why the onus is on the person who claimed to send it to prove that they did, not on the person who may or may not have received it.

davidmhoffer says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:29 am
It is also why the onus is on the person who claimed to send it to prove that they did, not on the person who may or may not have received it.

Which is why, if I am sending an important email, I always ask for a “Delivery Status Notification” AND a “Return Receipt”. And even this is not foolproof as many systems do not offer a “Return Receipt” option [or so I have been informed].
One would think that Lewandowsky would at least have asked for and retained a Delivery Status Notification for every blog to which he sent the survey.

.” People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence.”
Has an expert in his field through extension personal experience he may have had a good point but then , “. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces.” what ever point he had is thrown away via some desperate BS to cover this tracks .

This is getting worse by the minute. Conspiracy theory? What is this guy talking about?
That’s babbles without reasoning. He does not need any allowance to show who he invited, these are his own mails – this is ridiculous.
Contacting per email nowadays without at least trying to establish a contact otherwise, at least one phone call or one post in a blog (he tries to contact blogs!) is raising higher the ridicule level. I just received these days several spam mails with “prizes for survey takers” “your paid survey is here” “red lobster survey” “super survey available”, but believe me I do not have a blog and did not read past the title in the spam folder, hope it was not a mail from the “professor”…
Contacting only one side of the debate is trying to influence the outcome. This is the first validation of any statistical work to get a representative sample of the population!
What university was he from?
Graham has struck the nail on the head here, it deserves reposting:
“They say that fish rot from the head, so could the drop in Australia’s performance in education be due to the quality of some of the academics holding tenured positions at universities rather than what happens in primary and secondary school?
If credentialled, well-funded and tenured tertiary institution staff are capable of dishing-up research which should fail an undergraduate, what chance have lower echelons.”
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/09/06/fish-rot-from-the-head-part-1/

Hey, is he related to Monica?
Oh…that was “Lewinsky”.
Sorry, names kinda sound the same and both have stains on their reputations….

I am completely confused. He can release any e-mail he sent. This increasingly appears to be an outright lie on his part. He claims he has replies that explicitly declined, but won’t say who they are?