Lewandowsky's latest smear paper gets pulled from the journal website

Readers may recall these two recent WUWT stories:

Tonight I’m pleased to report, that one skeptic who stood up and complained about Lewandowsky’s libelous claims, has had an effect.   – Anthony

Lewandowsky – Strike Two

Guest post by Jeff Condon (originally published on the Air Vent) Hat tip – Skiphil.

So Dr. Lewandowsky did it again.   He, and his coauthors, falsely used my name in order to support some kind of psychology paper on climate skeptic bloggers titled – “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.” There were a lot of false (and funny) claims against bloggers on the internet, however, the Lewandowsky team chose to again single out my name in particular regarding specific false attributions of beliefs regarding the global temperature record. Readers will recall that in his previous contributions to scientific understanding, Lewandowsky et al. had made the claim:

and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

Being surprised at the accusation, I pointed out in multiple emails to Dr. Lewandowsky that the Air Vent blog has published many articles using those exact records (here for instance) both on line and in peer-reviewed literature and no such claim regarding global temperature had ever been made by me. I have even created on-line global temperature results which have been compared favorably to many of the professionally funded series by others publishing global temperature series for climate science. A short chain of emails ensued where I explained in detail how my scientific positions have never supported his accusation.  After a short while, with no hope of resolution, I was forced to go directly to the editor of Psychological Science, who eventually agreed to remove the citation.

Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

Like pulling teeth right?

Humorously, the Air Vent was the single blog which made the citation list.  I am not a naturally vindictive person so I took the editor at his word and let the matter rest.  I have not had time to  follow through as to whether the citation removal was completed, however Stephan Lewandowsky has continued to link to the unpublished original, University of Western Australia hosted, libelous document.

It seems that Lewandowsky is apparently less forgiving than I have been.  He recently published a new paper based on blog reactions to his previous scientific breakthrough.  This new paper astoundingly contained an even less supportable claim:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”

My bold!

I would link to the paper, except that his new editors were far more rational than Eric Eich, and on notification, have simply removed the paper from publication.   They have additionally agreed to remove the false reference before any publication continues. Original link here.   I am impressed with the quality of the Frontiers in Psychology Journal response, and  hopefully Lewandowsky will now let the unfounded personal attacks rest.

As Dr. Lewandowsky and his team were aware, the conspiracy claims against me regarding the adjustment of temperature records were unsupported.  This is was a psychology paper of which I am at least an “alleged” subject.  A misrepresented data point, like so many other bloggers, who’s identity was unethically revealed.   Since I did originally take the time to inform Lewandowsky of my actual opinions on temperature records, and since he was fully aware that the article in question did not support his claims, it is my opinion that Lewandwosky and his coauthors intentionally introduced false data into a peer-reviewed paper.  Ironically for a paper on conspiracy ideation based on others (read non-authors) pre-conceived bias, the authors scientifically irrational accusations were completely unnecessary to the point their paper purports to make…..

.. unless one believes in the Lewandowsky conspiracy.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Bofill

Jeff Condon you need to get your mind right. Obviously you’ve got a severe case of counterfactual thinking and constipational ideation going on if you didn’t even realize that you’ve been arguing that the temperature records only show warming because of adjustments. This can be corrected by an aggressive course of shock therapy and large daily doses of LSD, combined with intensive study of materials presented on the S.k.S website.
Well done sir, BTW I admire your blog very much.

Mark Bofill

Jeff CONDON excuse me. I hate it when that happens.


Good response, Jeff! Amazing (but not surprising, really) that Lewandowsky could continue to be so reckless. For the True Believers, who really think they are in a street fight ala Michael Mann and Peter Gleick, the end justifies any means. We can expect worse to come from Lewandowsky et al., but at east you made them take notice.
P.s. It is right around the one year anniversary of the misbehavior of another miscreant in the Mann-styled Climate Wars, Peter Gleick. One year later and Gleick has skated merrily away from his malfeasance with hardly a ‘tsk tsk’ from his allies and enablers. This would be a good month for blogs to press journalists and the US Dept of Justice to revisit these matters.


Congratulations, Anthony. You know you’ve made it to the top of your craft when the opposition identifies you by name.
Now, what were the names of these sophomoric perpetrators of nefarious misdeeds? I forget…

M Simon

When are you going to cover “Condensation Driven Winds” – also at Condon’s site?

As the ‘science’ slips away from them, Warmists are desperately trying to deflect attention away from the failure of their predictions. This is but noise and fury signifying nothing.

Alex Heyworth

Jeff, it might pay you to consider retaining counsel in Australia to advise on the potential for a libel action. Australian libel laws are pretty strict.
Might seem a bit extreme, but nothing shuts such people up better than contemplating an expensive libel payout.


Congrats Jeff! Well done!


congrats jeff.
more good news:
Barclays, Deutsche Bank lose top carbon analysts: sources
LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Investment banks Barclays and Deutsche Bank have parted ways with their leading carbon analysts, sources at both firms told Reuters Point Carbon on Wednesday, as banks continue to pare back activity in the battered emissions trading market…


The paper is still up.


Is the “Recursive Fury” article being taken down permanently by Frontiers in Psychology? Or just long enough to get the false claim about Jeff Condon’s views removed from it?
The excerpted quotation from ambitgambit leaves out one set of ellipsis dots that ought to be present, and creates a highly misleading impression of what the original blog post said.
Careful cross-checks of the article’s other quotations from blogs may reveal further distortions.

Tom J

For whatever reason on earth could Lewandowsky’s ‘contribution’ to any form of knowledge advancement possibly be worth any degree of monetary compensation however minute that compensation might be? I’m real serious here. What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.

Well done bro. When I read that reference I had a good chuckle and figured you’d be all over Dr. Loo’s sorry butt. he could have written an interesting paper on conspiritorial ideation taking examples from all sides (big oil, etc ) and showed how the internet has a tendency to foster such thinking. That would have been interesting. My sense is the ethics committees at those boys universities should get some mail.


I’ll give the good Doctor the “recursive” part, but the “fury” part seems to be a projection.
intense, disordered, and often destructive rage

The Erinyes are usually called the Furies, in English. For those using the Greek names, they are often referred to euphemistically as Eumenides “gracious ones.” The Furies pursued particularly heinous criminals and drove them mad with their pursuit.
Just saying.

He still has it posted at his web site.

I am given to understand that defamation is a crime in Australia. As Lewandowsky’s preachings appear on a web site hosted (on behalf of) the University of Western Australia, it would be subject to such laws.
Perhaps Lewandowsky can come to appreciate that even ivory towers (eventually) offer no defence under the rule of law.

They got the con bit right! are they now saying that cover-ups, lies and dishonest people don’t exist?
hmm, A strange cognitive inference is a foot!

John F. Hultquist

M Simon says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:29 pm

Two years ago; oh, wait.
You likely mean the recent publication of the paper here:

Tom J on February 6, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“What breakthroughs, insights, revelations has he developed in his chosen field, and to the benefit of the world? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. If he had any insight at all he might recognize the embarrassment he is to himself.”
Wow, that’s perfect. I feel sadness for the man, but that doesn’t keep me from hoping that he is relieved of his position of employment.


It would be great if there is a resubmission requirement with some teeth to it.
But, to put it mildly, the article in its current form doesn’t look like the product of rigorous review— and one has to wonder how strict the peer review process is for anything that gets submitted to Frontiers in Psychology.

Mods can I post it? lol
REPLY: Sure, Anthony

Lil Fella from OZ

They think they can operate how they so desire without respect to persons or for that matter the law. (Notice I didn’t include ‘science.’) Strike one against them!

Jeff, while you’re in communication with the editor, you should probably call attention to the biases and qualifications of the reviewers that were likely “suggested” by Lewandowsky.

Lew Skannen

Good result.
I suspect that after a while serious journals will tire of acting as the toilet wall upon which errant schoolboys wish to scrawl their latest juvenile rants.

Michael D Smith

While skeptics have a deep appreciation of science, we often assume opponents have the same commitment to uphold the scientific method and have the ethics to maintain high standards. As we see in so many examples, this is often not the case, and truth is far less important to many promoters than carrying out the agenda. We may even view it as conspiracy-like because we simply can’t see how so many so-called professionals could act so badly unless they are actively coordinating actions together that the rest of us would consider inconceivable as individuals. At least I feel that way.
Ultimately, the ones with science AND integrity on their side will carry the most influence. Most people I’ve talked to who think we have a planetary emergency are quite happy to switch sides once they understand how badly they’ve been misled. After all, most regard the truth as far more important than projecting a cool image to others about saving something that they find out later is not in need of saving.
Integrity is absolute. Thanks for defending it Jeff.

I wonder if the editor will soon be forced to resign…
…and of course…Lewandowsky is bitter because Al Jazeera did not buy his pitiful organ ‘www.ShapingTomorrowsWorld.org’ with their lavish oil derived budget and poodle groomers.


I reject your reality and substitue my own!


Yeah but the original Lewandowsky man on the moon paper has yet to be published. Quite a house of cards he’s building.

Well done Jeff; persuing an Australian legal angle could be quite advantegous, given the actions undertaken so far in response to your enquires…

Dr K.A. Rodgers

As at 1940 hours New Zealand Summer Time on 07 February the article was still posted on the Frontiers’ site and can be found by a site search for “Lewandowsky”. The subsequent blog comments make reference to Jeff’s concern.
The blog also conatins a mention from Cook that the full paper is now available at
It is there with posts from all the gang Down Under. Have a look at “Our Authors”. The site is supported by Uni W.A., Curtin and Murdoch universities. Wonder what their VCs think.

The abstract is still posted here:
Several interesting additional developments and observations.
First, the paper was submitted Nov. 5, 2012 – and not “accepted” until Feb. 2, 2013.
Second, the Editor of the paper is Viran Swami, whose work (Swami 2009) much of Lewandowsky’s work is directly based on, and builds on. A large share of the survey questions came directly from Swami 2009.
The interesting part is, if I recall correctly, there were two reviewers listed originally – Elaine McKewon and another – now that other reviewer name has been removed and Viram Swami is listed as the 2nd reviewer.

Citation: Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Oberauer K and Hubble M (2013). Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. Front. Psychology 4:73. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073
Received: 05 Nov 2012; Accepted: 02 Feb 2013.
Edited by:
Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Reviewed by:
Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

As of today there have been 4,806 views of the Abstract page … the paper itself has been pulled, however John Cook has helpfully offered a link to it here:

As he is claiming to be a psychologist – and bringing thinking psychologists into disrespect perhaps you might want to complain to the Australian Psychological Society about his improper conduct as well. I note that he is not a practising psychologist as he is not registered with AHPRA but I suppose he is a member of the APS.

I don’t know….. Jeff, good on you for sticking up for what you’ve stated and not stated. It’s a horrible thing for people to misrepresent people’s positions, especially by supposed professionals. We’ve all had it happen to us. But…….
At some point, doesn’t it occur to us skeptics that we’re the ones lending this idiot credence? Surely, like Jeff, it would have “gotten my goat” had that imbecile misrepresented what I’ve stated. And, I would have been P.O’d to the point beyond civility. I mean, I never heard of Lewdy until he gained notoriety here. Can’t we just point and laugh at him? Can’t we use him as a shining example of what an alarmist is? I mean he’s demonstrated that he’s very little math skills. He’s demonstrated a willingness to lie, and lie just about anything.
He’s a dishonest cretin. This is demonstrable. Let the warmists have him. Tie Lewdy around their neck. If they want to quote him and put him in the media, good! Put Lewdy’s fingerprints on every warmist thing you can and then present him to the public. Do so especially anytime a warmist “journalist” quotes the barely functional moron.
Lewdy = win for skeptics!!! 😉

wayne Job

Psychology is not a science it is a pathology of the mind whereby the gurus try to project their sense of reality onto those that actually live in reality. This man has the mind of a fifteen year old projecting his fantasies into the world using tax payer money in the fantasy world of the useless part of academia. In the real world he has no worth, thus no job, it is a good time in Australia to stir the pot, our unions and government are under police investigation for fraud, our sports are caught in major drug investigations, people are being arrested for kiddie fiddling, big investigation.
Time to clean out academia also, a little law suit would go a long way at this time, sue him for libel the uni will cave in and sack him.

Recursive fury? More like repulsive foray. Are there no depths these warmists can’t/won’t plumb?

Of course climate scientists don’t fraudulently adjust past temperatures to make global warming look worse than it already is. Nobody on this blog ever said anything like that.
[Reply: Translation: “Look! Over there! A kitten!” — mod.]

Peter Miller

A Scott
These are Lewandowsky’s reviewers for that paper, i don’t think any further comment is needed.:
1. Viren Swami: Papers published – mostly on perceptions of the female body form
2. Elaine McKewon Two publications: I think these titles speak for themselves.
McKewon, Elaine (2012) ‘Talking Points Ammo: The use of neoliberal think tank fantasy themes to delegitimise scientific knowledge of climate change in Australian newspapers’, Journalism Studies 13(2), 277–297 (UTS staff or students only)
McKewon, Elaine (2012) ‘Duelling Realities: Conspiracy theories vs climate science in regional newspaper coverage of Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth’, Rural Society 21(2), 99–115 (link opens external site)

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake so I’d appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Jeff caught Lew out because Lew wrongly stated that Jeff asserted on his blog that historical temperature records had been tampered with by Warmists and Jeff never made such claim.
Did I get that right?
Because over the years I have come to understand that Warmists HAVE in fact altered historical temperature records in their efforts to make the present seem warmer…indeed I’ve seen pieces right here on WUWT to that effect.
Did I get that right too?
None of this alters my low opinion of Lew but did Jeff get him on a ‘technicality’?

David, UK

I do see Lewandwosky, like Gleick, as a sicko with no sense of reason or perspective, not to mention a hugely dominant ego. Sick [snip . . site rules, it is still legible . . mod]. If he wasn’t such a buffoon he’d be dangerous.

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent etc…”
Why is it that all the worst people talk or write in language that’s like a bad German translation?


I must say the latest Lew paper is definitely recursive, he demonstates supposed conspiracy ideation by proporting a supposed sceptic conspiracy to derail climate science. This is Bizarre. No sceptic in my experience has ever done anything of the sort – In fact most sceptics in my experience are trying to put Climate Science back on secure scientific footing – I think Lew is guilty of the only Conspiratorial Ideation here – perhaps he should look inward to understand why he believes these fairytales.

David Bailey

Surely there must be ethical restrictions preventing people writing psychological papers about named, living people without their permission? I’d have thought it might be worth at least asking a lawyer.
One letter from a solicitor might be enough to stop both the the journal and Lewandowsky permanently.
My belief in the honest of science sinks by the day as I follow this climate nonsense 🙁
Keep up the good work, Anthony!

A. Scott and others discussing the reviewers. Here are the original reviewers before the editor apparently added himself. (This in itself is very troubling and may need to be reported to the head of the Journal).
Here are the reviewers of this paper:
Michael J. Wood, University of Kent, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Reviewer Wood gets 6 citations in the text of the Lewandowsky paper and reviewer McKewon gets 5 citations. What’s not to like from the reviewers point of view? It doesn’t matter whether the paper should be hung on the outhouse doorhandle to get the most out of it.
A grad student and a “post graduate” researcher….
(This is compiled from Billy Liar’s comments on another thread).
So they pulled the graduate student with these credentials:

Research Interests
My research interests generally centre around the topic of conspiracy theories. How do conspiracy theories differ psychologically from more conventional explanations for events? Where do they come from, how do they spread, and how do they affect the communities in which they arise? My doctoral research will investigate these questions both in a laboratory setting and through examination of online conspiracy communities, which are fertile grounds for the growth of non-mainstream belief systems and alternative narratives of why the world is the way it is. I am also interested in cults, belief in the paranormal, automatism and the ideomotor effect, and recovered memory.
Thesis Title
Understanding beliefs in conspiracy theories
Karen Douglas
School of Psychology, University of Kent


Whom the Recursors would destroy, they first make furious.

Lew Skannen

I remember the tragic story about an English rock musician. It turned out that he had mental problems which were going untreated because nobody detected anything out of the ordinary. Whatever mad thing he did was dismissed as the kind of thing that rock musicians do.
Eventually he overstepped the mark and was arrested. Only then was it discovered that he was rather nuts.
I wonder whether a similar condition affects particular academics.

Off topic – http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/education-minister-schavan-has-ph-d-revoked-in-plagiarism-scandal-a-881707.html “German Education Minister Annette Schavan’s Ph.D. thesis declared invalid and her doctor title revoked.”
… if only this would happen to Lewandowsky and Manne

David L

mosomoso on February 7, 2013 at 12:51 am
“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent etc…”
Why is it that all the worst people talk or write in language that’s like a bad German translation?”
It’s bafflegab. WUWT had a great link to some research into it a week or two ago. People tend to believe it if it sounds important even if they don’t have a clue what it means.

Charles Gerard Nelson:
Your post at February 7, 2013 at 12:30 am says and asks in total:

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake so I’d appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Jeff caught Lew out because Lew wrongly stated that Jeff asserted on his blog that historical temperature records had been tampered with by Warmists and Jeff never made such claim.
Did I get that right?
Because over the years I have come to understand that Warmists HAVE in fact altered historical temperature records in their efforts to make the present seem warmer…indeed I’ve seen pieces right here on WUWT to that effect.
Did I get that right too?
None of this alters my low opinion of Lew but did Jeff get him on a ‘technicality’?

Jeff Condon objected to a blatant lie – not a “technicality” – in the paper by Lewandowski.
The difference between what Condon has said and the assertion in the paper is a fundamental difference of fact. That difference is of the same kind as the difference between, e.g.
(a) ‘The recorded amount that was stolen has been altered’
(b) ‘The theft reported to the insurers did not happen’.
All the global temperature data sets are often altered such that recent temperatures are raised and temperatures from decades ago are lowered; e.g. see
The changes to global temperature calculations increase the temperature rises indicated by the global temperature data sets. And it is reasonable to raise issues of scientific method and propriety when discussing these adjustments to the data.
The disputed statement in the paper says something completely different. It says

Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..

There is no dispute that global temperature data sets are often altered by adjustments and that these alter the degree of recorded global warming. The objected sentence says Condon has asserted there is no global warming indicated by the global temperature data sets except for the rise introduced by the adjustments to the data.
The objected statement is egregious in several ways.
It is factually incorrect but is cited as evidence in a research paper.
The factually incorrect statement misleads about the reality of the subject of the paper.
The paper assesses “conspiracy ideation” and the statement seems to provide evidence of a false belief in a conspiracy (i.e. global warming is ‘made up’ and not real).
It misrepresents the views of Condon as being a believer in a false conspiracy
It is personally offensive to Condon in that its misrepresentation is derogatory of the views Condon expresses on his blog.
Use of fabricated evidence is sufficient reason for withdrawal of any paper from publication. The objected sentence provides a falsehood that has no justification: it is fabricated evidence..