Readers may recall these two recent WUWT stories:
- More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team
- Lewandowsky’s bear-baiting behavior
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.
Moderator:
My reply to Charles Gerard Nelson seems to have gone in the ‘bin’. Please retrieve it.
Richard
Between my studying psychology in the Seventies and working in it again today I find a very great change has happened, as a result of which we may consider the phrase “Psychological Science” a definite oxymoron.
Psychologists are aware of this and are divided among those who think the change is a good thing (calling it Post Modernism and “Qualitative”) and those whose still valid work will eventually come to be seen as an adjunct of the real science of biology. I predict the eventual emergence of the phrase “Behavioural Biology” to refer to what used to be called “Psychology” as a necessary means of distinguishing it from the junk that the latter term has now come to denote.
This would leave such guff as is referred to here its due recognition as patent pseudo-science. In fact, pseudo-something without even a pretense at science.
Lewandowsky, like most extremists, is not nearly as clever as he thinks.
And it would seem that Jeff has been misled by the magazine’s editors.
Don’t get too happy about this. LEW has a PhD.
While that doesn’t exactly resonate with us, it gives him credence in the world of (he-he) journalism.
Ten years ago I remember telling my brother that if the CAGW crowd couldn’t make their case on scientific merit, they would turn to psychology to shut up the opposition.
That’s what is happening now.
Read the history of the Soviet Union to know what comes next! It’s pretty much predetermined.
Jeff’s very brave!
Moderator:
The item at February 7, 2013 at 4:12 am implies that my post has been lost in the ‘ether’. This is a repost of it.
Richard
================
Charles Gerard Nelson:
Your post at February 7, 2013 at 12:30 am says and asks in total:
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’
and
(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
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
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
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.
1.
It is factually incorrect but is cited as evidence in a research paper.
2.
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).
3.
It misrepresents the views of Condon as being a believer in a false conspiracy
4.
It is personally offensive to Condon in that its misrepresentation is derogatory of the views Condon expresses on his blog.
5.
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.
Richard
Moderator:
There seems to be a problem. As a result of the appearance of my note at February 7, 2013 at 4:12 am I have attempted to repost my reply to Charles Gerard Nelson. That repost also seems to have ‘gone’.
I would appreciate your looking into this. please.
Richard
[Found 2x in the bin – Any others? Mod]
What is it that makes some of these guys so maze-dumb? Even after you show them where the cheese is, they still can’t find it.
Lewandowsky seems to be writing autobiographical papers.
Moderator:
At February 7, 2013 at 5:12 am you ask me,
“[Found 2x in the bin – Any others? Mod]”
No, those are all. Sincere thanks for your efforts.
Richard
John Brookes says:
February 7, 2013 at 12:22 am
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Drive by bear baiting with falsehoods again are we Johnny boy?
You just proved that Academics can even read and comprehend. Nice going!
……
For those who might want to know who Johnny boy is link from Sonny at Jo Nova’s site where Johnny Boy routinely makes his presents felt. Further he is The First-year Physics Unit Coordinator, Academic Staff (Physics) at The University of Western Australia. As someone who is SUPPOSED to be trained in physics, he is not exactly a poster boy for the usefulness of higher education.
I have an acryonym, CACAC and CACAC, but if I were to type it out long-hand, Mr Watts would have it deleted for expletives.
I invite readers to try and work out what it stands for and to cogitate on whether it is an expression suitable for Lewandowsky.
David L says:
February 7, 2013 at 2:46 am
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is the link Bafflegab Pays Scott Armstrong has some really great papers that make Lew’s look like like a child’s temper tantrum in hard copy.
Unfortunately the old website where the were easily accessible no longer exists – grumble.
I had a look at one of the Prof’s blogs on “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” site, and was going to leave a comment, to be put off by the need to register. So – in the hope that he might sully himself with alternative thinking (or “ideation”), and read parts of this site – you can all peruse it, too:-
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
February 7, 2013 at 4:05 am
…… for so effectively helping to sustain vigorous public discourse … via a hilariously ineffective WUWT “Whack-a-Mole Strategy” of attempting to quench it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lew’s papers are so bad they need to be highlighted to make sane people question the MSM’s propaganda that skeptics are looney tunes. Once people figure out that scientists often publish fake research and are now being caught at it the better off we all are.
The grand irony here is that Lewandowsky likely assumes now that FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY is in the pocket of big oil….
Anthony. FYI.
Lewandowsky and Cook lose the plot
WEDNESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2013 22:22 PM · 13 COMMENTS
by SIMON
It’s Lew, no it’s Cook, no Lew, Cook, Lew, er, hang on…
[UPDATE 2 [7 Feb, 18.40 AEST]: This is all in the public domain now, so I am sharing it here. The fourth author on this paper, Michael Hubble-Marriott, is the “Mike” who is responsible the Watching the Deniers site (sorry, what are we denying again? Duh). Mike couldn’t contain his glee at being asked to be part of the team, so he revealed it all on his blog. I guess you judge people by the company they keep…]
[UPDATE: John Cook responds in the comments below.]
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2013/02/lewandowsky-and-cook-lose-the-plot/
Perhaps Lewandowski could write a paper on people pretending to be scientists ? A couple of names spring to mind .. Perhaps his close mate John Cook ?
John Brookes @ur momisugly 12:22. Clue is in your word ‘worse’. You still don’t get it, and trying for sarcasm when you don’t get it is analogous, but quieter, than being wrong at the top of your lungs.
===============
John F. Hultquist says:
February 6, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Thanks for that. I had missed it. I think.
Global Warming Limmings
The real challenge is to quantify the obvious Lemming Effect among global warming alarmists (aka the IPCC). i.e. examine why ALL four IPCC projections have been systematically high. See Ira Glicksman
An animated analysis of the IPCC AR5 graph shows ‘IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed’
The IPCC projections show sustained SYSTEMATIC (aka “bias”) Type B Standard Error in global warming models. True objective scientific models would result in be randomly distributed predictions about the mean of the resultant actual temperature trend. This is a massive failure by the IPCC to apply the scientific method to correct these obvious errors.
Quantify and Expose the Global Warming Lemmings
This presents a major opportunity for innovative social scientists to explore:
WHAT happened versus what was predicted (“projected”) – quantify this systematic Type B error
WHO was involved in making this error – distinguish global warming “alarmists”, from “warmists” “luke warmists” and “realists”.
HOW were alarmists involved in perpetuating this serious breach of the scientific method.
Lewandowsky et al. are examples of this last perpetuation of breaching the scientific method – by the rhetorical device of accusing global warming realists of “conspiracy”.
David Bailey says:
February 7, 2013 at 1:23 am
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.
——————-
This occurred to me too, before reading your comment. Since this is a psychology paper, rather than a climate science paper, and Jeff Condon is being used as a subject, it is an absolute requirement by university ethics panels that he be presented with a form outlining the purpose of the study, the purpose of his participation in the study, and overall study parameters. Jeff Condon then should have to sign the form in agreement to allow his information to be used, and this form submitted to the university ethics committee, prior to any publication. Or perhaps Australia does not have the same red tape for such studies? (red tape with which I agree in this case). I have to go through this to interview scientists for my historical research, and, unlike Lewandowsky, I am trying to learn from my subjects, not malign them.
This particular article is about the Jonestown Massacre Conspiracy Theory but the information is relevant to this discussion.
This guy may be a professor of English and Philosophy, but he has a better handle on ‘Conspiracy Theories’ than Lewandowsky does.
As a freshman I started out in psychology. After reading about 50 books, I concluded that it was lots of fun but you could make a good story saying anything at all (and gibberish also), so I got out and started taking calculus and physics etc. I now pat my 20yr old self on the back for having good sense.
On of the flaws in the Academy is that profs get insulated by tenure from any feedback from reality. You can really be a crazy old coot and still be a professor. The idea that ethics is central has been lost. I recently saw a quote from Freud to the effect that the ethics of the profession required one to never interfere with the political or religious beliefs of patients–boy have they lost that guideline. Now they view anything other than athiesm and left-wing politics as a pathology.
“In a basic moral sense, where does the blame belong?”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/
There’s nothing new, about the likes of Lew.
Pointman
Jeff,
Thank you for keeping the spotlight on the feeble intellect of Cook and Lewandowsky.
They actually believe their paranoid ‘ideation’? If so then they are irrelevant to climate science, it has moved past their crude bias. If they don’t believe their own paranoid ‘ideation’ and are acting for PR purposes then they are very bad actors.
John