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.
The replacement of Wood by Swami as a reviewer for the Frontiers in Psychology paper is odd, to say the least. Does this mean, for instance, that they threw out an actual review by Wood and replaced it with an actual review by Swami?
There is no prohibition against criticizing living persons in the pages of psychology journals. It happens all the time, as you might expect when many of the topics are controversial.
Most editors, however, would discourage or prohibit authors from presenting psychiatric diagnoses of their critics.
Lewandowsky, whose training is in cognitive psych, not in anything clinical, has taken to slinging around the word “ideation.” An unusual word, used mostly by psychiatrists, and always implying that mental process under discussion is deeply pathological…
Pointman:
Your post at February 7, 2013 at 7:38 am says
Thankyou for your wonderful essay at that link. I commend it to everybody.
As it says and explains
Oh, yes.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
Swami paper: “German translation and psychometric evaluation of the Body Appreciation Scale”
I think Bo Derek was in the film version of that!
How does he source a blog post as Condon 2009, when the blog post says Jeff Id?
Are we allowed to use Foster now?
Is it a conspiracy thought if you hold that adjustments to temperature records are inappropriate and/or technically incorrect? if you hold that the assumptions behind adjustments are false, which makes the adjustments mathematically correct but misleading?
I think you have to say that persons doing something wrong do so with knowledge of their error and with the intent to draw another to a known false conclusion before you can use the word “conspiracy”. When you give the benefit of the doubt to your preferred solution, you may be in part self-serving, but then both William James and Albert Einstein would say that you can do this if it leads to a better end than not doing so: much of “truth” is first recognized on a gut level, after all.
“Ideation” Sheesh, does the dictionary need this for psychology to go forward. I guess when you have little beef in your research it helps to invent “scientific” words as well as invent data points. I note that Lewandowski – a data-cooking psychologist, is publishing more papers on climate science than the once prolific hockey team. I guess he thinks data-cooking is legitimate climate science, following the hockey team’s lead.
Pointman says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:38 am
“In a basic moral sense, where does the blame belong?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am with you on that 100% and though the same, I hope others read your link.
Pointman says:
February 7, 2013 at 7:38 am
“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
—————————————-
Well done.
Mark
It’s ironic that loads of skeptics (surely including commenters here) DO believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming.
This most recent pile of Lew has earned mention at “Annals of Improbable Research” … home of the Ig Nobel Awards …
“A new study tries to focus on fury on the Internet that’s defined by fury on the Internet … ”
http://www.improbable.com/2013/02/05/recursive-fury-on-the-internet/
This is neither science nor even an exhibition by a trick cyclist, it is a plain, simple, and by the measure of the reactions it is getting, a rather successful diversionary tactic.
When the day is going against you – divert their attention!
Leave it alone and the paper, complete with stains and perforations, will return to the roll all by itself,
A Green:
Your post at February 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm says
Total fail! There is nothing “ironic” and nobody needs to “believe” because it is a certain fact that “temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted” in a manner which does “exaggerate warming”. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
And none of that is relevant to the importance of the falsehood which required the ‘pulling’ of Lewandowsky’s latest paper by the publisher. Please read my above post at February 7, 2013 at 4:11 am which explains the serious and egregious falsehood in that paper.
Richard
One could say that Lewindopey et al have dropped another log, and its the same colour and smell of the first one.
Flush it before it matures. !
It’s ironic that loads of skeptics (surely including commenters here) DO believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming.
The FACT that they have been adjusted is not in doubt. The only question is legitimacy.
A Green says: February 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm
“…..It’s ironic that loads of skeptics (surely including commenters here) DO believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming….”
I think we all accept that they have been adjusted. Some adjustments may be legitimate, but I would really appreciate it if you could specifically explain some of the more extreme ones to me.
The two degrees adjustment in Darwin, Australia would be a good place to start:
(GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)
I am sure you have investigated all these fully and completely, and that you understand and can explain the timing, mechanism and amount of the adjustments. I am sure you would not just come in here spouting something you had been told, would you?
I look forward to your detailed reply, because I would really like to know.
In Opposite World the Australian newspaper ‘The Age’ would have a headline article about this telling their readers about Lewandowsky’s much criticized paper(s) and its struggled attempts to get published. They would tell us how much money he receives at the UWA and how much has been chewed up on grants to fund this kind of ‘research’. They would also tell us that this comes hot on the heals of the embarrassing retraction of the Gergis paper last year. In Opposite World…
Every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
I would add a line, and every psychologist insane
With apologies to Mick and the boys.
Richard Courtney.
Thanks!
Hi Wamron, agree completely with your comments. As far as I can see, the scientific psychologists (psychology is not yet a science in the proper sense) are making connections with cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, with the aim of placing psychology on a surer footing, relating it specifically to biology and evolution. Unfortunately, others, who have a lot of influence, are falling into relativist and idealist / solipsist postures such as certain forms of constructivism, and social constructionism. Scratch a relativist and you’ll find an absolutist.
Another place he could look would be at the dodgy adjustments in Iceland:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/ghcns-dodgy-adjustments-in-iceland/
A Green says: February 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm
“…..It’s ironic that loads of skeptics (surely including commenters here) DO believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming….”
Care to explain the difference between HADCRUT 3 and HADCRUT 4 and how the difference can only be explained by including more polar data above 82.5N?
Curiouser and curiouser.
After delisting Wood as a reviewer and adding Swami, Frontiers in Psychology has tacked on still another reviewer for “Recursive fury”:
Reviewed by: Prathiba Natesan, University North Texas, USA
Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
It appears I am out of date (below) … those Darwin annual average temperature figures were from GHCN V2, it appears that in GHCN V3 the ‘homogenization adjustment’ has been largely removed (adjusted?) for Darwin, as has the warming trend there.
I guess we can now safely say the series had been wrongly adjusted to show a warming trend?
Whoever said observant and detailed bloggers never do any good?
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/willis-was-right-and-ncdc-agrees-no-wild-adjustments-at-darwin/
markx says: February 7, 2013 at 6:49 pm
The two degrees adjustment in Darwin, Australia would be a good place to start:
(GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/willis-was-right-and-ncdc-agrees-no-wild-adjustments-at-darwin/
JunkPsych – interesting – that change occurred sometime late today.
At least its someone with apparent statistics expertise – an asst. professor. According to her CV her last peer review was 2010 and appears her work primarily in educational psych domain.
https://faculty.unt.edu/editprofile.php?pid=1693
That said – to me – as a layman – didn’t appear there was much statistical analysis involved in The current Lewandowsky “Recursive” paper …
@A Scott and JunkP – indeed, I wonder what Natesan’s views of the statistics in the original LOG12 paper would be?