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.
I had the same thought.
Dr. Natesan is an educational statistics expert.
And there isn’t much of statistical interest in “Recursive Fury,” while there was lots in LOG 12.
Ruth – your comment is well founded, and the answer would be illuminating, again, especially considering that there was essentially no statistical analysis in the present paper. The question becomes then why they removed one reviewer, after the article was posted online, then added the Editor as a reviewer, and days later added a 3rd reviewer whose primary apparent value to review would be her statistical analysis knowledge.
When I looked today, the new third reviewer had been removed from the roster. So there have now been four rosters of people who had supposedly reviewed the paper:
Wood and McKewon
then Swami and McKewon
then Natesan, Swami and McKewon
then Swami and McKewon again
JunkP … you might also note that the current article – it really isn’t a “paper” IMO, makes a number of pretty much silly, self serving claims, along with a handful of apparent outright falsehoods.
Starting with the most basic premise of the paper – that LOG12 was targeted by the conspiracy crowd. . The authors use the fact that their LOG12 paper drew considerable and widespread notice and criticism, compared to the 21 other similar papers they note, as the basis for this alleged scholarly work.
The REASON it drew attention was because it was designed and intended to do just that. A sensationalized, inflammatory and denigrating title being the biggest example. IMO that was the primary intent – more “punative psychology” … the authors are unabashed critic’s – activists who attack all who dare disagree with them. Up to and including publishing the “Debunkers Handbook.”
Not a one of the other papers they noted had a remotely similar inflammatory title. And although I have not read them I think its safe to say none of them used a thinly supported minor finding as the title of their paper.
Its funny too – most of the “conspiracist ideation” claims made in this paper by the authors could easily be applied to the authors behavior – examples include:
1. The acerbic and taunting responses to criticism, and denigration of those who have the audacity to question them, as posted by several of the authors in their own blog
2. The authors response towards those critical comments – the systemic banning of almost every commenter on their blog critical of their work, using increasingly draconian “violations of comment rules” as an excuse.
3. The activities of author Cook thru his Skeptical Science site, and the reactions from the membership there.
4. The discussions and comments by author Cook, and other members, in the “secret forum” at his SKS – where the discussions clearly show conspiring to affect the discussion on climate. Cook states he was working directly with Lewandowsky on several schemes intended to slant or corrupt the discussion of climate science. He also discusses a potential automated “bot” that could be used to alter the discussion
5. The highly partisan activism and advocacy by Lewandowsky and Cook against the entire community of people who are skeptical of the science behind the anthropogenic cause claims regarding global warming – as evidenced by the various speeches, commentary, media articles and the like – but most prevalently displayed by their “Debunkers Handbook”
If and when it finally appears, it will be interesting to see the title of the paper.
what a tangled web they weave …. 😉