Second Lewandowsky conspiracy theory paper delinked from journal

I’ve been waiting to get some confirmation on this since yesterday , and now that I have it, I can state that the link to the second Lew paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation By Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook of “Sceptical Science” has been disconnected from normal public access at the abstract. The abstract remains, but the paper and supplementary info links on the abstract page have been taken out.

Retraction Watch writes:

=============================================================

That study was published in Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. But yesterday, that paper — or at least everything but the abstract – disappeared. It turns out this is the second time that’s happened. The paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until yesterday.

We asked journal editor Brian Little for some details. Little — whom, we should note, went out of his way to respond to us quickly, despite the impending Easter holiday and a self-imposed “sequester” so that he can finish writing a book — told us:

The article was removed on February 6th because of a complaint about a factual error. We did due diligence, contacted the authors, had it corrected and it was put up again.

Little said he was told yesterday by the Frontiers editorial office that the study had been taken down again, but didn’t know why. There’s a conference call scheduled for just after the Easter break, he said

to find out why it was taken down and to seek a fair and timely resolution.

It doesn’t seem that Frontiers has a policy for taking down articles. When Paul Matthews, of the University of Nottingham, asked the editorial office what had happened the first time the paper was removed, he was told:

Thank you for your message. Please allow me to clarify that the PDF version of the manuscript has been temporarily removed for the purpose of further typesetting. The manuscript is currently in production stage and the full manuscript will be published in the coming weeks. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns.

=============================================================

Hmmm. I doubt seriously they need a conference call for “typesetting”. I wonder if they’ll be able to salvage it from the GIGO macerator this time? Since it was mostly about smearing climate skeptics, and not any actual science, I hope that the people in charge will go with integrity, rather than continue with this ginned up collection of emotional screeds from Lewandowsky and Cook.

Read the full post at Retraction Watch here

See also Steve McIntyre’s dissection of the Cook-Lewandowsky “Lying/deceiving/incompetence” complex

UPDATE: My title and original first paragraph wasn’t fully accurate regarding links. While the paper PDF still exists on the Frontiers in Personality Science website, it has been delinked from the abstract page. Title and first paragraph have been edited for clarity within a few minutes of initial publication. – Anthony

UPDATE2: Geoff Chambers writes in comments:

Barry Woods and I both wrote to the editors independently asking for the article to be retracted. When I didn’t get a reply, I posted the letter on their site, and here

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/

The editorial assistant wrote to me yesterday, saying:

“Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are taking this email very seriously and will temporarily remove the article while we investigate your claims. Please feel free to forward us any further information that will assist us with our investigation”.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Wamron

Its a conspiracy…you and your fellow puppet-masters of the oil-slave army MADE them take it down, If it doesnt go up again CookLew will be running around screaming this fact to anyone who they can trick into not simply ignoring them.

Kon Dealer

Good riddance to bad rubbish (hopefully).

Barry Woods and I both wrote to the editors independently asking for the article to be retracted. When I didn’t get a reply, I posted the letter on their site, and here
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/
The editorial assistant wrote to me yesterday, saying:
“Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are taking this email very seriously and will temporarily remove the article while we investigate your claims. Please feel free to forward us any further information that will assist us with our investigation”. 

… and another one bites the dust!

Kon Dealer

This kind of activity comes under the heading of “Academic Malpractice” and/or “Behaviour likely to bring the University into Disrepute”.
The latter is a sacking offence.
A letter to the (Lewandowsky’s) University Vice Chancellor is in order.

Thank you Geoff and Barry for your efforts. At face value, the editorial team of the journal appear to be acting with integrity, for which they can only be commended.
Pointman

Rud Istvan

The improvement in cycle time on topical quality control is worthy of a GE six sigma black belt. Hereby duly awarded to this team by a former Motorola practioner. Now, take down the rest of CAGW poor quality science. Which is probably the whole shebang.
Remember that poor quality product should be organically recycled at the factory. Lewandowsky’s stuff can be placed into a traditional Japanese honeypot, composted, and then used to fertilize the next crop of Australian science. Metaphorically speaking…

Wamron

Kon Dealer………Is this then potentially a lower magnitude version of the Parncutt incident.

Other_Andy

What does this say about the quality of the Australian ‘academic establishment’ when they employ people like Lewandowsky?

MattE

Do you even know what that journal is? Not to entirely slam them, but I’ve been contacted to be an editor for a ‘topic’ for them. I’ve not looked into it extensively, but it’s not a typical journal. I think it’s a place where cronies could very easily slide things in. Here’s a description from their site:
“…the unique peer-review at Frontiers, with an interactive forum for transparent and real-time discussions between authors and reviewers, is key in certifying the highest quality publications and leading to high citations.
The Frontiers philosophy is that all research that is scientifically sound deserves to be published, removing all bias and subjective editorial criteria, and holding reviewers responsible for their reviews.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/news/Frontiers_Impact_Factors_2011/135

Konrad

Typesetting error?
The most obvious error was being foolish enough to ever set this craven effort at pathologising scepticism in type at all, especially in the age of the Internet. Sceptics will never forgive and the internet will never forget.

When this started I tried to see the best in Lewandowsky, I give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I wrote to him explaining that he was mistaken about us sceptics.
He didn’t even reply. I can only conclude that he has not the slightest interest in “seeing the other side” or academic balance.
That is about all I want to say about the kind of person he is.

pesadia

The whole matter should be referred to Peter Gleik for his consideration:)

I’ve had a handful of exchanges with Barry Woods on twitter about this. His admirable position is that he will try to sort it out with the journal, and in that he is a far more forgiving man than I. If I had been so abused I’d have contacted the University’s ethics committee in the first instance and wouldn’t have even bothered with the journal.

DirkH

The netherworld of social sciences….

Wamron

Thanks Matt E’
When they say:
“removing all bias and subjective editorial criteria”
clearly thats a defensive statement. Ie, they are uneasily aware …haha, deniers of the fact, that what they DO is exactly what they say it is their policy not to do.

Skiphil

Smarmy, slimy John Cook of SkS has also “doubled down” on his Twitter smears:
Cook’s latest SkS tweet
[emphasis added]

John Cook
‏@skepticscience
The Lewandowsky moon landing paper that started all the climate denier conspiracy theories is now published http://bit.ly/XiuA8U

Bill Illis

The actual temperature trends to date are NOT meeting the theory’s predictions.
In fact, most of the predictions are very far off so far (not all but most of them, including the most important ones).
Lewandowsky says we must be nuts for even testing out that fact. How twisted can a person be? I mean checking predictions with observations/results. No scientist does that and no field of science condones that.
This is what he is saying.

David L. Hagen

In The Moon Hoax has Landed, Geoff Chambers discovered that:

Something I’ve learned from a careful reading of the text (others can look at the statistics) is that Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are the real targets of the paper. . . .
As noted earlier, this group of people has a demonstrable impact on society, and understanding their motivations and reasoning is therefore of importance”. . . .
Popular climate blogs can register upward of 700,000 monthly visitors, a self-selected audience that is by definition highly engaged in the increasingly polarized climate debate. . . .”

. . .
Steve is named, not for anything he’s said, but for the fact of having triggered investigations, and WattsUpWithThat is hinted at, but not named.

Congratulations Anthony for running this highly influential climate blog which cannot be named.

Steve

So, who are the real crack pots again?

Bella.Lolas

go on my blog whatsupeveryone.wordpress.com

Wamron

Re Bill Ellis…Lewand..whatever the stupid pillocks dumbass name is….(about time he Anglicised it if hes pretending to be Australian) is obviously cut from the same cloth as the Soviet “psychiatrists” who “treated” dissidents bin the USSR.

JohnT

In repy to Bill Illis “The actual temperature trends to date are NOT meeting the theory’s predictions.” – not necessarily so:
http://www.google.com/reader/i/#stream/user%2F10843552267486186964%2Fstate%2Fcom.google%2Fread

Wamron

I hate it when people assess others by their appearance…but sometimes you cannot help drawing inferences.
[snip so lets not do it – Anthony]

Bob Thomas

Can you all stop picking on Stephen, You are all soooo! mean. He is my favourite writer on the ABC – The Drum. His articles are rippers with so many good laughs that it is hard to get through them. His assumptions, being the stand points of fools, delivers in bucket loads.
So stop this, it is very hurtful, he may take his bucket and spade and never play in the ABC sand pit again…

Wamron

Ahoy Bella Lugosi…all I see there is a picture of your Transylvanian homeland….WTF has it to do with our interests here?

Latitude
Sandy Composta

Leave Stephan alone. He was one of my mum’s best friends

Incidentally, in the aftermath of the long drawn out and seemingly unquenchable PR disaster that climategate keeps turning out to be for UEA, there are rumours of them working hard on repairing their academic credibility. Given the alarums and excursions of the last few years, big donors have been noticeably gun-shy of the place. They’re sprucing up their academic credentials by trying to recruit some scholastic heavy hitters like Gergis, Marcott, Shakun and Lewandowsky. Apparently the University of Western Australia are actually very keen to let UEA have the advantage of the latter’s full-time services, and as quickly as humanly possible. It’s all going extremely well, but I do think them having to break the fait accompli to Lew will be the tricky bit.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/climategate-3-the-goon-squad-and-going-nuclear/
Pointman

TomRude

These guys continue as if nothing happened. No surprise here since it is their JOB. Who pays?

UPDATE: My title and original first paragraph wasn’t fully accurate regarding links. While the paper PDF still exists on the Frontiers in Personality Science website, it has been delinked from the abstract page.

That was how they did it last time the paper was “taken down” as well – simply remove the link from the Abstract site. For all practical purposes this does “take down” the paper (while leaving abstract intact – something addressed in part at Retraction Watch ) unless you are given or for some reason know the PDF file web link.
I suspect the journal web tech just doesn’t see it important to remove the link in light of above.

Wamron

“I hate it when people assess others by their appearance…but sometimes you cannot help drawing inferences.
[snip so lets not do it – Anthony]”
They are doing it to us!!!

Wamron

I think this blog is to “civilised”
I want to see people stick the steel toe caps in..
With vigour.

Wamron

…thats “too” civilised.

Hot under the collar

Here in the UK we have a name for ‘important’ studies such as the Cook-Lewandowsky paper,
It’s called “Bollocks”.
In fact with such impressive debaters and ‘scientists’ such as Cook and Lewandowsky on their side perhaps Hayhoe may need to increase the 49 warmists to 1 sceptic ratio.

john robertson

@Wamron, its coming.
The farce is imploding faster each day, each honest inquiry shines light where the team never expected light to fall.
However these useful idiots and grant graspers are mere minions, the real targets of my wrath are the high priced help inside my government.
Watchdogs, compulsory protection, here to protect the public treasure.
If they were watchdogs, they are rabid.

Rud Istvan says: The improvement in cycle time on topical quality control is worthy of a GE six sigma black belt….Now, take down the rest of CAGW poor quality science. Which is probably the whole shebang.

Steve McIntyre began his auditing on the science behind the IPCC assessments with the 3rd Assessment. And since then every attempt to scientifically promote AGW, and to scientifically denigrate the opposition, has been rapidly subject to thorough online audits. However, IMO the shoddiness and deception began not with 3rd assessment and nor with the1st Assessment. It began following the establishment of the FCCC with the assessment developed under its enormous political shadow, that is, with the 2nd Assessment.
This Assessment leans heavily on dubious CO2+Sulphate model results by Mitchell that allowed modellers to save face on the fact that real-world based GMT was not keeping up with the warming in their models. It also included lately inserted ‘fingerprint’ results of Santer. And it also included the obscuring of damaging sceptical results by Barnett. While Michaels and Singer were gallant as lonely challengers at the time, some issues were never fully resolved, cross checked…audited. Therefore, I do often wonder whether folks with capacity to do so would be interested in auditing this work so as to clearly establish the extent to which the science behind the treaty talks had been corrupted from the beginning.

johanna

Personally, I am spewing (as we say in Australia) that this paper might not be published.
I am listed in the Table of Honour which identifies persons suffering from “conspiracy ideation”, along with such luminaries as Steve McIntyre and Anthony. I am even referenced in the main text.
Not only will my brush with fame likely never occur again (and I am not worthy, but very proud) – publication of this silly paper is a superb public demonstration of exactly the point he was not trying to make.

rogerknights

JohnT says:
March 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm
In repy to Bill Illis “The actual temperature trends to date are NOT meeting the theory’s predictions.” – not necessarily so:
http://www.google.com/reader/i/#stream/user%2F10843552267486186964%2Fstate%2Fcom.google%2Fread

That link leads to an empty page.

Mark

Dr. Lew and Cook appear unable to perceive how a blatant attack paper like this damages their side of the debate by polarizing it into extremes. The landscape can be thought of as a relatively small group of skeptics, a relatively small group of warmists and a large ‘middle’ of people who are undecided. The real battle is to win over this undecided middle. The bulk of these folks started out in the late 90s willing to go along with the warmists and their appearance of consensus. The skeptics have now been able to win over a portion of the middle and pull much of the rest back into “undecided” from leaning toward the warmists. The largest assistance to the skeptics has not been imaginary payouts from big oil, it’s been over-reaching by the warmists.
I have a number of friends who are in this middle group. We have some good discussions and they don’t always agree with my skeptical viewpoint. This paper had a powerful impact on my friends. They saw it as obvious ad hom, immediately drawing the soviet Lysenkoism parallel themselves. Lew and Cook trying to paint those who disagree with them as literally crazy is backfiring with the undecided middle. Of course, Lew and Cook don’t perceive this because they are surrounded by an echo chamber of other extreme warmists shouting “atta-boys”. They remain tone deaf to how the only audience that really matters sees this!
This kind of wild over-reach is also driving a wedge into the ranks of the warmist side. The extreme warmists are forcing their less extreme warmist allies to realize there are important differences within the warmist side. Has anyone else noticed the number of warmist scientists expressing small but meaningful public reservations and caveats about the warmist case in the last six months? They are starting to realize that history may not be on their side. As the extremists continue to mount ever more desperate (and distasteful) last stands, their allies are edging ever closer to the exits. Everyone remembers the lessons of plate tectonics and ulcers/bacteria. No one wants to be recorded by history as one of the religiously driven zealots who held an untenable position to the bitter end. The savvy, long-term players are hedging by putting some “prudently cautionary” sound-bites on the record, just in case. Watch this strategic hedging turn into a rush for the exits as the climate continues to not cooperate over the next 18 months.

Skiphil says:

Smarmy, slimy John Cook of SkS has also “doubled down” on his Twitter smears:
Cook’s latest SkS tweet [emphasis added]
John Cook
‏@skepticscience
The Lewandowsky moon landing paper that started all the climate denier conspiracy theories is now published http://bit.ly/XiuA8U

I had to read this several times–actually he’s right–Lewandowsky did start the denier conspiracy theories rhetoric. That is sooo funny. I doubt that he knew what he was writing!

Streetcred

Wamron says: March 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Re Bill Ellis…Lewand..whatever the stupid pillocks dumbass name is….(about time he Anglicised it if hes pretending to be Australian) is obviously cut from the same cloth as the Soviet “psychiatrists” who “treated” dissidents bin the USSR.
————————————
Well he’s actually an American … how smart were they in shipping him out and how dumb were we to accept a pillock like him ? … I ask you with tears in my eyes, we don’t need him, we already have enough of our own homegrown idiots … Cook, Flannery, Dr Karl, etc.

jc

@ Mark says: March 28, 2013 at 10:12 pm
I think the time-frame of 18 months is right. At that point, it is unlikely to be possible for anyone to rationally assert a case for CAGW beyond claiming it as a possibility on a par with any idle speculation about anything. This is also long enough for, as you say, the more cunning or prudent to hedge their bets.
At that point this will be purely structural and political. What happens with this is not a matter for science as such, although it will of course be important for real scientists to be increasingly vocal. If for no other reason than to demonstrate (if possible) that science is not debased in entirety.
I would qualify your categorization of “extremists”. It is difficult to be more extreme than James “oceans will boil” Hansen, yet he is also possessed of the rat cunning required to ameliorate exposure as can be seen recently.
Rather, the extremists you refer to are the pack followers who, as you say, derive their sense of reality from their immediate surrounds and have all the confidence of ignorance about the wider realities to which they remain effectively oblivious. They think they are part of the ascendant coterie and that this strength must prevail.
So they will become more patently absurd to objective outsiders.

markx

John Cook@skepticscience
The Lewandowsky moon landing paper that started all the climate denier conspiracy theories is now published.
Classic!!!!
A clear statement of responsibility. Nice to see. (even though I assume it was an inadvertent admission).

Kon Dealer

Wamron says: “Kon Dealer………Is this then potentially a lower magnitude version of the Parncutt incident?”
No, I believe it is higher magnitude. Parncutt was expressing an “opinion”, however distasteful.
Lewandowsky appears to have committed academic fraud and compounded this fraud by lying in public to defend his position.

observa

I see the Team are going upmarket with their peer review process nowadays-
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/unpaid-students-to-review-ar5-this-is-rigorous-expert-science-right/

@ Day By Day says: March 28, 2013 at 10:30 pm
The problem with twitter is the same as with 30 second sound bytes. They convey little and are often either too ambiguous or wrong. But we have a whole generation of kids that can only communicate in staccato tweets.

Snotrocket

Mike Haseler says (March 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm):

“When this started I tried to see the best in Lewandowsky, I give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I wrote to him explaining that he was mistaken about us sceptics.
“He didn’t even reply. I can only conclude that he has not the slightest interest in “seeing the other side” or academic balance.”

He is, as I read in another thread, what someone called, a Diode. After 50 years in electronics, I can see the analogy perfectly. It’s a very good name and I shall make more use of it when I come against these people with one-way communication skills.

DirkH

Sandy Composta says:
March 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm
“Leave Stephan alone. He was one of my mum’s best friends”
Did he always smear people?

Everyone should know than neither Cook or Lewandowsky are scientists. They are psychologists who appear to have psychological problems as they clearly are deluded about logic.Maybe they see Freud’s phallic symbol as a bete noire (circumflex over the first e)