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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My thoughts on the matter. (rough and ready, Easter hols, don’t care)
http://unsettledclimate.org/2013/03/29/the-perils-of-science-by-press-release-to-get-a-headline-with-data-and-publication-following-months-later/
and to be very, very clear, I think the journals have been blindsided. science assumes the actors act in good faith, and every science has the right to be wrong. Show me a scientist who has never been wrong, and that will be somebody who hasn’t learn’t very much (even amongst the most brilliant)
I would like to help the journals and universities to sort the mess out. I have not made a formal complaint, beyond raising my concerns asking for info, and asking it be looked at. (though that may be being treated as a complaint) To be clear, the absolute majority of scientists act in good faith, of that I’m sure.
Intolerance of competing theories is what has led to the problems in Climate Science. It is the behavior one expects of Real Climate. I am disappointed in WUWT.
define twit: someone who twitters.
I posted my comment on the test page.
Hee hee. Wouldn’t that would make if very much like John Cook’s editorial policy at SKS?
I have always felt that the only thing more difficult to objectively, scientifically predict than the weather (and/or “climate,”) is a human. Therefore a another science in grave danger of being exploited by pseudoscience, (as Climate Science has been,) is psychology.
The antics of Lewandowsky demonstrate this.
At times psychologists wield too much power, especially when they are able to diagnose someone of an ailment, and the person is smeared in a way that ruins them. The person is not guilty of any crime, but is accused of having the “potential” of someday committing a crime. For example, if a surgeon was called “homicidal” you wouldn’t much want to be operated on, by him.
Nearly 20 years ago I became aware of a mother and father whose daughter had gone to a psychologist, and had somehow progressed from stating her parent’s rebukes, discipline, and what-have-you felt like “abuse,” to having a “recovered memory” of actual abuse. The parents then had to deal with all sorts of trouble, for they were deemed guilty of a crime which never in fact occurred.
I was curious about what ever happened to them, and a brief search of the web located “The False Memory Foundation.” The mother, Pamela Freyd, has now spent 20 years battling Lewandowsky-like logic. The site’s archives make interesting reading, for those inclined to bear witness to the battle between science and pseudoscience. Their website is:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/
Dirk H
You might want to google (Sandy’s ‘mom’) ‘Alena Composta’, maybe even with ‘Lewandowsky’ in the search-terms!
Have fun reading!
😉
‘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.’
Typesetting? Typesetting? What? What the hell are they talking about? What, are they having problems with the typesetter’s union? Hello, that went away with the dawn of computer graphics. Or, are they having problems with their graphic design program? Didn’t they buy the right font? Is their character count wrong? Are they commercial artists? Graphic designers? Or, did that ‘scientific (AGW proponents have forced me to develop low standards for that term) paper’ accidentally find itself over in their art department and there’s no artists there right now? Typesetting? I’m sorry, but that’s the most ridiculous, sniveling, meal-mouthed excuse I’ve ever heard.
Don’t the reviewers bear any responsibility for this debacle?
Caleb says:
March 29, 2013 at 8:17 am
I have always felt that the only thing more difficult to objectively, scientifically predict than the weather (and/or “climate,”) is a human. Therefore a another science in grave danger of being exploited by pseudoscience, (as Climate Science has been,) is psychology.
The antics of Lewandowsky demonstrate this.
At times psychologists wield too much power, especially when they are able to diagnose someone of an ailment, and the person is smeared in a way that ruins them.
Yes Caleb, I remember the case too and was very satisfied to see that in the end that pseudoscience was being called what it is. Such abuse is terrible. Thank you for posting the link.
Lew’s work is similar and it is really worth to read through the retracters from your link to understand how deluded and dangerous such pseudoscientists are, how much harm did they do to the very persons they “wanted to help”:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/retract1.html
Bob, Missoula says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:00 am
Don’t the reviewers bear any responsibility for this debacle?
Which reviewers? I understood the reviewers names were changed 3 times post publication… hm…could have had something to do with the fact they didn’t want to be responsible for it…
Fred–I understand and agree with the first two sentences– the third doesn’t make sense. Why would you be disapppointed in WUWT? The one that explores competing theories? And granted, pokes fun at the ones who started the problems in Climate Science, who could resist? Or did you forget the “sarc”?
Point well taken Mickey Reno: March 29, 2013 at 8:17 am
@Tom J –
Yeah, I caught that, too. Typesetting, in this day and age. Maybe he meant buggy whip making…LOL
“Further typesetting” today means changing text. It simply cannot mean anything else. It is a euphemism for “Oops! We got some errors, and we ain’t a’gonna tell anyone what they are until we’ve gone over the darned thing and discussed it with our lawyers, too. We don’t want to change it and then find out we have to change it again. Now THAT would be embarrassing!”
Steve Garcia
Surprised no one else has commented on this yet:
“the unique peer-review at Frontiers, with an interactive forum for transparent and real-time discussions between authors and reviewers”
WOW! The reviewers aren’t anonymous to the author? Yeah, I’d say that sounds unique. And an invitation for the author to lean on the reviewers. Can you imagine Michael Mann and his discussions with his reviewers?
Unbelievable.
Steve Garcia
p.s. A funny came to me while reading here: Lewandowski and much of the warmists seem to be members of the newest branch of science – Speculatology.* Otherwised known as Datalessology or Outofyerbuttology. The science of making things up. The first professor emeritus would be Theboywho Criedwolf (prof. emer.), followed by Phil Jones (LmD). . . . /snarc
* Not to be confused with Scatology, regardless of similarities.
Steve Garcia
@ur momisugly feet2thefire says: March 29, 2013 at 11:56 pm
“…the newest branch of science – Speculatology.* Otherwised known as Datalessology or Outofyerbuttology. The science of making things up. The first professor emeritus would be Theboywho Criedwolf (prof. emer.), followed by Phil Jones (LmD). . . . /snarc”
You got this wrong in only one detail: “/snarc”.
And don’t forget that anything can now be classified as science.The only principle being that gravitas is required by the practitioner in order to extract advantage. Perhaps Conmanatology.
Re Mark:
“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.”
Someone used to say to me: “I wish you weren’t so American about it”.I would have thought CAGW is American, surely, most modern global memes seem to have originated in California.
Anyway, to take up your observations that most people are in a 90% middle group, its worth noting that probably 90% of that middle group never actually discuss or think about climate change….they are just too busy with trying to live. So you can be even more specific in targeting your audience. Its the maybe 10% of the undecided 90% who when online look at climate discussions.
I would expand also on the implication of what you are saying. That is that such people are not influenced by science or facts. They are influenced by certain cultural buttons being pushed. the Left are usually good at that. Its why they seek to try to influence perceptions by using “denier” or the Moon landing conspiracists. But its really cack-handed. Lewandowsky is simply unintelligent. Hes bad at Chess-like thinking. Any undecided or doubting on CAGW is unlikely to be a Moon landing doubter.They are so few in number. So the majority of middle-grounders, when hearing that CAGW asshats are saying they are Moon landing doubters will feel misrepresented and traduced. Thereby alienated from the “believers”.
Let’s just list all excuses now prevalent in AGW publishing for their convenience.
typsetting issue
manuscript was lost in the mail
email glitch
reference section error (Mann?)
Minor statistical error
The old standby: archive does not exist
Anything related to dog ate original
@ur momisugly Wamron says: March 30, 2013 at 6:31 am
I think it is obviously true what you say about the great majority of people being too busy with their own concerns to personally evaluate this. It must necessarily be the case across a whole range of issues.There is no option but to “trust”.
As such it is unreasonable to expect people to personally decide on the substance of any scientific proposition, and to come to an independent position “influenced by science”. It is only necessary to look at this issue and the exchanges on this site to see that even those who take an active interest cannot agree what “the science” is. Rather than being influenced by science directly, virtually everyone must trust to being influenced by scientists themselves, and by those entrusted with the responsibility to interpret that and if needed apply as policy. This is true of scientists themselves in areas outside their expertise. It is unavoidable.
If the processes that identify legitimate conclusions within science itself, and the capacities of those responsible for interpreting these and applying them are corrupted, as they are in this case, the fault lies with those bodies and people. Those outside this cannot be accused of indifference, ignorance, or mindlessness. They are not to blame.
As to facts of an empirical nature, if there are two or more claims that contradict each other, as there are here, people can only decide between them if the basis for them is accessible. This is rarely the case in any specialist field whether it is science or economics.
It is only recently in “climate” that the basis for claims of empirical fact are becoming accessible. And that goes for the people in the field itself.
What 99% of people are left with – which includes many who visit this site – is the ability to judge the character of the active participants based on observable honesty in methodology and argument or not, inconsistencies, evasion, manipulation, and previously established reputation.
As you rightly say, there are those in profusion who seek to manipulate by “pushing buttons”.
This should not be seen as evidence that those manipulated are by definition unnaturally credulous, although it is certainly the case that people by, in effect, tribal identification, or fixed conceptions based on what is convenient for them, are fertile ground, and that when any proposition comes from a quarter they identify with on the basis of self-interest, they will assume this is in their interest and be inclined to “think” accordingly.
But ultimately, if the promoters of any scheme or mindset are undeniably fraudulent in their manner of dealing with others, this will tell. Where this fraudulence intrudes into a realm that is easily grasped by anyone, as is the case here, and it is seen, they are done.
The apprehension of this core fact, which reduces any other claimed fact to irrelevancy, is what people have always relied on. So the elevation of those like Lewandowsky into visibility, where they can be shown for what they are to all, is all that ultimately counts.
Howtopolishdataturdsology
Wamron says:
March 30, 2013 at 6:31 am
“Someone used to say to me: “I wish you weren’t so American about it”.I would have thought CAGW is American, surely, most modern global memes seem to have originated in California.”
CO2AGW definitely yes, in Stanford, 1975.
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Re JC.
Broadly I agree with you but theres one thing I disagree about porofoundly and which has potentially great significance.
The idea that we must all trust the conclusions of specialists in other fields is true in many spheres of activity (sport for example) but in regard to science it is fundamentally untrue.
The strength of science and its unique transparency rests on three very simple principles:
1) Correlation is not evidence of causation.
2) The correctness of a theory is established by the accuracy of predictions set out in a hypothesis.
3) The grounds for disproof of the theory must also be esatblished prior to the occasioning of the results of prediction, the null hypothesis.
These are the ONLY things ANYONE need EVER know about science to judge whether something is scientifically sound or just pseudo-science.
AGW has been garbage in my eyes for twenty years or more because: it rests entirely on correlations and it offers no null hypothesis and therefore is unfalsifyable. Now of course we have The resounding fact that its predictions are completely wrong.
Nothing else matters.
Regarding pressing buttons you misinterpreted my point. My point (I dednt elaborate Im afraid) is that we who despise and detest the AGW fraternity should concentrate upon that process of pressing buttons. We know we are right. We dont need others to be convinced, only to react to the AGW oppressors in the way we want.
The way forward is not with debate but cultural manipulation. This is the battleground where AGW groups have so far won and where they need to be contested.
DirkH….MAN thats SUCH a cool link. Margaret ffffffn Mead.
Her ENTIRE CAREER was built on a hoax (to which she was a credulous victim).
Re Brian Freeman, “Margaret Mead and Samoa”.
But theres a lesson in there (besides the obvious one about the crap that social science is).
Margaret Mead is STILL high on a pedestal, four decades after her lousy, shiitty crap “work” was thouroughly, totally, comprehensively taken apart, trampled over and weed upon.
Lesson: it doesnt matter if its pseudo-science, it can still dictate debate. Its ALL culture. EVERYTHING is culture. To follow up on my previous comments, sceptics need to stop worrying about the science, that battle is won, the need is to engage in some shrewd engagement with the attentive minority of the general populace.
Pamela Gray………….you forgot one: “The dig ate it (my homework)”.
CORRECTION……DEREK Freeman.
Wamron says:
March 30, 2013 at 10:53 am
“DirkH….MAN thats SUCH a cool link. Margaret ffffffn Mead.
Her ENTIRE CAREER was built on a hoax (to which she was a credulous victim).”
Now you know what I think of the credibility of Lovelock and Schneider; given that not only Mead, but only the author of Ecoscience, John Holdren, was part of the cabal.