Guest analysis by Shub Niggurath
In 2012, Stephan Lewandowsky and co-authors submitted a paper to the journal Psychological Science, generating widespread publicity. Here, I address a simple issue/question that has hovered around the paper from the time it made its appearance. The issue is at the heart of Lewandowsky’s first ‘Moon Hoax’ paper and the now in limbo second paper in Frontiers in Psychology.
The ‘Moon Hoax’ paper (a.k.a LOG12, LOG13 etc) draws a number of conclusions about climate skeptics (called ‘deniers’). A major portion of the data and analysis is devoted to ‘rejection of climate science’. The paper’s title advertises its findings about ‘deniers’.
So the question is: how did Lewandowsky and co-authors actually study climate skeptics?
The answer may surprise you.
The paper draft (pdf) stated simply that authors ‘approached’ 5 skeptic blogs to post a survey, but ‘none did’. This lead to a hunt to find who exactly these bloggers were (Lewandowsky wouldn’t tell). Lewandowsky spread significant amounts of distraction and smoke on the matter, raising hue and cry that he did email skeptical bloggers:
First out of the gate was the accusation that I might not have contacted the 5 “skeptic” bloggers, none of whom posted links to my survey. Astute readers might wonder why I would mention this in the Method section, if I hadn’t contacted anyone.
What matters however, is not whether or not Lewandowsky contacted skeptics but what came of such contact. The whole point of contacting the bloggers was to get surveys posted on their websites to ensure skeptic participation. This never took place. Through the noise, the question of non-sampling of skeptics remained unresolved‡.
As a way of providing answer, the paper itself appeared in final form about a month back. When examined, the authors appear to have settled on a remarkable method of addressing the defect. In the supplementary information, Lewandowsky et al (LOG13) make a startling claim. They state the blogs that did carry their survey have a broad readership ‘as evidenced by the comment streams’:
All of the blogs that carried the link to the survey broadly endorsed the scientific consensus on climate change. As evidenced by the comment streams, however, their readership was broad and encompassed a wide range of view on climate change.
The authors claim to have analysed reader comments at one venue to determine this. They state:
To illustrate, a content analysis of 1067 comments from unique visitors to www.skepticalscience.com, conducted by the proprietor of the blog, revealed that around 20% (N = 222) held clearly “skeptical” views, with the remainder (N = 845) endorsing the scientific consensus.
Extrapolating, the authors infer further that close to eighty-thousand skeptics saw Lewandowsky’s survey on Skepticalscience alone (see below). Owing to such broad readership, enough skeptics are said to have been exposed to the survey.
Readers of climate blogs will at once see several things that are off. However, these are the assertions forming the basis on which Lewandowsky et al 2013 rests.
Analysis
To start, the authors’ premises are accepted. It is deemed that comment streams can be analysed to determine whether a blog has a broad readership, or a more polarized one.
Comments on six blogs where Lewandowsky et al’s survey was posted were analysed. Commenter names and comment counts were obtained from web pages using R scripts. Following the authors’ method, this was carried out for the entire month the survey was posted. For each blog, duplicates were removed.
Commenters were classified as (a) skeptic, (b) ‘warmist’ (c) ‘non-skeptic’ (d) lukewarmer, (e) neutral, or (e) indeterminate. Regulars whose orientations are familiar (e.g., dana1981 – ‘warmist’) were tagged first. Those with insufficient information to classify, and infrequent posters with singleton comments were tagged ‘indeterminate’†.
The results are presented below. A total of 614 commenters contributed 4976 comments to six blogs in the month the survey was posted (range: 2 – 2387 comments/blog). An estimated 111 commenters posted across blogs, with 504 unique commenter aliases from all blogs.
The results show a skewed commenter profile. As a whole, there are 59 skeptical commenters, amounting to about 9.5% of total. Individually, skeptics range from 5-11% of commenters between blogs, with one venue (Hot Topic) showing 19% skeptics. Closer examination shows this to be made up by just 10 commenters. Non-skeptics are close to 80%, i.e., 480 of 614. Neutral posters are 9%, and indeterminate 3%. Of the 59, more than half are from comments posted at one blog (Deltoid).
The same pattern can been seen to repeat by blog:
The marked difference in comment number between the blogs obscures underlying similarities. When commenter proportions are made equal, these become plain:
From the data above it is evident these blogs are not places where readership is “broad” or encompasses a wide range of views on climate. To the contrary, these are highly polarized, partisan blogs serving their cliques. One half of the blogs hosted comments from all of 6 skeptical commenters in total (Scott Mandia, A Few Things Ill Considered, and Bickmore’s Climate Asylum).
The non-surveyed Skepticalscience.com
What about Skepticalscience’s comment stream? Lewandowsky et al state that John Cook at his website analyzed 1067 comments to identify 222 skeptics and use this to buttress claims of broad readership in survey blogs. One wonders how Cook got the fantastic figures! When commenters for Sept 2010 are analysed, there are 36 skeptical voices of a total 286. Cook’s estimates are inflated six times over. In reality skeptics form 12.58% of commenters for that month, and a mere 0.03 fraction of John Cook’s 1067 unique commenters. These results verify with independent analysis performed by A.Scott.
Furthermore, close to 90% of commenting viewers are not skeptics. Contrary to Lewandowsky et al, Skepticalscience is not a place where readership is “broad and encompasses a wide range of view on climate”. In fact Skepticalscience exactly matches Deltoid, a virulently anti-skeptic website, in commenter profile.
Importantly however, John Cook never posted the survey at Skepticalscience (see here and here). In the face of this false claim, the authors’ post-hoc exercise of computing skeptic exposure becomes counterfeit.
How would the picture have been had Lewandowsky et al actually obtained survey exposure with a skeptical audience? As a comparative exercise, I pulled comment counts from widely read skeptical blogs, Wattsupwiththat (WUWT), Bishop Hill, Joanne Nova and Climate Audit for the same period. Traffic figures provided by Anthony Watts indicate close to 3 million views in August 2010. The results ought to be eye-opening:
Conclusion:
A number of things can now be confirmed. The authors of Lewandowsky et al 2013 did not survey skeptical blogs. The websites that carried the survey have neither a broad readership, nor represented skeptical readers and commenters. The authors did not survey any readers at the website Skepticalscience, but represent their data and findings as though they did. Lastly, the authors’ calculations in assessing survey exposure, which they base on the same Skepticalscience, are shown to be wrong.
With the above, conclusions drawn about skeptics by Lewandowsky et al by sampling a population of readers and commenters who are not skeptic can be termed invalid. At best the study’s skeptic-related analysis is meaningless, arising from non-representative sampling. At worst the possibility of false conclusions owing to flawed survey exposure arises. The above data combined with Lewandowsky et al 2013 survey results, in fact, show one possible outcome of displaying loaded questions relating to climate skeptics to a non-skeptical audience. Conclusions about non-skeptical ‘pro-science’ commenters and their psychology are probably more appropriate.
Notes:
‡ The list of surveyed blogs (from Lewandowsky et al 2013 SI):
Skepticalscience – http://www.skepticalscience.com
Tamino – Open Mind http://tamino.wordpress.com
Climate Asylum – http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
Climate change task force – http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
A few things ill considered – http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
Global Warming: Man or Myth? – http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
Deltoid – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
Hot Topic – http://hot-topic.co.nz/
Note that (a) there is no record of Skepticalscience having posted the survey, and (b) the Climate Change Task Force entry is available on the Waybackmachine (for e.g., here)
† Batch Google searches (e.g., http://google.siliconglobe.co.uk/) and keyword searches on scraped HTML blog posts were used to search for commenter output. Multiple entries were frequently required for each commenter to be satisfactorily classified. Wherever possible (which was so in almost all instances), results during August and Sept 2010 were employed. Comments supportive of consensus, critical of ‘deniers’ and ‘skeptics’ and/or unequivocally appreciative of article (e.g., “great post, now I can use this in my arguments with deniers”) were classified as coming from ‘warmists’. Comments approving of main thrust of a ‘warmist’ blog post, but with no further information available were classified as ‘ns’ – not skeptic. Commenters questioning basic premises of blog post, being addressed to by ‘denier’, ‘denial’ etc, whose stance could be verified by similar mode of behaviour in other threads, were classified as ‘skeptics’. In most instances they were easily recognized. Those, in whom no determination could be made, owing to various factors, were classified as ‘indeterminate’. Commenters explicitly professing acceptance of consensus but posing relatively minor question, etc – classified as lukewamers. Entries required reading at least two different comments for almost every commenter, except in instances commenter orientation was known from prior experience. Certainly there will be errors to a degree, and subjectivity is involved. It is unavoidable that infrequent (and singleton) commenters, and those with non-unique names (‘tom’, ‘john’) are resistant to classification. Validation of method was available when blogger A.Scott arrived at similar results working independently on portions of the data.
Related articles
- Lewandowsky, Cook claim 78,000 skeptics could see conspiracy survey at Cooks site where there is no link (climatedaily.wordpress.com)
- Lewandowsky Doubles Down (climateaudit.org)
- John Cook’s new survey – lots of questions, no answers (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga (retractionwatch.wordpress.com)
- IPCC Lead Author calls Lewandowsky “deluded” (climatedaily.wordpress.com)
- The Moon Hoax has Landed (geoffchambers.wordpress.com)
- Dear John [Cook], you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh? (JoNova)
It would be a lot easier to be a warmist believer if the CO2-caused-all-global-warming paradigm actually worked. But it isn’t working.
In Science (real Science of the Scientific Method variety) theories and hypotheses make predictions, which are tested against observations.
The persistent failures of the AGW assumptions and theorizing mean that the underlying paradigm needs to be thoroughly re-examined and reworked.
What is keeping it going must be politics, because the science support for AGW is collapsing.
What the heck do warmists expect the world to do, just drop the use of carbon as an energy source? It will not happen. Society is wising up fast, and turning a deaf ear to their shrill cries. BTW I love WUWT!!
A Serious Thought.
A – or the – major problem as everyone (sane) knows, is the difficulty in getting the MSM to even countenance the possibility of including any reality in their coverage. That is obviously changing now, but is still at this moment true.
Non- government media are, obviously, dependent on readers/viewers. Print media – but also TV to a degree – is right on the edge of a live or die transformation because of the internet. They all know that, and are mostly in fear of it. What they do, how they perceived, over the next 3 – 5 years will seal their fate. That is, within the time-frame the businesses pay attention to in attempting to plan. This is no “tomorrow” issue.
On AGW they maintain the line they have for years because they all occupy the same cocoon, and all the Influential People (that is: popular entertainers) believe and promote it.
If they are given clear, undeniable evidence that to support AGW is a minority position, and one that is trending to irrelevance in their viewers/readers, then outside the Specialist Instruction Manuals like The Guardian – and even there – they will change their tune.
So if a survey of comments/visits to real/junk sites was done, perhaps, for example, for each April going back to Peak Hysteria in 2007, and this shows (which it will) the overwhelming difference in interest, and shows a clear downward trend for Alarmism (which it will – Google searches for Climate Change indicate that) and this was sent to the MSM, they will be very strongly inclined to change their tune.
I don’t mean sending it to “journalists” although this could be done. I mean sending it to individual members of boards, media analysts in the financial sector, and possibly editors and sub-editors.
Anyone who has good reason to be interested and concerned about the business viability of a publication or network.
If a business seeks to cover the middle ground, they are not going to hold to a line that suits only one in ten people, and is on the way out.
Thanks, Shub. Good post!
If figures; fake studies support fake science.
PS
The fact that this is happening on the INTERNET where all print media will soon have to live – and they know it – will be compelling. WUWT is the successful model on the internet; these junk sites are failures. Who is going to align themselves with that?
Failing to get a link posted of any of the skeptical blogs that his assistant approached meant that Lewandowsky didn’t have a study.
We can narrow this a little farther now. Judging from Shub’s chart of comments submitted to climate blogs in August 2010, failing to get a link posted at WUWT meant that Lewandowsky didn’t have a study.
So the question is: how did Lewandowsky and co-authors actually study climate skeptics?
The answer may surprise you.
No, not really. It’s foreseeable.
The analysis appears convincing, and appears to have been partly replicated. That means it proved strong evidence of academic misconduct. Lewandowsky has left UWA for Bristol?, but it would still be encumbent on UWA to see that the article is retracted. Else, those of you in Australia should go after UWA directly for countenancing academic misconduct. Those of you in the UK should seek to get him dismissed from his position at Bristol on the same grounds, with the same consequences otherwise. The authors of the analysis should send it to the journal with a request for retraction. Put some bite into the bark, for gosh sakes. That is the only effective way to root this sort of nonsense out of science.
Psychological Science should skip to the loo with this paper.
(PS: For clarity, I should have appended “of Lewandowski’s.”)
Rud
I have done…
I have just been fobbed off, case investigated, case closed, and told they will not correspond any further, and no other procedures are open to us.
—————-
My complaint to UWA listed below..
————————–
BJ Woods Complaint –
Breach of National Research Statement – Identifiable human participant in a pyschological research databank – Hostile/conflicted researchers – No consent sort out, nor given – Hostile researchers – ‘Fury’ and LOG12 Lewandowsky et al
The Purpose
The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community.
This complaint is to the authors (and their accredited employers) of the ‘Fury’ paper and ‘Moon’ paper and to the University of Western Australia and it demonstrates I believe multiple breaches of the ethical requirements for research on human participants, as such the papers should be withdrawn and any identifiable data (including unattributed comments, as these can be googled) of all unwilling participant destroyed. I will list the reasons below:
1) The authors of the paper have been shown to active protagonists in the climate debate – championing the work of LOG 12 and attacking its critics, throughout the research timeframe at the publically funded blog Shaping Tomorrows World (Lewandowsky) – Watching the Deniers – (Marriott) – Skeptical Science (John Cook – & Lewandowsky is regular author there and co-author of the SKS debunking handbook)
2) Conduct: One of more of the authors is openly hostile towards me on his blog Watching The Deniers (M Marriott) (A Watts and others), publically labelling me DENIER, DISINFORMATION, DUNNING-KRUGER, bullshit and “Verified Bullshit” (his caps). This I feel alone is grounds for the ‘Fury’ paper to be withdrawn on ethical grounds lone (tainted, by the authors behaviour on his private blog) and all named individual data collected for this research to be made known to ( Ihave provided detail directly to the authors on their blogs (and to the journal already, but I will collate – referenced to this complaint, to follow as background material to my complaint.)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/
3) Respect: One or of authors have failed to show respect or behave professional to the people named in the paper or the ‘sceptical’ community. Prof Lewadowsky’s blog posts as one example (more to follow) taunting the 5 sceptical blog owner he had ‘contacted’ on his blog and giving interviews about it – at places like Desmogblog (a website, that has a number of those sceptic blog owners photographed, named and shamed tagged denier, misinformed, disinformation, denial industry, amongst other derogatory labels, in it’s Denier Disinformation Database online –
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
How is it possible that Prof Lewandowsky did not see that this was totally inappropriate. A professional, would have JUST emailed the 5 blog owners straight away and said it was you, here is copy of the email my assistant Hanich sent you. THIS behaviour alone, I think demonstrates the hostility of Prof Lewandowsky to his research subject matter (so called ‘sceptics’ or just members of the public that resent being labelled) and should preclude him (in my opinion) from this research and any research in this area.
4) Conflict/Vested Interests: Lewandowsky and Cook are the authors of a number of Skeptical Science (SkS) accredited books, these books are a credited with UWA and Queensland Logos (is this official?) Lewandowsky is a regular author at the Skeptical Science website. What is Prof Lewandowsky role at SkS, is it purely a private interest (but why the University accreditation, and the debunking handbook, is promoted on the UWA – Shaping Tomorrows World blog. Skeptical Science would be considered in direct antagonistic opposition to Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and all the other sceptic blogs.
5) Conflict/Vested Interest: Skeptical Science and its authors have a vested interest (it looks like commercial relationship) providing material for Al Gore’s – Climate Reality Project – Reality Drop. As such they have a direct interest in opposing and countering sceptical blog material.
One example, my
Watts Up With That article entitled – What Else did the 97% of scientists say,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
which author Marriott, claims to have debunked labelled, stamped Verified Bullshit, over an adulterated WUWT graphic, .
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/
this was then endorsed by Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html
For example, see a recent article debunked by the blog Watching the Deniers, where somebody had cherry-picked skeptical quotes from a few scientists who responded to the Doran and Zimmerman study (Eos, January 20, 2009). This only reveals that some people confuse consensus with unanimity. – Skeptical Science (SkS)
6) Harm:Respect: Further concerns are the authors and UWA have caused me harm, have failed to treat me with respect, not sort or obtained my consent and have not been able to show any justification for deceiving in my questions Prof Lewandowsky about LOG12 and by concealing from there research and following this particular named human participant whose comments (what else) have been collected
7) Complaint: In light of the summary above, My complaint is that the authors and UWA and any other associations of the authors, have failed to comply to the National Statement of Ethical Conduct in the Field of Human Research
The Purpose
The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf
The National statement is a actually further 111 pages long, but this is merely, I believe, the technical detail for those that perhaps do not realise that all that follows automatically from the 3 sentences above. The onus I believe is on UWA to demonstrate that they complied to the National Statement for this research, (‘Fury’ & ‘Moon’) not for the unwitting/unwilling participants to show where they UWA failed to comply to the National Statement.
Please demonstrate that the authors Lewandowsky, Cook and Marriott in particular and the further co-authors of ‘Fury’ and ‘Moon’ authors are fit, unconflicted and appropriate persons to study human participants. The paper is littered with activist rhetoric like ‘climate denials’ and references to the Exxon/fossil fuel denial industry funding sceptics, conspiracy theory. How on earth did the peer reviewers not pick this up! and not say that it was inappropriate for psychologists of all people to talk this way.
8) RESPECT: Please demonstrate the research justification for the LOG12 and Recursive Fury papers is beneficial and cause no harm.
Because harm has been done, I was initially amused to find myself named in the data alongside Richard Betts, where the researchers of sceptics were so unaware of the debate and the people they research, that this was in fact Professor Richard Betts of the UK Met Office,Head Of Climate Impacts and IPCC lead author, he asked if he was a conspiracy theorist and was met with a response from the an author. I asked the author, I was ignored, I asked another author (Watching the deniers) I was ignored. I asked all the authors by posting my concerns and asking for a response on the Skeptical Science blog, and Shaping Tomorrows World blog I was ignored. I asked the UWA to contact the authors and respond to me, I have received no response from any of the authors.
Both Richard and I were named in the data for Fury and when we enquired why, we were we not treated equally.
My expectation of the journals and University and the whole field of psychology, that as an unwilling/unwitting participant in psychology research that finds my name in a paper, that my questions would be acknowledged and answered as a courtesy at the horror I felt of the ethical conduct, when I realised how many breaches of the Ethical Conduct had been brought to UWA and the journals attention
I expected that as soon as the authors public hostility towards me, and named others in the paper was shown, that the paper would be retracted, apologies given and an ethics and misconduct investigation would be undertaken. Sadly not
9)HARM and RESPECT
I approached UWA and th ejournals as concerned member of the public, not a label like a denier concerned that without my consent identifiable data about me had been collected, in Marriotts words that well know sceptics were tracked – WHY, WHAT FOR, what possible justification, have I committed a crime, please explain yourself here., labelled a disinformer, or Marriotts ever so eloquent Bullshit or Verified Bullshit, I was shocked to find that he had labelled me – Dunning-Kruger (and I should not have to explain to anybody, least of all a psychologist why) I was rather less surprised to find John Cook endorsed it
I now feel unable to express myself freely publically, whilst I have a thick skin and can explain to my young children rude abusive people on the internet are to be ignored, I do not want to risk them finding me labelled by psychologist in any way shape or form for official research. So I can NOT I feel express myself feely under my name anymore. The fact that I was perceived as of specific concern to be followed by psychology researcher, and perhaps my words twisted quoted out of context, as I have described in the ’Fury’ case (my comment cherry picked, partially quoted)
10) ETHICS and GOOD FAITH
perhaps just an anecdote to take into account: When Lewandosky was championing Peter Gleick as a hero (despite behaving unethical (and criminally?) to ’sceptics’ – Heartland incident) , I was writing to Marc Morano and Heartland to ask them to tone it down, not to publish Peter’ Gleick’s email address because I was concerned about whether his professional tragedy (Revkin – NYT) might turn into a personal tragedy.this was private correspondence but Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards and I believe Dr Katie Hayhoe was copied ) can verify, my Good Faith not that I feel my conduct has in anyway demonstrated that I have ever communicated with anybody without behaving like a civil adult. I have also worked hard to try to depolarise a hostile debate, and tried to engage with the supposed ‘other side’ (including M MArriot) and persuade everybody to behave as adults.
I was not exactly a fan of Peter Gleick see why here:
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
11) My Request of UWA (given the circumstancces of demonstrably hostile / conflicted researchers)
I ask UWA identify any comments or data collated about me and held in any databank, or in other form, and present it to me.
I ask UWA to destroy any information collected in breach of the National Statement
I ask UWA as a courtesy to me, to provide, the grant funding, the research justification and ethical clearance for this research
I ask as a courtesy that UWA shows the benefit that this research project will bring to the community
I expect that UWA undertake (or any of the authors) seek to obtain my consent to perform further research on me, and that any any research justified as being allowed to deceive the participants fully complies with the National Statement.
The whole area of the ‘blogospheres’ surrounding climate change blog wars is no doubt a fascinating subject and I would think benefit from research to understand not least how psychologists and other climate scientists started using the language and rhetoric of political activists, and seemingly believe in an exxon/fossil fueled climate change denier industry? My only gain in the last 3 years would have been getting paid expenses to visit the Met Office to appear in a video with Prof Richard Betts, for their My Climate and Me project, so my only linkage to anything would be ‘big climate’ itself
Best Regards
Barry Woods
More paper for the lew… I think this needs a solid flush…
What passes for science and what some of the so called respected journals will print is just a huge turd! this one was still unpolished..
/sarcasm
What is one to do but just shake you head at the pure unadulterated foolishness…
Maybe Cook deletes nearly all the comments he receives. One imagines that well-informed sceptical comments must drive him to distraction 😉
‘Cook’s estimates are inflated six times over.’ so it looks like he must have been ill that day and not up to his ‘usual standards ‘ or it would have been ten times .
But is it a real surprise to find BS manufactures having nothing to sell but BS ?
Out of the Barbie, into the Bristle.
===========
As I recall, WUWT was not even among the blogs contacted by Lewandowsky’s assistant with a request to post a link, which calls into question how much they really wanted to survey skeptic opinions.
Perhaps those with references to the excellent posts on this subject, such as this one and others posted by AW, Jo Nova, etc, could send a summary with links to the various academic organisations that have been imprudent enough to have contact with this man, even with the proverbial bargepole.
In analyzing the survey, I classified the 1145 responses according to the answers to the 4 climate questions into Rejectors 10.9%, Moderates 14.5% and Acceptors 74.6%.
The somewhat higher response rate in an uncontrolled internet survey might be due to the scam responses.
That said there are two further issues.
The first is obvious. A survey looking at “skeptic” beliefs ended up with three-quarters of responses from non-skeptics. Lewandowsky chose not to mention this in his responses.
The second is less obvious. People who are members of a group where that form a minority (and vilified by the majority) often have different attitudes to when they are part of a large majority. As the vast majority of skeptics rarely visit these blogs, the respondents views(even when not scam responses)may not be representative of the wider skeptic population.
Either of these two factors alone should have totally undermined the credibility of the survey. But Lewandowsky failed to deal with either.
Yes, it all seems so childish, infantile, but it is still a paper submitted to a journal that pretends to be of science and it is cited by some media outlets.
This is the scandal, as such kindergarten smearing is promoted and accepted by parts of the society who should know better. A shame.
Statistics with made up numbers to support their pet theory. How was it? Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. This is a very good example how those kind of statistics are made by these anti-science guys. How else could people be called who do not use the scientific method but try to fake their work to make it look like science?
The damage done to science by such people is huge.
Great to have this analysis so clearly showing it Shub!
As Mark Twain said, “There are three degrees or classes of lies; there are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
It looks like Lewandowsky is adverting for the book, “How to Lie With Statistics”
Shub, send your analysis to Lewandowsky’s new university in the UK called Bristol University. They might be interested in reading about the kind of tactics
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html
I received this reply from UWA. I do not accept that it is private or confidential, as it is in the public interest, the person that sent me the email, has never contacted me before, and especially as it finishes with no further correspondence allowed… ie not ‘allowed to reply’
and the fact that it adressed zero of my concerns, see above, it just appears to be a template blanket response and the tone ( I think) is rather surly
(I will remove the name, as a courtesy, my issue is with UWA and the authors and journals)
————————
03/05/2013
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Mr Woods,
I write with reference to the complaint you lodged in relation to published works of Professor Stephen Lewandowsky. The issues have been considered in accordance with the University’s policy on Managing Alleged Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Research Misconduct. The University has determined that there has been no breach of the code, and as a result, there is no case of research misconduct.
As you may be aware, the University received a number of complaints regarding the paper entitled Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation. Some complaint matters also referred to an earlier publication entitled NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The University was also advised of other complaint matters by the editors of the two journals and by Prof Lewandowsky. The University was therefore in a position to consider a wide range of concerns raised in regards to the two publications,
The preliminary investigation undertaken by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) considered all the issues identified and determined that there has been no breach of the code, and therefore no case of research misconduct has been identified. However, one issue raised was of a perceived conflict of interest in relation to the identity of proprietors and significant contributors to blogs. A recommendation has been made to Prof Lewandowsky to identify these individuals with a footnote at the start of each research publication. Several other criticisms have been made in relation to the methodology used in the study and these have been referred back to the journals for peer assessment and are not part of the University investigation into responsible research practice.
The policy and procedure required to consider the issues has been appropriately followed and there are no further internal processes available. The University will not engage further with you in regards to these matters and this correspondence is now closed.
Yours sincerely,
Prof [redacted, by me]
As long as we have people in political power who love ideology more than truth, we will continue to see fraudulent studies from the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky and Diederik Stapel (who recently admitted to fraud by inventing over 50 “scientific” studies). When you reward fraud, you get more of it. Today’s politicians not only encourage fraud that supports their preconceived notions, but they continue to protect and lionize fraudsters after they are caught red-handed. Honest scientists should be horrified by this disdain for real science. But where are they? Very few are willing to speak out against their dishonest brothers. We should be appreciative of those who do, including this author.
Wamron says:
May 5, 2013 at 8:43 am
“Psychology can be every bit as real a science as any other. The transmision speed of a nerve signal or the re-potentiation frequency of a synapse are every bit as much real data as anything.”
Do you mean physiology, which is science?
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes2.htm
As my main concerns about the ethics and hostile to me researchers, was not addressed by UWA, I responded: despite being told the would not engae with me ‘further’..
(engage is 2 way surely, had never been contacted before by this person, prior to this I had only ever corresponded with someone else, who was passing my concerns on)
————————————————
03/05/2013
Dear Prof [redacted by me, for avoidance of doubt, NOT Prof Lewandowsky]
My complaint was in reference to the National Statement of ethics for Australian research, it appears that UWA have not addressed any of my concerns in this area, nor answered any of my questions, nor undertaken my request to remove my data from the paper.
Also, as an unwitting/unwilling participant in this research, who has given no consent, I asked for the information I was entitled to know, and I have received no response.
UWA have also not addressed any of my concerns with the behaviour of co-author Mike Marriot, deeply antagonistic behaviour to me.
Nor have UWA addressed the ethic of deception in this research, where three of the author are known to me and I have engaged with them in the climate debate, whilst unknowingly they were ‘researching me’
Nor have UWA have undertaken my reasonable request to remove my comment (which is cherry picked, not quoted in full), from the data of the ‘Fury’ Paper, given that at least one of the key researchers are openly publically hostile towards me.
As this paper does not seem to depend on my comment in anyway, I do think this is a reasonable request in the circumstances.
I am also surprised you say perceived conflict of interest, when the conflict of interest is absolute. With both John Cook and Prof Lewandowsky and their involvement in the Skeptical Science website, which provides material for Al Gore’s Climate Reality project, which makes this conflict a potentially damaging very political conflict of interest.
I also do not accept that your email is either in confidence or private, as it is very much I feel in the public interest
As Prof Lewandowsky et al felt no problem seeking press attention for these papers, I see no reason for not seeking press attention for my concerns about these papers, should I decide to.
In particular, the fundamental flaws/lies in both papers.
1) Log 12 – The lie that the survey was held at the Sceptical Science blog, based on which the content analysis used to claim a diverse audience across all blogs
This is known to be totally false and that both Cook and Lewandowsky have lied about it. (Lewandowsky doing so personally to me)
2) Fury paper – the claim that LOG 12 only received press attention from August 28 2012, and that the conspiracy ideations were traced back to sceptic blogs on this date.
This is false, and the researchers knowingly deceive the public/peers with this claim, as the LOG12 paper received extensive publicity in July (Huffington Post, Guardian in both in July), and was being widely discussed on many blogs throughout early August.
Thus making the paper worthless, as all that occurred is that the ‘alleged’ sources of ideation, were in fact just covering a story known for over a month publically, and people were just repeating the converstions at these high profile blogs.
Both of these matters will be made known in formal responses to the appropriate journals.
I remain very surprised that UWA can not see that even a ‘perceived’ conflict of interest with Prof Lewandowsky’s very public activism
and antagonistic behaviour to the very people that he is researching, is hugely problematic and potentially damaging for the field of psychology.
Please review your decision with respect to the National Statement of Research ethics for human participants.
Please request that the authors remove my name, my comment and url from the data of the Recursive Fury paper. The researchers are openly publically hostile towards me, and thus this compromises its inclusion in any psychology paper.
Regards
Barry Woods