Lewandowsky paper flushed, then floated again

lewpaperToday has been entertaining to say the least. On Twitter, Ben Pile of Climate Resistance has been telling us all about how he learned that the Lewandowsky-Cook Paper#2 – titled ‘Recursive Fury’, which detailed all manners of conspiratorial ideation theory, was retracted, or was retracted and put back up, or is about to be, or something. Nobody seems quite sure of the behind the scenes machinations going on at “Skeptical Science” and Lew-world.

Pile pointed out that Cook’s buddy and SkS Tank Commander Dana Nuccitelli (context here) authored a post at Skeptical Science announcing the paper’s retracton/demise/flushing, but then, that post was inexplicably removed from SkS. But, it is still on Google cache here. I’ve saved a PDF of the page here.

The puffed up embargo notice for the SkS blog post is a hilarious touch, as it is now March 21st in Australia.

Some excerpts of that “disappeared” SkS post:

EMBARGOED UNTIL 20 March 2014

Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper

Posted on 20 March 2014 by dana1981

Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case.  Thus in order to advance their agenda of delaying climate solutions and maintaining the status quo in the face of a 97 percent expert consensus suggesting that this is a high-risk path, contrarians have engaged in a variety of unconventional tactics.

That final tactic has evolved, from merely sending the journal a petition signed by a bunch of contrarians, to sending journals letters threatening libel lawsuits.  Unfortunately, this strategy has now succeeded.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing

The story begins with the publication of a paper titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.  The paper was authored by Lewandosky, Oberauer, and Gignac, and published in the journal Psychological Science in 2012.  Using survey data from visitors to climate blogs, the paper found that conspiracy theorists are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change.

conspiracies7

Frontiers Bails Out

However, nobody likes being called a conspiracy theorist, and thus climate contrarians really didn’t appreciate Recursive Fury.  Very soon after its publication, the journal Frontiers was receiving letters from contrarians threatening libel lawsuits.  In late March 2013, the journal decided to “provisionally remove the link to the article while these issues are investigated.”  The paper was in limbo for nearly a full year until Frontiers finally caved to these threats.

In its investigation, the journal found no academic or ethical problems with Recursive Fury.  However, the fear of being sued by contrarians for libel remained.  The University of Western Australia (UWA: Lewandowsky’s university when Recursive Fury was published – he later moved to the University of Bristol) also investigated the matter and found no academic, ethical, or legal problems with the paper.  In fact, UWA is so confident in the validity of the paper that they’re hosting it on their own servers.

After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits.  Both sides have finally agreed to retract Recursive Fury.

It’s unfortunate that the Frontiers editors were unwilling to stand behind a study that they admitted was sound from an academic and ethical standpoint, especially since UWA concluded the paper would withstand a legal assault.  Nobody wants to get caught up in a lawsuit, but by caving in here, Frontiers has undoubtedly emboldened climate contrarians to use this tactic again in the future to suppress inconvenient research.  Academics also can’t be confident that the Frontiers staff will stand behind them if they publish research in the journal and are subjected to similar frivolous attacks.  Frontiers may very well be worse off having lost the confidence of the academic community than if they had called the bluffs of the contrarians threatening frivolous lawsuits.

Hopefully editors of other climate-related journals will learn from this debacle and refuse to let climate contrarians bully them into suppressing valid but inconvenient research.

We are all scratching our heads at the “threat of libel” narrative. As far as I know,  nobody in the climate skeptic community has instigated a libel lawsuit or even gotten a lawyer involved over the Lew paper. Mostly we just laugh about it. But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.

There’s another oddity; Ben Pile gives details about a notice at the top of the online version of the paper at UWA which floated up today (last edited March 18th according to the PDF properties) which explains that Courts in the USA have ruled that foreign libel rulings are unenforceable in the USA:

lewpaper2_legal

And to top it off, the original paper can still be seen at the journal, Frontiers in Psychology.

Seems like some serious randomness is going on. Given the unreliability we have witnessed from SkS in the past, maybe they are simply mixing things up in this pea-and-thimble game to keep us guessing. If so, have at it SkS kidz, we’ll watch with amusement.

Or, maybe they are just incompetent. Who knows?

As Johnny Carson used to say “That is some weird, wild stuff“.

UPDATE: Steve McIntyre leaves this note in comments

Anthony,  you say “But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.” This gives an incomplete picture,

The Lewandowsky article made a variety of defamatory and untrue allegations against me with malice. I accordingly sent a strongly worded and detailed letter to the journal formally requesting that they withdraw the allegations and retract the article. I didn’t “instigate a libel lawsuit” or get “a lawyer involved”  but the letter was a formal one.  It was my hope that the journal would recognize the many defects of the Lewandowsky article and behave responsibly, as they eventually did.

UPDATE2: 3/20/14 10:00PM PDT. Now the paper at UWA that was available earlier at http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf  has been removed from the server. Quite amusing that these guys can’t seem to find a permanent place to house their paper, which seems to be toxic now.

UPDATE3: 3/21/14 7:45AM PDT The paper at UWA that was available earlier at http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf seems to have been put back on the server. No explanation given.

UPDATE4: 3/21/14 10:20AM PDT Retraction Watch says:

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

A year after being clumsily removed from the web following complaints, a controversial paper about “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science” is being retracted.

The release of the news about the retraction has been a messy affair, with a Google cache version of an “embargoed” post about the situation circulating on the web yesterday, and then the story apparently breaking on climate skeptic blog Watts Up With That.

More here: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/

Note: WUWT didn’t break the story, that honor goes to reader Barry Woods, who advised Ben Pile, and Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill had it before WUWT did.

UPDATE5: 3/21/14 10:35AMPDT  The formal retraction is up on the Frontiers of Psychology Website. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Ironically Dana goes full conspiracy theorist to defend a paper which tried to depict climate skeptics as conspiracy theorists.
This is the same guy seeing denial machinations whilst being paid by a company who’s business he never once managed to criticize, not even incidentally.
Shamelessness is easier for the idiots.

Goldie

Really? He moved to Bristol? Yay!
Says the scientist from Perth, Western Australia

Curious George

Ah, good Dana Nuccitelli. In an effort to show how skeptics view global warming he (probably) tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.

What Lysenko Spawned

geran

But, if you got immunized then you would be okay for the GMO foods, right? And if you ate the GMO foods then you would be able to take the increased heat from AGW, right? And if your body heat increased so much that you became delusional and thought you saw men walking on the Moon, then you should pay more taxes, right?
At least that is how it is supposed to work. (The book “Brave New World” had it all wrong.)

Aphan

I cannot believe that Logic and Critical Thinking are not REQUIRED courses for every student in college, but ESPECIALLY for those who gain degrees in SCIENCE. Dana wouldn’t see the irony in anything he says if it was tattooed on his eyeballs. I’ve long given up trying to understand him, now he’s just free entertainment.

Curious George says:
…Dana Nuccitelli… tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.
The funny thing about that graph is that a graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame.
Just as ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’, bogus charts like that can be contructed. What is amazing is the number of credulous, unthinking people that bogus chart has fooled.

@Aphan – the only required courses in college these days are leftist indoctrination. No thinking allowed.

Anything is possible

“Brave climate heroes foiled by Big-Oil funded denialist machine.”
Film at eleven.

Magma

And to top it off, the original paper can still be seen at the journal, Frontiers in Psychology.
No, just the abstract, prefaced by this:
“This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints. Given the nature of some of these complaints, Frontiers has provisionally removed the link to the article while these issues are investigated, which is being done as swiftly as possible and which Frontiers management considers the most responsible course of action. The article has not been retracted or withdrawn. Further information will be provided as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.”

john another

April 2014 issue of Discover Magazine page 74 (print edition);
20 Things You didn’t Know About… Hoaxes.
Item # 10; “You can predict whether people think climate science is a hoax based on whether they believe in conspiracy theories, according to a 2012 University of Western Australia study. Conspiracy theorist dismiss many scientific findings, such as the connection between HIV and AIDS”
Item # 9; “Some 37 percent if American voters believe global warming is a hoax.”
If you don’t understand how Discover is playing this….. hint they are as politically correct as anyone can be.

Patrick

Senate elections are due this July and Western Australia is key to the outcome. We expect, as has happened in all other state and territory elections, that the Labor and Green parties will be swept into political oblivion, certainly true for Tasmania, we’re still waiting on the outcome for South Australia. Abbott will then be able to repeal all the crazy “carbon” policies put in place by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd pantomime of the previous 7 years. The Greens, in the Senate, have recently rejected Abbott’s attempt to repeal the “proice ohn cahbon” that Gillard said she would not introduce. The Greens, in typical anti-human style, are ignoring the mandate the Australian people gave Abbott. I wonder if Australia will get a rebate from the UN?

Accusing “contrarians” of abusing libel laws to suppress criticism is comical given the antics of Michael Mann.

john

“he ( Lewandowsky’) later moved to the University of Bristol.”
hey ! we dont want him ….you can have him back !!

Too much fun!

Goldie

@ John
No thanks!
Bristol University is a good university (i.e. World Top 100), so I have hopes they might be able to straighten him out.

Mick J

Curious George says:
March 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Ah, good Dana Nuccitelli. In an effort to show how skeptics view global warming he (probably) tried to find a graph clearly misrepresenting data. He did not find one, so he made it: the famous “escalator” graph.
=============================
And enhanced at Bishop Hill. 🙂
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/how%20to%20do%20graphs.jpg

Cold in Wisconsin

I do think that using information for research without informing the subjects is questionable. Call it a poll or something else, but what’s to keep people from being non-serious with their answers when the intentions of the question have to be obvious? Also, how can you tell that your subjects are randomly chosen and representative when you use blogs as your population? Really to represent that type of material as Academic research is kind of laughable. I’m not sure that a high school class couldn’t improve on that scheme.

Pamela Gray

…mmmm…popcorn…

Steve McIntyre

Anthony, you say “But I do know that some letters were sent to the journal about the procedures involved in the paper, where people that you are studying for psychological evaluations/studies must be notified and/or give consent, something that apparently wasn’t done.” This gives an incomplete picture,
The Lewandowsky article made a variety of defamatory and untrue allegations against me with malice. I accordingly sent a strongly worded and detailed letter to the journal formally requesting that they withdraw the allegations and retract the article. I didn’t “instigate a libel lawsuit” or get “a lawyer involved” but the letter was a formal one. It was my hope that the journal would recognize the many defects of the Lewandowsky article and behave responsibly, as they eventually did.

JBirks

“Accusing “contrarians” of abusing libel laws to suppress criticism is comical given the antics of Michael Mann.”
QFT

rogerknights

It looks to me as though this libel-threat is a cover story to enable a face-saving distancing from the poo-paper.

AndrewS

SkS quote: “Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case.”
With 97% of the “science” behind the “scientists”, one wonders why they need to produce this ill conceived, poorly executed and badly reasoned pice of research to back up their cause!
The sooner this Lew paper is flushed into the annals of history (so to speak), the sooner the “science” will be better off.

Tim Walker

And thus continues the old idea if you repeat something enough times people will believe you. That is why the AGW crowd keeps repeating all of their lies in many different flavors.

Dave N

So “pointing out how wrong someone is” is now referred to as “bullying”? Got it.

Mac the Knife

Since when are climate pscientists qualified to conduct psychology research? Are psychologists equally qualified to conduct climate research? Is psychology required course work for climate pscientists????
It may be more appropriate and enlightening for theologists to conduct research on the climate pscientists and their true believers, m’thinks…

[snip – off topic and out of bounds -mod]

Robert of Ott awa

Ben Pile has been writing for some years on the political and philosophical aspects of the Green Movement. Much of whAt he has written will be valid after hell freezes over.

José Tomás

Please, guys, enlighten me…
Has this “scientist” just shown that there is no correlation between being a Conspiracy Theorist and being a “Climate Denier” (whatever this may be)? The very opposite of what he claims?
In my day, a correlation of less than 0.14 was considered practically nil. Have statistics changed since then?

milodonharlani

Steve McIntyre says:
March 20, 2014 at 6:47 pm
Good on you, sir, & good on them, even if it took them too long & their retraction, if that’s the right word, may have been motivated by fear of potential legal action rather a genuine desire to do the right thing.

I just don’t understand how a correlation of 0.1 is even worth writing about. To me that’s about as good as no correlation.

milodonharlani

PS: God bless the Canadians, like Bell, Steyn, Laframboise & McIntyre, & Australians, like Nova & (I hope) Abbot, in the forefront of combating CACA craziness.
Maybe after the elections this year, some Americans can join the honor roll, besides the much maligned by his opponents, esteemed owner of this blog.

DGH

The Lewandowsky version with the liability header has now gone missing from the UWA site.

kcom

The paper is actually published in full (as far as I can tell) on the US government’s NIH (National Institute of Health) website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600613/
It gives all the appearance of having been there for a year, showing the March 18, 2013 publication date of the original paper.

Alan Robertson

The “new” HAARP is irritating BigFoot- Watch Out!

pat

a couple for lew, dana et al:
20 March: Forbes: Chris Prandoni: Environmental ‘Magna Carta’ is Increasing Carbon Emissions and Burning Money
One of anti-development environmentalists’ favorite weapons, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), may actually be exacerbating this interest group’s greatest concern and increasing carbon emissions. This unintended consequence is the result of bureaucratic delay that forces oil producers to burn off, or flare, much of the natural gas contained within oil wells…
Most oil producers do not want to flare natural gas, it is quite literally burning money, but have no choice when met with NEPA-induced bureaucratic delays.
Looking to remedy this problem, Senators Barrasso (R-Wy), Hoeven (R-ND) and Enzi (R-WY) have introduced the Natural Gas Gathering Enhancement Act which will expedite permits for natural gas gathering lines on federal and Indian land. These three Senators hail from two of the states that undertake the largest amount of flaring – North Dakota and Wyoming. The North Dakota Petroleum Council estimates that 40 percent of natural gas production is flared at oil wells on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, a percentage that is substantially higher than the amount flared on state and private lands within the state…
One large independent producer has said that it waited 2.5 years for the BLM to approve its gas gathering pipeline. More broadly, it takes an average of seven years to receive a NEPA-required Environmental Impact Statement in Wyoming. In Wyoming alone, SWCA Environmental Consultants estimate that the lost opportunity cost associated with the delay of oil and natural gas development is $22 billion in labor income and $90 billion in economic output over a ten-year period…
Back to the issue of flaring, a reasonable estimate is that about $1 million dollars of natural gas is being burned or vented in North Dakota every day. Using another metric, gas flares in North Dakota release about six million tons carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year….
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisprandoni/2014/03/20/environmental-magna-carta-is-increasing-carbon-emissions-and-burning-money/
20 March: The Ecologist: Oliver Tickell: Forest Peoples at risk from ‘carbon grab’
A new ‘carbon grab’ is under way as governments and corporations seize valuable rights to the carbon stored in standing forests, with UN and World Bank support. But there’s no benefit for forest communities – who even risk expulsion to make way for ‘carbon plantations’…
As the United Nations and the World Bank prepare to develop world carbon markets as a tool to halt deforestation under so-called REDD+, new research warns of a new ‘carbon grab’ in the making…
Indeed this is already happening in Kenya, where the government is evicting Sengwer indigenous people from their ancestral forest lands and burning their homes, food stores and belongings to the ground – all to make way for a ‘Natural Resource Management Project’ run by the Kenya Forest Service and financed by the World Bank.
The problem is that neither the REDD+ regulations, nor national laws in forested countries, nor the World Bank’s Framework Guidelines, offer adequate legal protections and safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and local communities…
A survey of 23 low and middle income countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, covering 66% of the developing world’s forests, found no laws governing how Indigenous Peoples and local communities could profit from the carbon in the forests in which they live and depend on for their livelihoods…
World Bank – no guidelines on who owns forest carbon
At present, the process defining carbon rights is being driven by the finalization of a carbon purchasing policy by the World Bank’s Carbon Fund.
These emissions reductions credits represent a new class of assets, inextricably linked to and yet established separately from property rights to forests.
Yet the Carbon Fund’s Methodological Framework says nothing about the need to respect or enforce the rights to carbon – and provides only an feeble, ambiguous guideline for an examination of rights:
“The status of rights to carbon and relevant lands should be assessed to establish a basis for successful implementation of the emissions reduction program.”…
LINK: The report: Status of Forest Carbon – Rights and Implications for Communities, the Carbon Trade, and REDD+ Investments.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2325253/forest_peoples_at_risk_from_carbon_grab.html

Gosh if that is all they have these days then they are finished because they are not even discussing any science at all,but attack people for the purpose of trying to deflect from the important climate and weather issues at hand.They are attacking the Koch brothers too as they go deeper into denial of what is really going on in the natural world.

pat

agood ol’ Brookings says Latin America must not develop – not hand-in-hand with China anyway – and China must do “stuff on climate change”. China no doubt says “get stuffed”.
20 March: Environment & Energy News: Lisa Friedman: China’s quest for resources may undermine low-carbon policies in South America — study
Correction appended.
China’s soaring demand for Latin America’s copper, soybeans, petroleum and other natural resources has sparked concerns among climate change experts that the high-carbon relationship could sour global warming negotiations.
In a Brookings Institution report released yesterday, researchers argued that Chinese energy investments in places like Brazil, Venezuela and Costa Rica threaten to hike Latin America’s carbon footprint. That, in turn, could influence progressive countries’ negotiating positions in the U.N. climate talks — if not overtly, then by bolstering what the authors referred to as “dirty” ministries.
“Maintaining or moving to low-carbon pathways is critical for those Latin American countries which are seen as progressive voices at the U.N. climate negotiations,” Brown University co-authors Guy Edwards and Timmons Roberts wrote. While trade with China may be key to boosting economic growth in the region, they warned, “building a high-carbon partnership could be disastrous for Latin America and the world in the long-term.”…
According to the report, “It is unclear how actively Brazil and China are coordinating their climate positions,” since only lower-level diplomats attend meetings of the negotiating bloc to which they belong. “Trade and commercial issues may simply trump the climate change issue in driving the nation’s position, and trade with China represents a major and fast-growing sector.” And across all its Latin American trade partners, the report notes, there are few bilateral efforts with China on climate change, an absence Edwards said is worrisome.
***”China is so focused on its own domestic growth that climate change considerations haven’t really been factored into its relationships with Latin American countries,” he (Guy Edwards) said. But, he added, “If China’s presence is going to keep surging ahead and keep knocking the U.S. and the E.U. off the top places for trade, it’s going to have to be doing stuff on climate change.”…
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996427

Fabi

Something I noticed above and it relates to the much-abused 97% figure. As referenced (correctly), it claims that 97% of climate ‘papers’… How ‘papers’ got translated to ‘scientists’ is beyond me. Not that I ever liked the 97% figure to begin with, but it should also be argued that it is research paper abstracts, and certainly not scientists.

Man-Made Climate Changers are so funny.

Hilarious – SkS have invented a conspiracy theory to explain the flushing of a IMO shoddy paper which claims opponents are victims of conspiracy theories.

Hilarious – SkS create a conspiracy theory to explain the flushing of a IMO shoddy paper which promotes the idea that opponents of climate alarmism are victims of a conspiracy theory.

pat

MSM is all over this, of course:
20 March: Equation Blog, Union of Concerned Scientists: The New 400ppm World: CO2 Measurements at Mauna Loa Continue to Climb
by Melanie Fitzpatrick, climate scientist
That same level has been reached again in the last few days. This year we’ve hit the target in March, two months earlier, and it will stay above 400ppm for longer. At that rate, it will only be a handful of years until we are living in an atmosphere permanently above 400 ppm. While 400 ppm is a somewhat arbitrary marker, humans did not exist the last time atmospheric CO2 was at that level…
http://blog.ucsusa.org/400ppm-co2-mauna-loa-455

pat

20 March: NYT: Diane Cardwell: In a Shift, Exxon Mobil Agrees to Report on Risks to Its Fossil Fuel Assets
Energy companies have been under increasing pressure from shareholder activists in recent years to warn investors of the risks that stricter limits on carbon emissions would place on their business.
On Thursday, a shareholder group said that it had won its biggest prize yet, when Exxon Mobil became the first oil and gas producer to agree to publish that information by the end of the month.
In return, the shareholders, led by the wealth management firm Arjuna Capital, which focuses on sustainability, and the advocacy group As You Sow, said they had agreed to withdraw a resolution on the issue at Exxon Mobil’s annual meeting…
The shift is a sign of a growing acceptance among investors and companies that the value of fossil fuel assets may be out of line with evolving policies on global warming.
For example, oil reserves deep in the Gulf of Mexico are much more expensive to extract, and would become uneconomical if carbon emissions are reduced by as much as 80 percent, a goal articulated by President Obama…
The agreement comes after one in January by the large electric company FirstEnergy and is part of an effort by Ceres, a coalition of environmentalists and investors, to make companies more environmentally responsive.
Also on Thursday, Denise L. Nappier, the Connecticut state treasurer, said that Peabody Energy, a Missouri-based coal company, had agreed to produce a similar report in exchange for withdrawing a shareholder resolution filed by the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.
The Ceres campaign began last fall with a letter from shareholders representing $3 trillion in assets to 45 of the largest fossil fuel companies asking for more information about whether and how they were addressing the risks posed to their assets by changing climate policy…
Two billionaires — Michael R. Bloomberg and Tom Steyer — have started an effort called Risky Business, which includes three former Treasury secretaries, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and George P. Shultz, to assess the economic risks posed if climate change is left unaddressed…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/business/in-a-shift-exxon-agrees-to-report-on-carbon-asset-risk.html?_r=0
give thanx for messrs bloomberg/steyer/paulson/rubin/schultz for being so concerned for the planet. dream team.

Mickey Reno

Ah, Lewandowsky, the scientific malpractice that keeps on giving. When are the SkS kids going to learn NOT to drag out the rotting heap of Lew when they’re trying to make a point? Never, I hope.

“john says: March 20, 2014 at 6:14 pm
“he ( Lewandowsky’) later moved to the University of Bristol.”
hey ! we dont want him ….you can have him back !!”

How about split the difference? Like, halfway twixt the two places in a direct line?
After all, Lewpy certainly can’t be going to heaven given his complete disregard for others; so it’s only a matter of time before Mephistopheles brings him home. There he can play with his favorite skszy kids forever.

Gary Pate

Where do I line up to get this “funding” ?

Ursus Augustus

I think the Lewny Toons papers should be published by anyone dumb enough to do so in order that they remain in the public domain as benchmarks of imbecility. In time they may well become points of colloqial reference for moronic, simplistic, eco creationist junk “science” that will be like a monstrous dog turd on the professional cursus honorum for future generations of scientists, i.e. to be avoided at all costs, that “one little mistake” that will peg one for life as a scientific equivalent of a “goat botherer”.

milodonharlani

Ursus Augustus says:
March 20, 2014 at 10:11 pm
You have now outdone yourself. Not that Mann et al aren’t fully worthy of goat CACA botherer status, which goes double for the ruminant pellet poop chute packer lot of them.