Steve McIntyre writes:
Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”
Following the retraction of Lewandowsky’s Fury, the validity of University of Western Australia ethics “investigations” is again in the news. At present, we have negligible information on the University’s investigation into Fury, but we do have considerable (previously unanalysed) information on their earlier and illusory “investigation” into prior complaints about the ethics application for Moon Landing Hoax (“Hoax”).
This earlier “investigation” (recently cited at desmog here and Hot Whopper here) supposedly found that the issues that I had raised in October 2012 were “baseless” and that the research in Hoax was “conducted in compliance with all applicable ethical guidelines”.
However, these conclusions were not written by a university investigation or university official but by Lewandowsky himself and simply transferred to university letterhead by UWA Deputy Vice Chancellor Robyn Owens within minutes after Lewandowsky had sent her language that was acceptable to him.
In today’s post, I’ll set out a detailed chronology of these remarkable events.
The Ethics Application for Hoax
Simon Turnill originally discovered and reported the machinations of Lewandowsky’s ethics application for Lewandowsky’s Hoax (noted up at CA here).
Hoax was published under the supposed authority of the University’s ethics permit RA/4/1/4007, a permit which had been originally issued for an entirely unrelated project under which pedestrians in Perth were interviewed about their “understanding of statistical trends in time series data”. The original ethics application included an ethics checklist, which, according to Australian policy, included the following question whether the research involved any deception or concealment: “Does the research involve active concealment of information from participants and/or planned deception of participants”. To which Lewandowsky answered “NO”.
By August 2010, Lewandowsky had become bored with the time series project and instead wanted to show that skeptics were conspiracy theorists. Instead of interviewing pedestrians in downtown Perth about trends, Lewandowsky wanted to do an internet survey about conspiracy theories.
Lewandowsky’s new project was so different from the existing approval that many important sections of the existing application ceased to apply (even the purpose of the study as stated in the original application no longer applied.) But instead of filing a new ethics approval for the entirely different project, Lewandowsky chose instead to pass off the new project as merely an amendment to his existing project, falsely assuring the ethics administrator in an amendment request that the survey would only be “modified slightly”:
read more: http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/
Justthinkin you are a perv. What’s she look like?
Colorado Wellington says (March 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm): “Or something like that. Not being a real UWA ethicist I’m just making it up as I go.”
Um, how is that different from a “real” UWA ethicist? 🙂
“take a look at how arstechnica is spinning the papers retraction: http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/journal-pulls-paper-due-to-legal-context-created-by-climate-contrarians/”
Boy they are in high dudgeon over there. As best I can determine:
– All climate skeptics are nuts.
– It is *impossible* to do poor science when your work is alarmist.
– Rational thinking is verboten. See the first two statements above.
– Any insult of a skeptic is OK, since they are ALL agents of big oil, big phama, Monsanto, et al.
– And ANY response to an insult-such-as-Lew-paper verifies the nuttiness of the skeptic.
Completely absent from the ArsTechnica paper and discussion is the fact that the research is wholly bogus. But never let science and facts get in the way of religion …. for the CAUSE. I guess I’d be an alarmist also if someone could convince me that there is one whiff of ‘science’ behind the alarm. Until that time, I’ll get my marching orders from Steve McIntyre and WUWT. I, of course, can’t think for myself. Because I’m nuts. Or so Lew says …
Top post @ur momisugly sks.
“Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Needs Your Help!”
The boys are running in fear.
Post Normal Ethics?
This is better than Cornation Street
March 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm |Theo Goodwin says:
Looks like the resignation of Owens is in order.
Gary Hladik says:
March 24, 2014 at 3:04 pm
They get paid for the rot.
The Mann principle:
If it brings in more $ and publicity to the University, it is beyond criticism.
Please, don’t anyone dare call Stephan Lewandowsky “the Jerry Sandusky of climate psychology”
… and don’t call any of UWA’s miscreant officials “the Graham Spanier of university administration”
Most definitely do not come up with any “State Pen” type demeaning jokes about the esteemed, distinguished “University of Western Australia” …. perhaps “University for Weak-minded Australians” (no offense intended for Australians with healthy ethical standards)
ROM says:
March 24, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Very well said. The Mafia just might offer the organizational blueprint for the future. It would differ from the Mafia because it would control thought in addition to behavior.
Repost from a comment I made at BishopHill:
Just checked Dana 97% Guardian blog thread where he,and his good buddies are pushing the line that Dr Lew was ethically sound, factually perfect but let down by cowardly journalists.
There’s two posts (PythMontagne -23rd March 23:51and UnripeWatermelon -21:51) pointing out the SMc post.
What’s the bet that these posts will fall foul of Community rules?
For posterity:PythMontagne
24 Mar 2014 23:51
1
2
Guardian Pick
McIntyre just dropped another bomb on Lewandowsky and it’s a beaut:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/
Report
UnripeWatermelon
24 Mar 2014 21:51
4
5
Guardian Pick
Here’s an update – Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”.
You’re never going to convince the general pulic by lying and fudging the data all the time. It’s no wonder why scepticism is constantly increasing and “global warming” is considered a non-issue
==========
Place your bets now, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Here’s the link for WUWT readers. Select Newest Replies first:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction#comments
Ethics????
Integrity????
Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Stephan Lewandowsky, Phil Jones, Lord Oxburgh, Muir Russell, John Cook, Graham Spanier, et al.
etc. etc. etc.
Can there be any descent into shameless self-aggrandizing ***deceit*** which will shock the consciences of their fellow Alarmists??
Is there anything out of bounds for such people???
When will their fervent allies begin to realize that such charlatans are indeed bad for “The Cause”???
Perhaps Bristol University can raise funds to create the Peter Gleick Distinguished Chair in Climate Ethics.
Lewandowsky can be the first to hold this position.
Ironically, Bristol leads its website with this statement:
Tip-top research university, but they forgot to mention ethics and integrity, so all is well.
Nigel S
You made me splutter my tea over the keyboard…..
Ta….
Ahhh, Lew’sky, Lew’sky, Lew’sky . . . .
. . . pretty soon the only place you will be welcomed is at the AGU . . .
John
Peter Gleick did at least as much sleazy stuff, admitted to it and got promoted for his sleaziness, since it was in the cause of AGW hype.
This latest bit low class Lew’s behavior may get him an endowed seat at some school seeking to make it clear that they are on the side of the most extreme positions on AGW currently available.
more soylent green! says:
March 24, 2014 at 4:28 pm
“Post Normal Ethics?”
Yes indeed.
In a well “diversified” organization, Each “diverse” individual comes with his own, relative version of ethics.
In “post-modern” (post-normal) times groups need only be diverse.
If not diverse, the group is immoral and unethical. Their product is tainted already.
Any groups’ behavior and output are justified and qualified by diversity alone.
Ethics are an anachronism,
There’s no longer a place for these relativistic ideas in a post-modern, diverse world. (loony farm)
It appears no one at the university have any morals with any basis, so just what is the point of having an ethics policy? If the policy reflected the truth it would simply state “The end justifies the means.”
There is also a moral value that leftists lack, which says policy documents, and constitutions for that matter, have meaning and value. In reality they are seen as fiat documents. Like fiat currency, they have only whatever value they think they have at that moment.
I am profoundly ashamed of the Australian officials that have involved themselves in this deception and travesty. I wish to publically disassociate myself due the lowest of low ethical standards connived under the name of the University of Western Australia.
Shame, shame, and my earnest hope that those involved will be called to account, otherwise ethics and this University becomes just another convenient casualty in a path of lies and deceit that is bringing down the good name of Science and the scientific method.
Lewdoscience
This whitewash’s dirty laundry reveals, to a social psychologist, a knee-jerk us-vs-them mindset, plus a slipshod and overweening arrogance. This mindset seems to be general throughout academia and “mainstream” climatology (e.g., see the stonewalling by a college in Albany, NY in defense of one of its employees who apparently fudged UHI data). In light of this revelation, it is easier to discount the “findings” of other whitewashes, such as those of the Team and Mann in Britain and the US, as similar instances of naughty-haughtiness.
The only ethics that they need follow, indeed that they recognize as valid is “the end justifies the means.” That is always the way with true crusaders. The pity is that it is so entrenched in every discipline from sports to business to government, and of course even religion, that the public rarely objects.
We Tarzan! Lew CHEATah!
More and more legal ammo is being now freely handed to skeptics as the debate starts to play out in real courts of law and real official inquires by governments that include 50% opposition to contemporary corrupt leftism. Mark Steyn just hired a team of new lawyers now that he has rejected the pacifism of The New Republic magazine:
http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i
A pattern of bumbling deception that has been defended instead of rooted out by mainstream climate “science” is a great gift to the upcoming skeptical legal argument, though the American Physical society may pull the plug on the whole mess first. Such Peter Gleick and Marcott 2013 moments are exactly why they are feeling the heat.