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/
Yes, I went to the blog with the thought that perhaps he was able to understand that his paper was, without the appropriate qualifications, insulting to a number of serious scientists who have reasonable doubts in regards to the overall human induced global warming meme. I got to the front page with all that insulting cr*p about “denialists” and then the mind numbingly stupid thing about the number of hiroshima bombs and I very quickly realised that it was actually his full intent to insult and slander anybody who didn’t agree with him and his non-scientific view of global warming – after all he is not a scientist in any way shape or form so how would he know whether what he promulgates in such a smug self serving manner is any more fact than a Walt Disney film – come to think of it that’s probably where he got most of his information.
The man is an utter disgrace and with that in mind, I would warn all free thinking people away from his blog. Don’t give him credence and certainly don’t give him numbers. His is a particularly vile form of thought fascism that would quench any view apart from his.
Unfortunately whoever was/is holding his leash at UWA seems to be incapable of understanding how badly he has misused their processes and thereby brought the University into disrepute. This is a shame because UWA produces some damn good graduates who appear to be encouraged to think critically and carefully about the issues in front of them. Having people on the campus who promulgate an approach like Lewandowsky’s can only do damage to that high standard.
@NikFromNYC:
Steyn wrote for the National Review, which is a very different magazine than the New Republic – diametrically opposite even. Were you perhaps making a funny about their cowardice in the trial perhaps?
Steve McIntyre has posted a request at ClimateAudit:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/#comment-523113
…What a very apt metaphor for what is increasingly being seen by the public who are forced to pay for the contents of the academic sewer as now being the norm for much of ivory towered academia and climate science today…
I won’t have you knocking sewers! They are vital to today’s modern city living, and primarily responsible for the huge increase in life expectancy and improvement in disease management we experience today. Designed and operated by real and heroic engineers, they are a fundamental service we rely on every hour of the day.
Climate science, on the other hand, is rather like dumping in your own drinking water….
Ars Technica showed their Naked Arse.
===========
Stephen Richards says:
“You have to admire SteveMc. There is no-one like him on the blogs or in academia.”
True dat. Steve always has his ducks in a row.
From the article:
…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.
I am truly astonished — and it takes a lot to astonish me these days, being so jaded by the rampant dishonesty always emanating from universities and the media.
The cure is to simply have a polite but adversarial setting, where both sides are heard.
But that is the very LAST thing any of these dishonest reprobates would ever allow. Because giving people a chance to think for themselves with all the facts presented would truly be a stake in the heart of that immense propaganda machine; a propaganda machine unwillingly supported and paid for by you and me.
Shocked. Shocked I tell you. Another whitewashed ‘investigation’ (does this even qualify as whitewash when the ‘defendant’ plainly gets to write his own not guilty verdict?) by a Uni more concerned with cash inflow than the quality of work outflow.
The problem I see here is the same one many recognised during the Climategate ‘investigations’. Uni of Easy Access setting up its own ‘investigations’ and finding itself ‘not guilty’. Yup – I’m convinced.
In the middle of the two ended burning candle, I do wonder what actual climate investigators do when another ‘Lew’ joins the cause and gets him/her self some ‘publicity’. Pants on fire Gleick, Bob Ward, several Poison Dwarfs and dozens of other miscellaneous dross. Do actual ‘climate investigators’ smash their heads into the monitor as they read another ‘Lewpaper’?
No surprise that an increasing number of people are ‘sceptical’ of the ’cause/movement’. The problem for genuine scientists is surely that they are linked with an increasing pile of ‘Lewpaper’ and nobody believes them any more simply because they are linked with ‘LewPaper’.
A shame for those that have spent their career dealing with ‘climate facts’ that they are now ‘branded’, by association, with ‘soft science’. People who believe that ‘Diana was killed by blah blah …” has something to do with ‘climate’. And worse, believe that their ‘peer reviewed paper’ helps the cause.
With yet another exposure of the ‘academic world’ and the real nonsense of ‘peer review’ for what they are, we believe even less in ‘science’ than we did yesterday.
Well done Lew. I’m sure that real Scientists (investigating Climate) everywhere are creating monuments to you already.
For those not familiar with this individual… ‘independent scientist’
Well, I rest my case.
…. Creepy, isn’t he?
“Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax””
Is ‘Skippy’ the chair of their ethics committee?
It’s funny. Every time I hear of an ethicist he turns out to be a lying totalitarian scumbag.
Wikipedia says this
“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge (see argument , argument from authority).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicist
That’s a funny way to put it.