Steve McIntyre makes a point about Lewandowsky’s duplicity in the emerging “Lewgate”
Lewandowsky made a huge fuss about people being unable to locate emails. The only reason why people were unable to locate emails was because Lew had concealed his association with the survey and then used the concealment to score points.
Source: http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/#comment-523285
He also has another point worth mentioning. In dealing with University types who tend to circle the wagons at the first hint of trouble, the best offense might be bureau-speak rather than succumbing to the natural tendency to want to unload on the bureaucratic stupidity on display:
In earlier incidents, readers of various blogs piled onto early criticism of Lewandowsky and submitted a number of complaints that generally were too angry and poorly focused. These were easily dismissed by the University and built up resistance, diminishing the effectiveness of my own complaint.
Unless readers feel that they are in a position to file documents that are at least as good as mine, I would prefer that they not contact the University. This would be worth conveying to WUWT readers as well.
Source: http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/24/lewandowsky-ghost-wrote-conclusions-of-uwa-ethics-investigation-into-hoax/#comment-523113
Since my complaint to UWA was included in the recent FOIA release, I plan to publish it here, un-redacted, so that readers can see it in full context.
Steve also reports he was in an auto accident yesterday:
I was in a car accident yesterday. I’m OK but was very lucky. Hadn’t been in an accident for years.
We join thousands of others in breathing a sigh of relief and wishing him well.
Thanks, A. This L. character is shameless.
Good to read Steve is well.
Was Lew at the wheels or one of his associates?
Naaah…that’d be conspiracy ideation and we shall leave that to the stupid and his subterranean war.
Is there no press outlet for this story in Australia? It seems to me to include all the needed components for a scandal story except for political correctness.
Yes, it is a very good point to say that a bunch of hot-headed letters to a university is counter-productive. Steve McIntyre is very, very good at what he does. Don’t get in his way!
Thank god that Mr. McIntyre is OK and not hurt.
— Mark
I’d be interested as to what kind of stickers were on the bumper of the car that hit Steve’s. We deniers can ill afford to lose our Climate Auditor!
Australia has effectively only two newspaper organizations: News Ltd and Fairfax Media. As such, it’s difficult to get a range of opinions on matters, and even harder to get that range of opinions to a wide audience. News Ltd tends to be right of center and Fairfax tends to be left of center, with a corresponding collection of readers.
Television is a poor medium for this story because it’s not visual and doesn’t condense easily down to short sound bites.
That leaves the Internet… and that includes us here. There are more Australian media options online (the major TV stations have websites with news coverage), but I honestly don’t know how successful they are with readership.
So… the short answer is that while someone like Andrew Bolt (who works for a News Ltd subsidiary) may pick up this story, it might be too esoteric for him, too.
Obviously, Steve’s accident was caused by CO2 rising.
Glad you are okay, Steve!
Glad to hear McIntyre is not hurt.
I have been thinking about all this focus on Lewandowsky. Here is also some wider focus.
Right now this high concentration of dialog on Lewandowsky looks at his non-scientific behavior while representing himself as a scientist participating in the so-called climate ‘consensus’ or ‘settled science’. The dialog about Lewandowsky is open and transparent.
A wider and equally important focus is to look at, from unambiguous instances in the public record of his talk and his written word, whether Lewandowsky gives acknowledgement to other earlier similarly behaving scientists / intellectuals as being the basis of his behavior. That is, it is also important to identify from his public record, anyone who he says are the intellectual behavior role models for his behavior.
An interesting candidate to be one of Lewandowsky’s role models is the article in the journal Science entitled ‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ (Oreskes, 2004). It exhibits similar intellectual behaviors which are well before Lewandowsky’s behaviour in ‘Hoax’(2013) and ‘Recursive’(2013/retracted 2014). It is well before Lewandowsky appears on the scene of CAGW climate discussion.
John
where letters can perhaps be effective is notifying politicians of obstruction. I don’t wish to discourage Australian readers, for example, from complaining to their MPs about obstruction by public agencies. But even with such letters, it’s always important to dial back angriness as it gives the recipient a reason for tuning out. If you write something when you feel angry, it’s always a good idea to wait a day or two before sending and editing when you’ve cooled down. Not just in climate.
[Reply: Very sage advice ^there^. ~ mod.]
Sayre’s law: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.”
Corollary: “That is why academic politics are so bitter.”
Get well soon, Mr. McIntyre. Our roads here in Toronto are getting worse…
Speedy recovery. Hope you weren’t hit by an electric car 😉
Speaking of resistance to complaints, has there been any response to Monckton’s letter to RIT about professor Torcello?
And if I can get the tags right, that letter was printed and discussed here .
If not, you can try: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/14/moncktons-letter-to-rochester-institute-of-technology-regarding-assistant-professor-lawrence-torcello/
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 25, 2014 at 12:49 pm
It’s not being hit by electric cars that’s dangerous; it’s having them on top of you when the batteries catch fire from the collision damage that can just ruin you whole day. 😉
“Unless readers feel that they are in a position to file documents that are at least as good as mine, I would prefer that they not contact the University. This would be worth conveying to WUWT readers as well.”
Which colored rose petals do you require cast before your feet?
Hell hath no fury than a bureaucrat asked to consider and take action on something without a precedent.
“Unless readers feel that they are in a position to file documents that are at least as good as mine, I would prefer that they not contact the University. “
How exactly do I determine goodness? It’s too subjective a metric. How about: unless you’re going to make a civil, well thought out, well documented, and academically correct complaint please don’t provide them with fodder for dismissing “skeptics” as being Neanderthals.
Hopefully Steve (and Anthony and others) are driving big, huge, heavy, cars that will protect them from any oncoming Prius drivers with an agenda. Prayers of thanks for Steve’s safety and continued thoughts for the safety and good health of everyone else in the fight.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/quote-of-the-week-the-lewgate-fussbluster/#comment-1598385
That’s precisely what I do. Not only does it let you cool off, it give you time to think of all kinds of clever and effective things you can say in response.
@bernie1815
MSM outlets (other than Andrew Bolt, say), No. On the other hand, there’s always Jo Nova, who has covered the Lew sagas in the past. I tried leaving a comment on her site, but got caught up in WordPress’s security system. Perhaps someone who knows Jo’s address could draw her attention to this. Jennifer Marohasy or Australian Climate Madness are possible other avenues.
Thankfull Mr. McIntyre is OK. Whew! As for the dubious Mr. Lew, 😯 (primal scream) , honestly…er, that is the question actually. Honesty is what concerns my wee brain. I am following the planets heat/cold condition as best a mere plebian mortal can for over a decade. And I have many many times wondered, who is telling the truth? Now pardon my accademic political incorrectness, but, I thought Science was ALL about exacting TRUTH from study, experiment and proof, i.e. computer models getting it spot on right. So then. I noted at least 7 years ago that the endless hype terrorising my kids in school that the arctic was melting ( it was summer after all) and that polar bears are drowing from no sea ice at the north pole, that super storms were gonna destroy the east coast, that endless drought will toast North America, that UHI effects and poor locations for temp readings used in various data sets may be skewing reported data, that the deep sea Argo probes data needed “adjusting”, all issues one by one showing a wee bit more disohnesty that my hot chillie pepper tempered stomach can take! I am seeing that this battle being waged is not just about climate science integrity, which it certainly is, but also about who has the interest to gain from policies being driven down our collective throats? I guess that part of the battle is the “follow the money” part. You can call my a greenie, environmentalist, or native rights activist, or what ever, BUT, what interests me most is TRUTH. It used to be the hard anvil of science that put errors to bed and revealed ever better understanding of our natural world and gives us ever greater technical abilities. Just because I question the Schmidt/Mann/Hansen et al super settled non-debatable climate science I find myself in fear of retribution from an alarming array of antagonists. I thank you persons of integrity for taking on what appears to be a beheamoth machine of intellectual and scientific and financially equipted organs. Without you Anthony, and Steve and Bob Tisdale and John Coleman, “they would have scaped us off the planet already!
Aieeee! Can we PLEASE, once and for all, ban the use of the term -gate!
Thanks, I feel better now. Carry on.
Steve’s Point is very well taken.
But there is another. The whole Lew saga, important as it is to media perceptions about consensus, is a sideshow compared to actual climate science like Lewis and Crok (TCR), Wyatt and Curry ( natural variability in the climate stadium wave). Or debunking junk papers (England’s ENSO caused the pause, Trenberth’s missing heat, Marcott’s mess, Seattle Times Sea Change nonsense, many others). the consensus argument is pure sophistry even if Obama uses it. The IPCC and UNFCCC will ultimately prevail or fail based on the underlying science.
In returning fire, every shot should count. Best to write appropriately reasoned factual retraction/revision requests to the journals and MSM. My experience has been that Science, Nature, and the Seattle Times either do not respond at all, or say they will look into specific factual complaints and then never respond further. But all this builds an indelible record toward a future day of reckoning, while making journals and media hopefully more cautious about ‘next time’. Frontiers has apparently reached that point. It is too much to expect Lew ever will. UWA can be worked on, but since it harbors England and ‘ship of fools’ Turney looks like a lost cause except through legal processes. Steve is on that. What about Bristol, where Lew currently resides, UK folks?
I hope Steve M is not too shaken by the car accident – and I hope nobody was hurt.
I have a selfish reason. The excellent posting ends
It is worth reminding people that the Professor of Clinical Microbiology at UWA is Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall. His work broke the established scientific consensus on peptic ulcers. It is another “scientific consensus” that the Prof Lewandowsky seeks to maintain by his work. Please remember in all of this that in the “Hoax” paper Lewandowsky aimed to smear the majority with the alleged inferior opinions of a small minority.
Paul in Sweden says:
March 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Which colored rose petals do you require cast before your feet?
– – – – – – – – –
Paul in Sweden,
Subtle. There are two opposite ways to take that comment. It is almost Shakespeare-like in its phrasing with double entendre.
Anyway, here is an appropriate rose related quote,
John
I haven’t engaged in any of these correspondence sessions, but if I did, I wouldn’t defer to my supposed “betters” in that, McIntyre or no. Try herding cats, er skeptics.