UWA Vice-Chancellor Refuses Lewandowsky Data
Steve McIntyre writes:
Over the past 15 months, I’ve made repeated requests to the University of Western Australia for a complete copy of Lewandowsky’s Hoax data in order to analyse it for fraudulent and/or scammed responses. Up to now, none of my previous requests were even acknowledged.
I was recently prompted to re-iterate my longstanding request by the retraction of Lewandowsky’s Fury. This time, my request was flatly and permanently denied by the Vice Chancellor of the University himself, Paul Johnson, who grounded his refusal not on principles set out in university or national policy, but because the University administration’s feelings were hurt by my recent blogpost describing the “investigation” by the University administration into the amendment of Lewandowsky’s ethics application .
In September 2012, I carried out several preliminary analyses of Lewandowsky’s data using a grey version then in circulation. Like Tom Curtis of SKS, I concluded that some of the responses were fraudulent. In response, Lewandowsky argued that I had not “proved” that the responses were fraudulent. The grey version of the data lacked important metadata for the individual responses, all of which was necessary for a forensic examination. In addition, Lewandowsky had removed several questions (including CYIraq) from the grey version and had removed numerous responses for various reasons, including duplicate IP addresses, incomplete data or implausible consensus or age responses.
In order to carry out a thorough analysis, I particularly wanted to see metadata that included the questionnaire used by each respondent and the date of each response.
In February 2013, I sent a polite request to Lewandowsky, who did not acknowledge my request.
Subsequent to this, Roman Mureika obtained from coauthor Oberauer a version of the dataset that included the CYIraq and life satisfaction questions, but still without metadata on questionnaires and dates as well as the several hundred responses that Lewandowsky had excluded.
After waiting a couple of months, I sent a polite request to Caixing Li of the UWA Human Resources Ethics Office. Again no response.
Reminded of these past refusals by the recent retraction of Fury and Barry Woods’ efforts to obtain Lewandowsky data, I once again requested data, this time writing Murray Mayberry, Head of the School of Psychology, copying the Human Resources Ethics Office, the Vice Chancellor and the Australian Research Council, as follows:
Read it all here: http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/28/uwa-vice-chancellor-refuses-lewandowsky-data/
Let’s close ranks!
Without Lewandowsky’s data there is no means to duplicate his results.
If Lewandowsky’s results can not be duplicated it is not science, therefore it is just an opinion based on no verifiable facts or data.
Using the same method, I say Lewandowsky is unqualified, and spews non-credible research. He is just a bias alarmist.
That is how guilty arrogant babies respond after being called out.
Researchers from other Universities with similar acronyms need to distinguish themselves and make clear which University they are from lest they be mistaken as being from UWA.
That does it, I’m voting for Lewandowsky as ‘Climate Duplicitist of the Year’ award. Perhaps there should be a team category too.
Never expect a university with ivy on the walls to ever change or admit its errors. No wonder UWA is now the last ranked university in WA
Skeptics (my definition – those of us who want more proof of an assertion) should not be afraid to use the legal system to clarify (or even refute) assertions that will change our life style.
Unfortunately, those issues subject to opinion (e.g. Mann vs Steyn) are not slam dunks.
On the other hand this argument appears to be a pretty straight forward contest of law versus “political correctness”.
I support the suggestion that those with standing should challenge the Vice Chancellor’s denial.
So much for the University of Western Australia to ever be considered as a place of open research and ethical investigation. So much lost now in the reputation of a University that used to have pride in what was once leadership at the cutting edge of science. Rather sad the Vice Chancellor chooses to hide shoddy “research” and protect an unethical charade. CYA, sadly and that in itself exposes the current poor state of affairs in some Universities both in Australia and elsewhere in the world.
Closed shop “non” investigations e.g. white washing, serves no other purpose than futile attempts to avoid the true issues.
Kinda funny. Imagine Albert Einstein’s shock if he couldn’t get the raw data from someone else’s paper when requested. Used to be scientists were anxious to share that data.
Only in a climate science field is not sharing considered science.
Didn’t Tim Flannery also work there once? Why don’t you check that out.
“grounded his refusal not on principles set out in university or national policy, but because the University administration’s feelings were hurt”
When one’s mangled science what’s a little more mangling of principals and national policy?
There is no limit with these kinds of people who have embraced fiction as a tool of advancement.
U of What?
http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/rankings/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking
Why would he send you the information when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?
Why would the university send you the information when you have found something wrong with what they have done previously.?
The university demands the right to withhold public information if it hurts their feelings, or if they have a grudge. Welcome to the bizarre world.
The most damning thing in the UWA correspondence dossier is when Kate Kirk, the Executive Officer to the UWA Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia, writes to approve Lew’s modification of his study (the modification being a requests that Lew be able to conceal his involvement, among other things). She writes:
They clearly anticipated that Lew’s study would cause injury to some of the subjects and Ms. Kirk was commenting about taking pleasure in receiving the ethics complaints.
Now imagine, if you will, that during a products liability law suit, an email comes to light in which the defendant writes: “Fine for you to change the material on our tires. I’m looking forward to hearing all the whining from people when their tires blow out at 60 mph!”
The simple fact is that the UWA conducted a study in which unwilling participants were named and accused of having a clinical psychological disorder. It appears that they knew that the publication of the study would injure some of its subjects. But they went forward anyway because (it seems) they really, really dislike skeptics.
I’m surprised that a class action lawyer hasn’t picked this up yet.
http://maillists.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/all-staff/2004q4/000167.html
I’m loving how they they keep getting their knickers in a knot.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uwa-in-tenure-dispute/105612.article
What is a UWA degree worth these days?
“I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.”
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
=================
vexatious:
Law. (of legal actions) instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the defendant.
—–
You learn new, and fun words, everyday.
Camburn says:
March 28, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Kinda funny. Imagine Albert Einstein’s shock if he couldn’t get the raw data from someone else’s paper when requested. Used to be scientists were anxious to share that data.
Only in a climate science field is not sharing considered science.
==================
Private research is one thing, publicly funded research is another.
The end of Paul Johnson’s letter is very humurous to me.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
How can someone be so stiffly formal, that they write words so devoid of meaning?
Laughing at the absurdity of it all,
Not a Professor Tim
A man
Neither a scholar nor gentleman is Professor Paul Johnson, Vice-Chancellor of UWA.
It makes one wonder if he had to pay for his position or is related to someone. A person of truly academic standing would not be so vexatious or willfully incompetent.
The writing style of the response to Steve is suspiciously similar to Lewdandumski’s style. Perhaps he ghostwrote another response for the UWA vice guy?
I’m ashamed to see that ‘sky ending on Lewny’s name; people of Polish and Ukrainian ancestry everywhere are similarly embarrassed.
Note the UWA VC:
He demands transparency:
He doesn’t like their fuzzy ranking
They’re hiding data! Need a spanking!
The parallels are so precise
But he won’t take his own advice
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
The argumentation provided by Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson reveals no knowledge of proper procedure. What does this man have knowledge of?
University of WA…Sheboygen Conservatory of Music…
It’s taken a while but I think Steve is finally running out of patience with these scumbags.
I cannot see how UWA would be ranked with Sydney University…. except of course when it comes to deceptive climate mumbo jumbo called science… and then Sydney University, Melbourne University and Monash University continue to rank above UWA…. no matter what the staff at UWA think, it is not ranked with the best in Australia. It might outrank the University of Adelaide but only in the class of being a sheltered workshop for failed politicians.
There is a rule of law related to a refusal to produce the evidence requested a rebuttable presumption that it is unfavorable to the case advances by the non-disclosing party. The only way to rebut the presumption “against interest” is to produce and put the material on the record. In this case the presumption is that the conclusions in the study are not supported by the hidden material, and therefore the conclusions are false.
What about approaching The Royal Society.
“The Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, has announced the appointment of 27 new Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award holders.”
One of them is
“Professor Stephan Lewandowsky – University of Bristol
The (mis)information revolution: Information seeking and knowledge transmission”
Perhaps their President, Sir Paul Nurse could be persuaded to pressurise Lewandowsky into releasing his metadata? Or what about an approach to the University of Bristol? How can they employ Lewandowsky as professor if he will not release his data to allow duplication? Worth a try.
A bit hypocritical when there are 11,300 results for “transparency” on the UWA website!
Vice-Chancellor’s response is as effective as taking out a $1m ad that says “We have crap standards.” Brilliant advertising of your wares, University of Western Australia.
How embarrassment for my country
Here is an example of why replication is important. It concerns economics and is quite shocking.
We are being asked to make major changes to our energy infrastructure. Take my word for it is simply not good enough. Hiding data is the first act of a ‘science’ charlatan who is afraid of his/her paper being found out.
given ADL was recently given ample opportunity to apologise to CAGW sceptics for the defamatory article by one of their own calling sceptics “holocaust deniers”, & failed to do so, i coudn’t resist a smile when i read this:
26 March: Washington Examiner: Paul Bedard: ‘Shocked’ Anti-Defamation League slaps FBI ‘diss on hate crimes
The Anti-Defamation League, however, was “shocked” by the FBI’s move, made without any notice. It’s work with the FBI has not been questioned.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Secrets, “We are shocked, surprised and disappointed that this would be done without any consultation with groups such as ours who have been working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues of hate crime. We look forward to having further conversations with them on this issue.”
The FBI had no comment and offered no explanation for its decision to end their website’s relationship with the two groups, leaving just four federal links as hate crime “resources.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/shocked-anti-defamation-league-slaps-fbi-diss-on-hate-crimes/article/2546305
Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:
“How embarrassment for my country”
LOL That takes me back a few years!!
They are not going to provide the data until they are left with no choice.
“Under their watch”, they must surely know by now that Lewdowsky violated about half a dozen academic principles, not the least of which is getting a completely unethical and untrue paper published in a journal. This happened under their watch.
If the issue just quietly fades away now, they will remember the problems as individuals but nothing else will happen. If it continues to escalate, there will be further ramifications but, of course, in the research world, not much more will happen either. But they would prefer to avoid those minor bumps if possible.
Universities, the last bastions of free and independent thinkers seeking the truth through knowledge. All clustered inside one cozy castle. Well raise the draw bridge, fill the moat and close all the windows and doors. The McIntyre is coming to eat your children and steal your data.
Robyn Owens is a lightweight, I knew her 15 years ago. The VC is just circling the wagons. They do not have any scrutiny of universities in WA, cowboy country. They would not get away with this in NSW.
I suppose there is no FOI law?
I think their response was designed to show the public just how thorough that “investigation” really was.
Australia does have a Freedom of Information law.
http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information
Not being a lawyer I don’t know whether or not “hurt feelings” would be a legitimate reason for refusing a FOI request.
Steve, you are a vexatious person. You get a two-minute “instigator” penalty, and another two minutes for “breaking the stick”.
Sit in the box. Feel shame.
(This comment will make sense to hockey fans.)
Roy,
No, hurt feelings would not be, but vexatiousness can be. And vexatious is a legal term of art that doesn’t mean annoying. If they get inundated with FOI requests from the general public that could give them an excuse not to respond, so don’t.
Well done Professor Johnson, you have just won this year’s Richard Nixon Watergate Prize!
While critisizing UWA, we should remember the environment where the university is operating. Corruption is rampant, education standards are low, GDP extremely low and a lot of people suffer even from starvation. It’s no big surprise that the University of West Africa has a problem raisong to the expectations of the western world!
Edit: What? Is UWA in Australia?
John Peter says: March 29, 2014 at 12:46 am
What about approaching The Royal Society.
Perhaps their President, Sir Paul Nurse could be persuaded to pressurise Lewandowsky into releasing his metadata?
_________________________
Unlikely. Paul Nurse is an Uber-Warmist.
Ralph
ATheoK says:
March 28, 2014 at 8:54 pm
I’m ashamed to see that ‘sky ending on Lewny’s name; people of Polish and Ukrainian ancestry everywhere are similarly embarrassed.
===========================
They should be, it’s not the first case worldwide. We have our own Lew here in Brazil: Ricardo Lewandowsky, a Supreme Court Justice as pathetic as his namesake.
– – – – – – – –
Professor Paul Johnson (Vice-Chancellor UWA) has unwisely thrown down an academic gauntlet challenging a duel against all supporters of openness and transparency in publicly funded climate science.
The VC will climb down and then arrange to provide the requested Lewandowsky et al info because he otherwise will be increasingly visible publicly on an international stage as hostile to the most profound integrity principle of modern science.
The vexatious Lewandowsky et al ‘Moon Hoax’ paper then is likely to be retracted like his vexatious ‘Recursive Fury’ paper was retraced.
John
Clipe found that the UWA complained that “the rankings are not transparent.”
Seems appropriate since the data used by their staff is also not transparent. I reckon they got their just deserts in the ranking tables.
@ John Peter says:
March 29, 2014 at 12:46 am
John Peter’s idea to approach the University of Bristol with the refusal of the Univ. of WA to supply data from Lewendowsky is a good one.
The UofB needs to know much, much more about the fellow they now host.
Since the UoWA is a taxpayer funded university, I would think refusal of FOI, especially if it comes from an Australian intermediary, is on very shaky ground. It’s as if the UoWA is afraid of what there is to uncover.
March 29, 2014 at 8:21 am | Richards in Vancouver says:
Go the Canuckleheads… Aussie fan !
I think it was Richard Tol who said…University of West Anglia.
Hmm WA in Australia is one of the richest states because of its mineral resources.
Steve McIntyre has his latest thread up regarding this shameful action by UWA.
For some odd reason (meaning that I do not know why) I am blocked from posting at Climate Audit. I tried to email Steve to inquire why and to see if he could correct the situation. No go, none of the supposed email addy’s on his contact page worked; all were rejected by the server (either mine or his depending on possible address errors).
Steve’s last post had some interesting comments pointing out where to submit comments at both UWA and at the ombudsman.
Not in any particular order”
The UWA web page has little “comment (0)” options under each header. It doesn’t say, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some poor webmaster or sysop has to do something with the comment.
Keep all comments civil, short and single topic! When commenting about the Vice C do not mention Lewandowsky! Comment on Lewandowsky separately!
Refusing to release data to other researchers, against stated policy.
Hmm…. what could possibly go wrong with that ?.
Maybe they don’t consider Macintyre qualifies as ‘other researchers’. In which the problem could easily be solved by getting someone who is considered ‘another researcher’ to get it. By law the case would be watertight.
Cry for me. I have a UWA degree.