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/
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.
@ur momisugly 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.