Guest essay by Brandon Schollenberger
As most people reading this blog know, a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, Recursive Fury, was recently retracted. This is a big deal as scientific papers are rarely retracted, and merely being wrong doesn’t cause it to happen. One would instinctively assume that means there was something very problematic with the paper.
That’s not how people are portraying it. Quite a few people have spun this retraction of a paper criticizing skeptics as demonstrating skeptics are in the wrong. One of them is Elaine McKewon, one of the peer-reviewers for Recursive Fury. Unfortunately, she does this by making things up.
McKewon recently published an article you can find here and here. The article contains numerous errors, to the point it grossly misrepresents Recursive Fury. This can be seen in its very first sentence:
In February 2013, the journal Frontiers in Psychology published a peer-reviewed paper which found that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Recursive Fury did nothing of the sort. It didn’t claim to examine relative amounts of conspiratorial ideation in any groups. It didn’t attempt to compare or quantify levels of such ideation. There is no way to read Recursive Fury as doing what Elaine McKewon claims it did. She has simply made this up.
What does it say when a peer-reviewer of a paper makes an obviously untrue claim about what the paper shows? I don’t know. What I do know is it should make everyone question McKewon’s judgment when she says:
Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence.
But that’s not the only basic point McKewon got wrong. She also misrepresents an indisputable fact. Her portrayal of the events leading up to Recursive Fury being retracted is:
Shortly after publication, Frontiers received complaints from climate deniers who claimed they had been libelled in the paper and threatened to sue the journal unless the paper was retracted.
After taking the paper down from its website, Frontiers began its investigation and arranged a conference call so that the journal’s manager, legal counsel, editors and reviewers could discuss how to proceed.
…
Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed.
Yet the paper remained in limbo while the journal’s investigation into the academic and ethical aspects of the study dragged on for more than a year.
The important part is where McKewon says “the paper remained in limbo.” Her portrayal holds “the paper remained in limbo” because of threats of legal action regarding two sentences which could be amended to address the complaints. That is a figment of her imagination. Here is what Brian Little, editor for the journal says happened:
The article was removed on February 6th because of a complaint about a factual error. We did due diligence, contacted the authors, had it corrected and it was put up again.
Notice the last part. Little clearly states the paper was put back online after it was amended. McKewon’s portrayal pretends this never happened. This means she can only claim “the paper remained in limbo” because of those supposed “threats of legal action” by ignoring the fact those complaints had actually been resolved.
To see what actually happened, we can simply ask the journal itself. It explains:
I think there’s a misunderstanding: the manuscript was accepted for publication by Frontiers on Feb 2, and the provisional (i.e. non proof-read) PDF was made available immediately, as we do in most cases. Because there was subsequently identified a need for authors, reviewers, editor and associates to review and Chief editors to agree on the modification of one specific line in the text, the provisional PDF was hidden on Feb 6 while this modification was agreed. The paper was then published in the agreed form on March 18, and as you know was subsequently unlinked while we deal with all the complaints and allegations.
In other words, the paper was first taken offline to address the complaints McKewon refers to. Once they were addressed, it was reposted. It was then taken offline a second time in response to other complaints. Those later complaints are what led to the paper remaining in limbo for nearly a year.
Given that, when McKewon asks:
Just how clear would the legal context need to be for Frontiers to stand up to intimidation and defend academic freedom? First, the two sentences discussed in the conference call had been amended as agreed, which satisfied the journal’s lawyer even under the former libel laws.
She shows she has no idea what she’s talking about. She’s created a story which ignores basic facts nobody disputes, facts which even the simplest of research would have uncovered. All she had to do was look at the Retraction Watch article about the paper’s retraction and follow the first link it offers for background. Or she could have asked the journal.
Only, if she had done that, she’d have found the journal says her entire argument is bogus. She claims the paper was retracted because “the journal’s management and editors were clearly intimidated by climate deniers who threatened to sue.” The journal disagrees. It says:
Our decision on the retraction of this article was taken on the basis of a number of factors. This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received.
The journal directly contradicts Elain McKewon’s argument. Had she questioned the journal for her story, she’d have known that. Had she investigated or researched the story, she’d have known the paper wasn’t placed in limbo because of the complaints she referred to. And had she reread Recursive Fury, she’d have known it did not find “people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.”
But she apparently didn’t do any of that. Even though she describes herself as a “journalism PhD candidate,” she didn’t do any of the basic journalism that goes into doing a story.
And she is one of the people who approved Stephan Lewandowsky’s work for publication.
Go figure?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
2 March: International Business Times: Athena Yenko: Conspiracy Related Studies Face Precedence of Legal Retractions
For Elaine McKewon, research associate at the University of Technology Sydney’s Centre, the retraction implied that Frontier is a “spineless” institution.
“They caved in at the first pushback from the climate change denial community. To retract a paper is just the most extreme action that a journal can take, and it was thoroughly unwarranted in this decision. It was really quite breathtaking.”…
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/546241/20140402/conspiracy-climate-change-university-western-australia.htm
kim says: “She could really make a mark if she wrote about climate scientists prostituted to alarm.”
Yeah, ” The Prostitution of Science : crime and nobel cause corruption in climatology. “
‘…she does this by making things up.’
That will be the epitaph for “climate science”: “They made it up”.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 1, 2014 at 9:52 pm
“Her description of her upcoming PhD …”
My God, the paranoia! How do these people function in society? Willis, thanks for taking the trouble to look into this BS. I think i would have been too nauseated to manage it.
JJ says: “Next question: Since when is a journalist a “peer” within the field of psychology? ”
Very good point. Not only is she not yet a PhD in anything, her field of competence has nothing to do with psychology as a science. The journal did the right thing in retracting the paper but the editor that allowed this to happen needs to be removed.
Quality in usage of Theory of Science has fallen…. say a lot of the results and the presented articles/papers.
candidate for a Friday Funny!
2 March: ABC The World Today: Fad not facts: call for new approach to climate change
ELEANOR HALL: An Australian National University science academic says it is time to call in the advertising industry to make sure that the warnings from climate scientists hit home…
Dr Rod Lamberts, says scientists have done all they can to alert governments to the need for action, but that professional marketing may be more effective..
SIMON LAUDER: The deputy director of the Australian Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the ANU, Dr Rod Lamberts, says the latest IPCC report has failed to make a difference to the debate.
ROD LAMBERTS: This looks to me to be unfortunately the case of the same thing happening over and over again, where people who support the science and are concerned about what the science is telling us believe that throwing more and more facts at the issue in the public space will make a difference, and I seriously doubt that it will.
SIMON LAUDER: He says it’s time for a less scientific appeal.
ROD LAMBERTS: If the goal is to affect change, then I believe we need to step more into the realms of advertising and marketing and so on, in terms of delivering messages that are supported by what the science is telling us, but don’t have the science in those messages.
That’s not what we need anymore.
SIMON LAUDER: And why do you think that would work?
ROD LAMBERTS: I think it would have a much better shot at working because we’ve seen evidence, there’s evidence to suggest appealing to people’s emotions will have a stronger effect than trying to appeal to their brains via some kind of, you know, fact channel…
***(LOL- SOOO ABC) SIMON LAUDER: And presumably, the target of an advertising campaign would be politicians?
ROD LAMBERTS: Probably not. I think many of those folks; their positions are not set by the science necessarily, but their positions are fairly set by the other forces. I think it’s more about the people in the middle; people who may or may not change, who aren’t really sure what to believe, aren’t sure what they can do.
SIMON LAUDER: Another question I have about using advertising and marketing which is, I guess, divorced to the science to some extent. Does that open up the opportunity for critics and sceptics to label it a scare campaign again?
ROD LAMBERTS: Yeah, they’re doing that anyway. I just don’t think that matters anymore…
SIMON LAUDER: It’s not a new idea; there are already ads which attempt to spread the word about climate change.
VOICEOVER (excerpt from climate change advertisement): This is the biggest threat humankind has ever faced. Humans have caused this…
SIMON LAUDER: Copywriter and creative director at Jara Consulting, Jane Caro, says advertising isn’t effective if it’s too shocking, but she doesn’t believe more scientific facts will be convincing on their own.
JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything, sadly. It’s very hard for scientists to understand this, because they’re highly rational people, but in actual fact, no-one has ever been rationalised out of a belief…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3976695.htm
TW ABC’s Fad not Facts piece has AUDIO.
Louis says:
So Elaine McKewon believes that there is an ongoing process “whereby a coalition of agents from different social fields constructs a false scientific controversy at the public level in order to undermine authoritative scientific knowledge.” All these agents from different social fields are secretly getting together to undermine the scientific consensus. Talk about conspiracy ideation!
===
Yes, all this endless talk of an “multi-million dollar, international denial industry” that no one ever seems to get a penny from, is about the clearest case of conspiracy “ideation” going.
It’s like a thief assuming everyone else is dishonest. It’s called “projection” in psychology, but I suppose a journalism student may not be aware of that kind of thing.
Off Topic
Bill McKibben, at MSNBC/Green says:
‘Climate scientists’ should go on strike! Because politicians aren’t listening to them, and more importantly not doing what they are told to by ‘climate scientists’.
Interestingly, there is a poll underneath asking readers if they “see climate change is a threat to their life or well-being”. The vast majority even there seems unimpressed.
Bias and censorship from The Conversation. What more could you expect when most of it’s senior editorial team are former Guardian and Independent journos.
https://theconversation.com/uk/our_team
lucky for them it’s all propped up by UK tax payer funding.
https://theconversation.com/uk/partners
April 2, 2014 at 12:34 am | pat says:
And THAT is the sad fact of what we are up against … our arguing facts is not going to overcome warmista belief.
kim:
kerching!
The title of this post was: “Lewandowsky’s Peer Reviewer Makes Things Up”
Why should anyone be surprised about this?
Bernie Hutchins on April 1, 2014 at 10:54 pm is right. As a PhD student myself I’ve been given papers to review by my professor (along with the rest of her students). We then discuss everyone’s inputs and jointly create her review response. She stands behind the final submission.
I would be very remiss, though, if I went public with my review comments on a paper. For one thing it would undermine my professor who is the official peer reviewer, whether she considered my comments to be right or not. So my conclusion is that McKewon’s supervisor must have agreed with her review and — for whatever reason — approved of her going public. That wouldn’t happen at my university, but perhaps Australian universities are different.
The fact that this paper was sent for peer review to journalism academics indicates that it was considered by the Journal to be about journalism and not science. So I don’t expect there was any requirement to review the science, and perhaps not even the methods employed. Perhaps the focus would have been on the impact of the story and not its content. Or perhaps I’m just biased!
Reasons for Frontiers to retract:
A comment from under the abstract (Geoff complained to Frontiers)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full
Geoff Chambers to the editors of “Frontiers”
Author of “Recursive Fury” Michael Marriott runs a blog
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/
Between 28 August and 22 September 2012 he published 13 articles attacking climate sceptics who had criticised LOG12. According to the above article, the content analysis of sceptic blogs was carried out “in real time” starting 28 August, by John Cook and Michael Marriott, chosen specifically for the task for their lack of bias.
It”s not surprising the raw data (see supplemental data above right) is so full of errors. While collecting the data for this study, Marriott was at the same writing an article every two days insulting the authors of the very data he was collecting.
In order to protect your reputation, please withdraw this paper.
– See more at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full#sthash.tD1lPICd.dpuf
One of my comments: (I complained to Frontiers AND UWA about ethical conduct)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full
Barry Woods
A coauthor of this paper M Marriott write as the blogger – Watching the Deniers –
Whilst researching this paper, Marriot was also writing article about LOG12 in defence of Lewandowsky et al (LOG12) and articles against the critics of LOG12. in quite disparaging terms (as is his right)
I am known to him, prior and durring the research period (including commenting politely at his blog)
I commented here, politely on his first article: (pointing out thatonly antis-sceptic blogs surveyed in LOG12)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/conspircism-and-climate-scepticism-empirical-research-confrims-what-we-all-know-and-some-predictions/#comments
August 31, 2012 at 12-33 pm
more articles by Marriot – Watching the Deniers, about Lewandowsky LOG12 (attacking the critics of LOG12))
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/climate-deniers-object-to-being-called-conspiracy-theorists-propose-conspiracy-to-explain-why-labelled-such/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/climate-deniers-fail-to-check-in-boxes-hilarity-and-fake-scandal-ensures-in-box-gate-anyone/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/denial-101-the-academic-study-of-climate-scepticism-as-diagnostic-and-risk-management-tool-first-draft/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/dear-marc-morano-we-say-climate-change-you-say-nasa-moon-walkers-nasa-moon-walkers-nasa-hoax/
The one below about Lewandosky LOG12 and Watts response,note the graphic my named WUWT article, stamped “Verified bullshit”
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/watts-explains-why-lewandowsky-paper-on-conspiracy-theories-is-wrong-its-a-conspiracy-between-john-cook-and-the-prof/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/inboxgate-names-of-sceptic-bloggers-contacted-revealed-for-nasa-paper-sceptics-still-not-happy/
In the article below, (in Comments) Marriot says he tracking the comments of high profile sceptics
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/a-cabal-of-bankers-and-sister-souljah-lewandowsky-versus-the-extreme-sceptic-fringe/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/stormy-teacups-misrepresenting-recursive-fury/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/versiongate-inboxgate-and-now-niwagate-or-when-denial-echo-chambers-implode/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/inbox-gate-ok-now-its-getting-just-plain-silly/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/inbox-gate-continues-desmogblog-notes-sceptic-blogs-responded-to-lewandowsky-request/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/climate-deniers-fail-to-check-in-boxes-hilarity-and-fake-scandal-ensures-in-box-gate-anyone/
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/lewandowsky-et-al-versus-the-were-not-conspiracy-theorists-but-brigade-part-1/
Marriot does not seem to like sceptics Jo Nova, Anthony Watts,Marc Morano, Lord Moncton or Andrew Bolt.
In the article below, I have (or try to) a polite exchange, saying perhaps his blog name is atagonistic, and discuss how I’d changed my my blog name, so as to make it easier to engage. (he’s not buying it)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/psa-community-and-discussion-guidelines-published-under-about-wtd/#comment-14661
I’ve made a number of comments on his blog, anyone can see that I have been civil and polite and attempted to engage, he states he has been tracking people, and is clearly not a neutral party to this debate.
I discovered this weekend another article of his, with his now favourite graphic,my article at WUWT stamped – Verified Bullshit
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/anthony-watts-cherry-picks-quote-about-record-greenland-melt-surprised-hardly/
The orginal article with my WUWT post (which I only came across this weekend) stamped verified bullshit, and accusations of ‘misinformation’, cherry picking: tagged BULLSHIT, DENIER, DISINFORMATION
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/
“This post is authored by well-known climate “sceptic” Barry Woods: – Watching the Deniers (Marriot)
I might ask both the universities involved the ethics committee, is this really an appropriate researcher for this paper
I might ask the journal the same, and ask the authors, please remove my name and my quote from this paper and maybe a statement that my name appearing in the suplemntary data does not mean I am conspiracy theorist.
(a courtesy they have perfomed this action with Professor Richard Betts) they also might want to do this for all concerned, including Paul Matthers ( a UK academic) and Prof Judith Curry a USA academic.
As the authors were in hostile debate publically, with named human subject in this paper, Mcintyre, Geoff Chamber, Lucia, Jo Nova) I do not see how this passed the UWA ethics considerations for this research.
I also note that Skeptica Science blog John Cook, and co-author with Lewandowsky of the Debunking Handbook, are involved with Al Gores Climate reality project, which adds a political dimension.. and complete confoirmation thatthe researchers are not neutral obervers in the area of research,and should not be researching their oppenent for any psycholoigical papers.
Al Gores project I note uses slogans Reveal the Denier, and Destroy Denial..
Professor Richard Betts response to his name being included, was refreshing inthe Recursive Fury paper was refreshing (quoted here)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/21/lewandowsky-and-cook-in-spectacular-carcrash.html
– See more at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full#sthash.tD1lPICd.dpuf
“Go figure?” – I did ; she is a journalist.
The comments on that site are a hoot … I note that despite the article being published today, they’ve already closed comments. This from a website called “The Conversation”? What kind of “conversation” is that?
Don’t worry,
The leftist media here in Australia could give Pravda a run for their money.
Although, considering the ABC is taxpayer funded, perhaps that should read: “For our money”…
Not the best complaint (actually probably th eworst) I’ve ever made, angry and irritated and in a big rush.(I was on holiday and wrote most of it on a tablet, Frontiers gave a stupid deadline), but I do stand by it
To: Frontiers in Psychology Editorial Office
Cc: barry.woods
Subject: Woods Complaint –
Breach of National Research Statement – Identifiable human particpant in a pyschological research databank – Hostile/conflicted researchers –
No consent sort out, nor given – Hostile researchers – ‘Fury’ and LOG12 Lewandowsky et al
The Purpose (National Stement)
The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community.
This complaint is to the authors (and their accredited employers) of the ‘Fury’ paper and ‘Moon’ paper and to the University of Western Australia and it demonstrates I believe multiple breaches of the ethical requirements for research on human participants, as such the papers should be withdrawn and any identifiable data (including unattributed comments, as these can be googled) of all unwilling participant destroyed. I will list the reasons below:
1) The authors of the paper have been shown to active protagonists in the climate debate – championing the work of LOG 12 and attacking its critics, throughout the research timeframe at the publically funded blog Shaping Tomorrows World (Lewandowsky) – Watching the Deniers – (Marriott) – Skeptical Science (John Cook – & Lewandowsky is regular author there and co-author of the SKS debunking handbook)
2) Conduct: One of more of the authors is openly hostile towards me on his blog Watching The Deniers (M Marriott) (A Watts and others), publically labelling me DENIER, DISINFORMATION, DUNNING-KRUGER, bullshit and verified bullshit (his caps). This I feel alone is grounds for the ‘Fury’ paper to be withdrawn on ethical grounds lone (tainted, by the authors behaviour on his private blog) and all named individual data collected for this research to be made known to ( I have provided detail directly to the authors on their blogs (and to the journal already, but I will collate – referenced to this complaint, to follow as background material to my complaint.)
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/
3) Respect: One or of authors have failed to show respect or behave professional to the people named in the paper or the ‘sceptical’ community. Prof Lewadowsky’s blog posts as one example (more to follow) taunting the 5 sceptical blog owner he had ‘contacted’ on his blog and giving interviews about it – at places like Desmogblog (a website, that has a number of those sceptic blog owners photographed, named and shamed tagged denier, misinformed, disinformation, denial industry, amongst other derogatory labels, in it’s Denier Disinformation Database online –
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
How is it possible that Prof Lewandowsky did not see that this was totally inappropriate. A professional, would have JUST emailed the 5 blog owners straight away and said it was you, here is copy of the email my assistant Hanich sent you. THIS behaviour alone, I think demonstrates the hostility of Prof Lewandowsky to his research subject matter (so called ‘sceptics’ or just members of the public that resent being labelled) and should preclude him (in my opinion) from this research and any research in this area.
4) Conflict/Vested Interests: Lewandowsky and Cook are the authors of a number of Skeptical Science (SkS) accredited books, these books are a credited with UWA and Queensland Logos (is this official?) Lewandowsky is a regular author at the Skeptical Science website. What is Prof Lewandowsky role at SkS, is it purely a private interest (but why the University accreditation, and the debunking handbook, is promoted on the UWA – Shaping Tomorrows World blog. Skeptical Science would be considered in direct antagonistic opposition to Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and all the other sceptic blogs.
5) Conflict/Vested Interest: Skeptical Science and its authors have a vested interest (it looks like commercial relationship) providing material for Al Gore’s – Climate Reality Project – Reality Drop. As such they have a direct interest in opposing and countering sceptical blog material.
One example, my
Watts Up With That article entitled – What Else did the 97% of scientists say,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
which author Marriott, claims to have debunked labelled, stamped Verified Bullshit, over an adulterated WUWT graphic, .
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/
this was then endorsed by Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html
“For example, see a recent article debunked by the blog Watching the Deniers, where somebody had cherry-picked skeptical quotes from a few scientists who responded to the Doran and Zimmerman study (Eos, January 20, 2009). This only reveals that some people confuse consensus with unanimity. – Skeptical Science (SkS)”
6) Harm:Respect: Further concerns are the authors and UWA have caused me harm, have failed to treat me with respect, not sort or obtained my consent and have not been able to show any justification for deceiving in my questions Prof Lewandowsky about LOG12 and by concealing from there research and following this particular named human participant whose comments (what else) have been collected
7) Complaint: In light of the summary above, My complaint is that the authors and UWA and any other associations of the authors, have failed to comply to the National Statement of Ethical Conduct in the Field of Human Research
The Purpose
“The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community.”
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf
The National statement is a actually further 111 pages long, but this is merely, I believe, the technical detail for those that perhaps do not realize that all that follows automatically from the 3 sentences above. The onus I believe is on UWA to demonstrate that they complied to the National Statement for this research, (‘Fury’ & ‘Moon’) not for the unwitting/unwilling participants to show where they UWA failed to comply to the National Statement.
Please demonstrate that the authors Lewandowsky, Cook and Marriott in particular and the further co-authors of ‘Fury’ and ‘Moon’ authors are fit, unconflicted and appropriate persons to study [these] human participants. The paper is littered with activist rhetoric like ‘climate denials’ and references to the Exxon/fossil fuel denial industry funding sceptics, conspiracy theory. How on earth did the peer reviewers not pick this up! and not say that it was inappropriate for psychologists of all people to talk this way.
8) RESPECT: Please demonstrate the research justification for the LOG12 and Recursive Fury papers is beneficial and cause no harm.
Because harm has been done, I was initially amused to find myself named in the data alongside Richard Betts, where the researchers of sceptics were so unaware of the debate and the people they research, that this was in fact Professor Richard Betts of the UK Met Office,Head Of Climate Impacts and IPCC lead author, he asked if he was a conspiracy theorist and was met with a response from the an author. I asked the author, I was ignored, I asked another author (Watching the deniers) I was ignored. I asked all the authors by posting my concerns and asking for a response on the Skeptical Science blog, and Shaping Tomorrows World blog I was ignored. I asked the UWA to contact the authors and respond to me, I have received no response from any of the authors.
Both Richard and I were named in the data for Fury and when we enquired why, we were we not treated equally.
My expectation of the journals and University and the whole field of psychology, that as an unwilling/unwitting participant in psychology research that finds my name in a paper, that my questions would be acknowledged and answered as a courtesy at the horror I felt of the ethical conduct, when I realised how many breaches of the Ethical Conduct had been brought to UWA and the journals attention
I expected that as soon as the authors public hostility towards me, and named others in the paper was shown, that the paper would be retracted, apologies given and an ethics and misconduct investigation would be undertaken. Sadly not
9)HARM and RESPECT
I approached UWA and the journals as concerned member of the public, not a label like a denier, concerned that without my consent identifiable data about me had been collected, in Marriotts words that well know sceptics were tracked – WHY, WHAT FOR, what possible justification, have I committed a crime, please explain yourself here., labelled a disinformer, or Marriotts ever so eloquent Bullshit or Verified Bullshit, I was shocked to find that he had labelled me – Dunning-Kruger (and I should not have to explain to anybody, least of all a psychologist why) I was rather less surprised to find John Cook endorsed it
I now feel unable to express myself freely publically, whilst I have a thick skin and can explain to my young children rude abusive people on the internet are to be ignored, I do not want to risk them finding me labelled by psychologist in any way shape or form for official research. So I can NOT I feel express myself freely under my name anymore. The fact that I was perceived as of specific concern to be followed by psychology researcher, and perhaps my words twisted quoted out of context, as I have described in the ’Fury’ case (my comment cherry picked, partially quoted)
10) ETHICS and GOOD FAITH
perhaps just an anecdote to take into account: When Lewandosky was championing Peter Gleick as a hero (despite behaving unethical (and criminally?) to ’sceptics’ – Heartland incident) , I was writing to Marc Morano and Heartland to ask them to tone it down, not to publish Peter’ Gleick’s email address because I was concerned about whether his professional tragedy (Revkin – NYT) might turn into a personal tragedy.this was private correspondence
but Prof Richard Betts, Dr Tamsin Edwards and I believe Dr Katie Hayhoe was copied ) can verify, my Good Faith not that I feel my conduct has in anyway demonstrated that I have ever communicated with anybody without behaving like a civil adult. I have also worked hard to try to depolarise a hostile debate, and tried to engage with the supposed ‘other side’ (including M Marriot) and persuade everybody to behave as adults.
I was not exactly a fan of Peter Gleick see why here:
http://unsettledclimate.org/2012/02/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/
11) My Request of UWA (given the circumstancces of demonstrably hostile / conflicted researchers)
I ask UWA identify any comments or data collated about me and held in any databank, or in other form, and present it to me.
I ask UWA to destroy any information collected in breach of the National Statement
I ask UWA as a courtesy to me, to provide, the grant funding, the research justification and ethical clearance for this research
I ask as a courtesy that UWA shows the benefit that this research project will bring to the community
I expect that UWA undertake (or any of the authors) seek to obtain my consent to perform further research on me, and that any any research justified as being allowed to deceive the participants fully complies with the National Statement.
The whole area of the ‘blogospheres’ surrounding climate change blog wars is no doubt a fascinating subject and I would think benefit from research to understand not least how psychologists and other climate scientists started using the language and rhetoric of political activists, and seemingly believe in an exxon/fossil fueled climate change denier industry? My only gain in the last 3 years would have been getting paid expenses to visit the Met Office to appear in a video with Prof Richard Betts, for their My Climate and Me project, so my only linkage to anything would be ‘big climate’ itself
Best Regards
Barry Woods
I have typed this in an email, in rich format, I hope that the formating comes through ok, because if a deadline, I hope that everyone can excuse and typos and bad/confusing grammar
I will collate all the evidence I have previously supplied with links and reference that support this complaint, and send them on later. As I’m still on Easter holidays with my family.
The question on many lips is now probably “But does climate change cause prostitution?”.
Fortunately, we don’t need Elaine McKewon’s talents to help us here. In 2009 the UN decided that it does:
Via Numberwatch,
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/177346/news/nation/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work
pat says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:34 am
“JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything, sadly. It’s very hard for scientists to understand this, because they’re highly rational people, but in actual fact, no-one has ever been rationalised out of a belief…”
I guess it takes one to know one.
“Jane Caro (born London, 1957) is a social commentator, writer and lecturer based in Australia. ”
” Caro has worked in the advertising industry”
“Caro says she is a feminist and atheist.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Caro
So she says feminists and atheists are irrational.
Elaine McKewon is a PhD student at UTS which is an inner city “university” that used to be Sydney Technical College, its just down the road from the ABC headquarters ( ` UK BBC and makes the US BPL look very neutral) and a battery hen institution for all manner of leftards and CAGW alarmists. Elaine McKewon is about as wired up to the moon on climate change as is Lewandowsky. Move along folks, nothing to see there, just another alarmist frothing at the mouth after drinking the kool aid.
Climate obsession degrades the ethical and critical thinking skills of those who help promote it.
“JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything.”
Really? Do you honestly, seriously believe that? How can you live?