Journal takes Lewandowsky and his supporters to task on 'threats' over retracted 'Recursive Fury' paper.

This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one

Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian, Joe Romm, and other overly emotional climate propagandists should heed this message, you’ve been put on notice in a rare statement about the false claims of “threats” being the cause of the retraction.

From the Frontiers in Psychology blog, setting the record straight once and for all, bolding in text is mine:

Retraction of Recursive Fury: A Statement

(Lausanne, Switzerland) – There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.

 

As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.

We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.

One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.

Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.

Costanza Zucca, Editorial Director

Fred Fenter, Executive Editor

Full statement here

Translation:

lewpaper

To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812

Related: A stunning revelation from a UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson over access to Lewandowsky’s poll data

See also: My complaint letter regarding the Lewandowsky affair

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Les Johnson

Done. Posted at :
http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/04/reviewer-journal-wilts-under-climate-of-intimidation/
This is where a reviewer of the Lew paper was already being taken to task for her errors and omissions.

Consider the favor fulfilled.
As I noted over at Steve’s blog, this is going to make the UWA look a lot more deceitful and foolish.

hunter

Once again skeptics are vindicated. Lewandowsky and Cook are sleazoids.

copernicus34

Read that Social Science Space article. For the life of me I cannot see what Mosher might have liked about that paper. Its trash, and has been trashed. Science is not something that comes to mind when reading that unless you are predisposed to bias.

Rob Dawg

Feh. [Any] “retractions” will be under the fold, page 16 in 8 point type with so little context as to be meaningless.
REPLY: Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. -A

Tim Walker

I am so glad for ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ stepping up to their responsibility. It is good to see some integrity. Thank you for passing on this good news.

Louis Hooffstetter

Like many others here, I used to eagerly await each new issue of Scientific American, but never again. They posted this article by Lewandowsky peer reviewer, Elaine McKewon:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories/
I tried to post the following comment:
“Science is reproducible. Research that cannot be replicated is not science, PERIOD. Because Lewandowsky and the University of Western Australia flatly refuse to release the original data for replication, ‘Recursive Fury’ fails to meet the basic minimum requirement of science. The journal retracted it because it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s sad that Scientific American doesn’t understand this. Stephan Lewandowsky and Elaine McKewon are not scientists.”
This was SciAm’s reply:
This submission has been marked as spam.
Louis6439 is a Troll. Please report all commentary by this user…

Meh; too late. Timothy Geigner at Techdirt is using Frontiers’ own disclaimer as “proof” that the “Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared”. (Link provided only to document my statement; I do not recommend giving TD the free traffic unless you need to review this. TD used to be great on certain tech issues, but they’re frothing leftwing bugf#@% nuts on pretty much anything else.)

Louis Hooffstetter

“To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks

pokerguy

“Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics”
Interesting that none of those identifiable individuals who were basically called screwballs have sued. I suspect this retraction wasn’t as high minded as frontiers pretends.
In any case, they’re standing by the science, which as far as I’m concerned is the most important issue. Then again, since they published it what else can they do? Admit to a mistake? Who does that these days?

Rob Ricket

Judging from the contents of the statement, Frontiers’ singular objection relates to a failure to protect identity of survey respondents. Essentially, they are taking the high road, as we all know, most of the respondents are phony in the first place. Lew has been convicted of a lesser charge…he should keep his mouth shut and be glad it wasn’t worse.

harsh! they will stand by – pause – “valid research”
“We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research.” – Frontiers

davidmhoffer

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:56 am
Meh; too late. Timothy Geigner at Techdirt is using Frontiers’ own disclaimer as “proof” that the “Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared”.

Yeah sure. ‘Cuz if skeptics had the power to “disappear” a paper, that’s the one we’d “disappear”? We’d sink hole that one while leaving Mann and Briffa and Marcotte and Trenberth and countless other pieces of pure tripe standing? Seriously? If I could list out the top 100 papers that OUGHT to be retracted for valid scientific reasons, I’m not sure that this one would even make the list.

I am very impressed by the statement and actions by the management of ‘Frontiers in Psychology’.
I will post a link to its statement whenever I see irresponsible claim that ‘we were threatened by skeptics’.
John

pottereaton

Wow. I mean, really, Wow. Talk about a straight shot to the solar plexus. Lew is bent over trying to breathe right around now.
That said, Frontiers set themselves up for this by not “identifying” any ethical or academic problems with the paper in their first statement.
As I surmised at the time, that statement was so carefully parsed as to be meaningless. The lawyers probably worked on it for months. It allowed Lew to claim his academic reputation was intact. That no longer is true. Rather than keeping his mouth shut, they started claiming Frontiers “caved in to threats.” Big mistake. I’m going to find out if it was Lew who actually used that phrase. If he did, he probably violated the agreement between them.
This puts Paul Johnson in a particularly difficult position, which he fully deserves.

Alan Robertson

Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 4, 2014 at 11:00 am
“To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812”
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks
______________________
Oh Wa
Tah Goo
Sci AM

Les Johnson

Louis: I [submitted] the Frontiers [retraction], and so did Eve.
Lets see if they stay.

Les Johnson

let me try again.
Louis, I submitted the Frontiers retraction to SciAm, as did Eve. Lets see if they stay.

Latitude

blah blah blah blah blah blah…..
…and legal factors

I concur with some above commenters. Given that strong statement by the ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ concerning the ‘Recursive’ paper, the VC of UWA has no place to hide now from his irresponsible and irrational rejection of requests for info on both the ‘Moon’ and ‘Recursive’ of Lewandowsky performed while he was on faculty at UWA.
In addition, given that strong statement by the ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ concerning the ‘Recursive’ paper, I also strongly advise the VC of UWA to expeditiously disclose the full text of ethical and academic investigations on Lewandowsky associated with his ‘Moon’ and ‘Recursive’ papers.
John

empiresentry

I tried I tried. The “Threat” Conspiracy is running rabid in Australia.
Also, here at Kos, it is posted by a person who claims to have ‘peer reviewed it”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/04/1289517/-Overnight-News-Digest-Teabaggers-are-long-in-the-tooth-Edition#
If someone can help post to Kos. I had no luck getting a comment in.
Seems like the usual thing: blame everyone else for the very skanky thing they do every day.

Louis Hooffstetter

Thanks Les, Eve, and especially Alan Robertson.

Generic Geologist

I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to the club. SCIAM is now blocking and removing any comments that they disagree with. They have sunk to the level of a pathetic and irrelevant sci-porn mag. Anybody remember Bob Guccione’s Sci-porn mag “Omni”? No?? There goes SCIAM down the same path to obscurity and bankruptcy.

vigilantfish

Wow! I agree with other comments above that this Frontiers statement has got to be a smack in the face for the smug and unprofessional CV of UWA Paul Johnson. I hope that this is brought to the attention of the that institution’s Board of Governors along with Johnson’s obstructionist, arrogant and anti-collegial behaviour.
I also hope that the ethics parameters at UWA and at Bristol University are re-examined and procedures tightened in the wake these revelations about Lewandowski’s turbulent and blatantly unethical, self-congratulatory and agenda-driven work.

rabbit

So the question now arises as to why Frontiers In Psychology accepted the paper in the first place. The rule that individuals being studied must not be identified should be fairly easy to enforce.

Tagerbaek

At least there’s one individual who has now been identified as firmly entrenched in psychopathological behaviour.

Harry Passfield

Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:53 am……..
Louis, I went to the link in your comment: (McKeown’s piece from The Conversation). How amateur can she be? It was obvious that some of the comments had been deleted but they couldn’t be bothered to delete the responses to these (now) ghost comments. I’m really having trouble working out the low level of competence that passes for education in people like McKeown.

vigilantfish

Darn, I meant VC of UWA Paul Johnson

Louis Hooffstetter says:
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked.
ScAm makes no bones about it: they are 100% propaganda, 0% science. They delete and block anyone who does not agree with man-made global warming.
My recent comment was deleted for “name-calling”, and I was banned from ever commenting there again. This was the comment that got me banned, verbatim:

The following are a few scientific facts, and comments regarding scientific evidence [please note that scientific “evidence” has a specific meaning. ‘Evidence’ means raw data, and verifiable empirical (real world) observations. Peer reviewed papers, IPCC reports, and computer climate models are not scientific evidence. Rather, they are assertions.] :
Global warming STOPPED, 17+ years ago. [We cannot call it a “pause”, unless it resumes.] No computer climate model was able to predict that event. They were ALL wrong.
Further, it is a scientific fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that the climate parameters being observed now [temperatures, extreme weather events, etc.], have ALL been exceeded in the past — when CO2 [“carbon”] was lower.
Current global temperatures have been exceeded in the past by a large degree. Therefore, nothing currently being observed is either unusual, or unprecedented. The fact is that we are currently living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no evidence that global temperatures are rising, as was incessantly predicted for many years — until it didn’t happen. Global warming has stopped. That is a fact that even NASA/GISS acknowledges.
Next, to put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.
The recent rise in global temperatures, beginning around 1980 and ending around 1997, was only temporarily coincidental with the continuing, steady rise in CO2 — and the only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is CAUSED by ∆T; not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming.
CO2 is a very tiny trace gas, currently just 0.000397 of the atmosphere, but it is essential to all life on earth. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. There is no scientific evidence proving that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless trace gas, which is very beneficial to the biosphere.
CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, when life on earth flourished. The current rise is of no concern. Certainly some of the rise is due to human activity. However, if CO2 was the cause of any measurable global warming, then the recent large percentage rise would have forced temperatures up sharply. But as we know, global T stopped rising many years ago.
Finally, the unspoken agenda is to pass a huge new carbon tax. That is the motive behind the “carbon” scare. As if hard-bitten taxpayers are not paying enough already.

Where is the “name-calling”?
ScAm used to be one of my favorites. Then it was bought by a gang of German enviros. Now look at it.

sabretruthtiger

Scientific American have long been known to be propagandists for the globalist establishment.
New Scientist is just as bad.

James Ard

It would be helpful to know which sites are talking about threats. I haven’t followed this craziness closely, but I’d love to fulfill the favor.

Greg

” But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – ”
Largely based on lying, making things and not giving a damn about the truth if it isn’t caused by CO2.

Magma

Not to rain on the parade, but the new statement from the publisher is not consistent with its initial retraction note.
“This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”

Off Topic:
“Anybody remember Bob Guccione’s Sci-porn mag “Omni”?”
I think that’s where I got the plans to make the “Insectivore” from a radio controlled car and Radio Shack parts. My very first robot that searched for light sources. What a blast. Anyone else remember that?

Michael J. Dunn

Edward Teller (I think):
“Scientific American is neither scientific, nor american.”

Lars P.

Tim Walker says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:41 am
I am so glad for ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ stepping up to their responsibility. It is good to see some integrity. Thank you for passing on this good news.
Correct. I respect Frontiers for that! It is a pleasant surprise to see some have integrity when so many fail.

empiresentry

wow, just totally wow to Louis and to dbstealey.
Not to worry Louis, a lot of people are commenting at SA. I suspect mine will be deleted shortly as will others. We will need to keep up the comments.
One tactic, especially at Kos or Huffpoo. is to post so many comments on top of an unfavored so that it is buried into older pages. I am watching and noting the same behavior at SA. Keep posting.
Abuse of science and politicizing of research has to be stopped.

Resourceguy

The louder they are the harder they fall—in retraction that is.

Alan Robertson

empiresentry says:
April 4, 2014 at 12:27 pm
____________________
Good to see you over here, epmire.
Some of us have made screen caps and page saves.

Magma

All being said, it would have been both simple and advisable to anonymize the identities of the individuals (Jo Nova, Geoff Chambers, Steve McIntyre, and Anthony Watts) whose public reactions to NASA faked the moon landing were classified into various categories* by Lewandowsky et al.
* NI=nefarious intent; NS=nihilistic skepticism; PV=persecuted victim; MbW=must be
wrong; NoA=no accident; SS=self sealing; UCT=unreflexive counterfactual thinking

Rud Istvan

Leaves UWA in a doubly untenable independent of McIntyres request for data on the original paper. First, the ethics violation happened and this paper was written while Lew was still there. They have oversight responsibility. Second, apparently, the paper is still available through them, so they continue to abett an ethics violation. Perhaps some Australian readers or Jo Nova can point this out down under using an appropriately sharpened stick.

James Strom

Over at Scientific American the first option available to readers of comments is to “flag as spam”. Quite possibly the whole operation of deleting and blocking comments is triggered by readers and is quite automatic. That would be a good way to create a consensus.

Jimbo

CLAIM

Guardian – 21 March 2014
Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper
After threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits, a journal will retract an academically sound paper

COUNTER CLAIM

Frontiers – 4 Apr 2014
Retraction of Recursive Fury: A Statement
…Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process….

gnomish

Alan Robertson
i got your crumby joke, there.
good one!

Non Nomen

Lewandowskis paper Titanic has hit the iceberg and is now going down, stern already high in the air. I’d love to hear the last bulkheads burst….

u.k.(us)

“Fury” defined:
intense, disordered, and often destructive rage
or
extreme fierceness or violence
or
a state of inspired exaltation : frenzy
================
Don’t even retract the paper, just retitle it Recursive Projection.

If
“Type I errors are philosophically a focus of skepticism and Occam’s razor. A Type I error occurs when we believe a falsehood.[4] In terms of folk tales, an investigator may be “crying wolf” without a wolf in sight (raising a false alarm) (H0: no wolf).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive#Type_I_error
then if they don’t want skeptics then they shouldn’t make type 1 error and cry wolf?
originally science was not part of the government but individuals [they would be called amateurs these days] who did repeatable experiments that demonstrated a truthto their peers. Looks like real science is going back to those days [via the web] as the official process gets corrupted by money and power and vanity?

David L.

Give them all enough rope…

Dodgy Geezer

@Rud Istvan
Leaves UWA in a doubly untenable independent of McIntyres request for data on the original paper. First, the ethics violation happened and this paper was written while Lew was still there.
If I were trying to save the UWA, I would claim that, since there was an ethics violation, no one can have any of the data because it identifies individual people…