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:
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
At least there’s one individual who has now been identified as firmly entrenched in psychopathological behaviour.
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.
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:
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.
Scientific American have long been known to be propagandists for the globalist establishment.
New Scientist is just as bad.
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.
” 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.
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?
Edward Teller (I think):
“Scientific American is neither scientific, nor american.”
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.
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.
The louder they are the harder they fall—in retraction that is.
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.
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
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.
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.
CLAIM
COUNTER CLAIM
@ur momisugly James Ard
Lew himself has provided this helpful list:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html
Alan Robertson
i got your crumby joke, there.
good one!
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….
“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?
Give them all enough rope…
@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…