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
Arstechnica had the threats in their article on the retraction.
I have often stated my admiration for the slick and professional way the Warmists have run their media and PR campaigns, right from the earliest days.
This Lew Paper fiasco however, demonstrates that they’re starting to lose their edge.
Many of the staunch believers like Nutticelli have allied themselves with Lew out of blind, tribal loyalty, defended themselves with wild claims of conspiracy….and are now paying the price of open humiliation.
Cooler heads would have seen that Lew was a lemon and let his paper (and him) go down alone and unremarked.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:53 am
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…
A request for proper science is flagged as “spam”!?
Is it any coincidence that “SciAm” can be pronounced the same as “scam”?
Personally, I think a small set of, “thank you for you thoughtful consideration of the issues raised” is due to Frontiers. Publishing of ALL scientific endeavors is of utmost importance and the fact they they have seeming worked this forward to a very professional result needs to be acknowledged.
@Louis Hooffstetter
I posted the link to the journals statement with no cometary. Well see how long it stays up.
One of the the little details that means a lot here is the response to dissent – not only are people regularly blocked and banned, but the reasons are often lies.
Tells you a lot about people. Yeah, had that happen to be too (a *while* ago, I don’t bother addressing them directly anymore as they’re such petty thugs).
Psychology and altering worldviews is seen as the latest means of combating skepticism. You have education go directly to the prevailing mental models. It tracks to Chapter 20 of the new IPCC report and what Adaptation really means. The adaptation is really psychological via primarily education and Chapter 20 says so. I started a Trilogy on it yesterday.
This paper from American Psychologist in 2011–“The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers that Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation” came up as a cite in my research on altering Worldviews. http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/The%20dragons%20of%20inaction%20Robert%20Gifford.pdf
When you hear terms like Growth Mindset during a conference with a teacher or principal, this psychological level is precisely what is being targeted. Makes students amenable to fundamental change or anxious for it at an unconscious level.
Psychology is indeed the new frontier.
Boy oh boy how times have changed.
Cook chose unwisely to be Lewandowsky’s faux-psych water boy.
I envy those of you who escaped the painfully embarassing spectacle at the 2013 Fall AGU meeting in SFO where John Cook (Lewandowsky’s co-author of ‘Recursive) gave several incoherent talks where he hyped his research in the ‘Recursive’ paper. I was not so lucky to escape it. I felt a moment of fleeting conflicted pity for Cook at the time.
John
REPLY: I decided not to go, mainly because I didn’t have any rotten fruit or cabbages to throw 😉 – Anthony
I actively cancelled Scientific American more than a decade ago. For those of us who remember the great magazine of the days of Martin Gardner and C.L. Stong, etc. – well – we try not to cry.
Has anyone noticed the really quite sublime irony going on here?
The whole point of the paper was that we are a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Yet look at the tangled tale of intrigue, threats, and blackmail they themselves have concocted as the reason for its retraction.
Projection, much?
Gold Medal goes to person who can get “The Conversation” to update their disinformation campaign @ur momisugly http://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085
#mightaswellwalkonwater
Dr Lew’s timing is as priceless as is his mastery of logic and scientific detachment.
He posts just prior to his evisceration by a journal lambasted by him and his good buddies as cowardly and spineless speleologists (caver-inners!)
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html
Read it and smile or chuckle or, more likely, ROTFLYAO.
Dr Lew, meet Mr Nemesis. He would like a quietword in your ear
🙂
I have not been involved in this affair in any way, shape or form but ironically may have an entire chapter devoted to this incident in my up and coming new book A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Climate Science Forum.
ggm
Am I the only who doesn’t care about the results of some sociologist regarding climate change? Come on, this is not the science that has to be discussed, no matter if the methology is done right or wrong. Don’t focus on that bs.
Oh dear. Surely Wikipedia, that bastion of truth, will be shortly updated….
Spot the difference.
“…the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics.”
If she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood, and therefore, a witch!.
The latter one doesn’t hide the data or methodology.
There might be a correlation, actually I would even bet on a clear correlation between the believe in conspiracy theories and the refusal of climate science. But that’s not the point. A climate sceptic doesn’t refuse the science, he refuses the belief in the certainity of models that haven’t been proofed yet in yielding accurate results for the future.
We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology
Best part of the whole letter. Made my day!
Please check Mr W’s link from above…
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html
Some good comments ARE getting on:
BarryW
DGH
Foxgoose
RichardT
JaimeJ
Good show!
Not sure how long they will stay up so enjoy whilst you can…
======================================================
Thanks for that. Reminds me of a poem.
One man awake can waken another.
The second can waken his next door neighbor.
And two awake can rouse the town and turn the whole place upside down.
And many awake can raise such a fuss that it finally awakens the rest of us.
One man awake with dawn in his eyes, multiplies.
(I hesitated to post that because it was written about the Good News of Jesus Christ. That’s eternal. But I think it is apropos for WUWT even though tomorrow the “CA” of CAGW may be about CAGCooling. Thanks and respects to Anthony.)
John Whitman says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm
“Cook chose unwisely to be Lewandowsky’s faux-psych water boy.
I envy those of you who escaped the painfully embarassing spectacle at the 2013 Fall AGU meeting in SFO where John Cook (Lewandowsky’s co-author of ‘Recursive) gave several incoherent talks where he hyped his research in the ‘Recursive’ paper.”
Oh lordy mine, the guy talks as well as he draws cartoons; that is a “climate communications fellow”? What I find interesting is he talks about how this or that influences “climate belief”. Meaning, what we call warmists are in his words “climate believers”.
Max Erwengh says:
April 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm
“There might be a correlation, actually I would even bet on a clear correlation between the believe in conspiracy theories and the refusal of climate science.”
Highly unlikely. Nearly all leftists believe in conspiracies when it pertains to the Bush presidency but willingly accept everything from the IPCC. Destroys your correlation completely.
Not to forget great comments from:
Tlitb1
IanW
JonathanC
No supporting comments at all for the Prof yet.
That’s gotta hurt!
🙂
Robin says:
April 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm
“Psychology is indeed the new frontier.”
Nope; integral part of the imperial project since about 1917 (Bernays, advisor to Woodrow Wilson and nephew of Siggi freud, uses his Uncle’s techniques to present Wilson as bringer of democracy to war-torn Europe; 1933: Goebbels uses Bernays’ techniques, installs nation-wide propaganda media network; 1945: Allied start reprogramming Germans, keeping Goebbels’ propaganda network in place to this day; prohibit said network from reporting about war crimes committed by the Allied, at least until 1990, maybe even today – don’t know whether that particular SHAEF law is currently in force; bit sketchy there; you gotta track the layers of “negation laws” that declare an earlier law invalid, but are sometimes themselves rendered invalid by later laws).
Also, and complementary to Freud: Wundt’s research into conditioning, continued by Pavlow, Skinner. Humans as reprogrammable automata. Also : experiments to wipe out “defective” personalities with “electroconvulsive therapy” in the 1950ies, 60ies, and reprogram “blank” humans.
A “frontier” it might be, but not so new.