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
Sorry for the misspelling and punctuation. Also the “why this could be allowed to happen” as a psychological subject is also a topic that could be explored. So full of “compartments”, but so predictable. A cracking research project.
one small step forward, two “companion papers” backwards:
5 April: eScienceNews: Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster
Source: University of Bristol
Scientific uncertainty has been described as a ‘monster’ that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change. New research by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, and international colleagues, shows that uncertainty should make us more rather than less concerned about climate change. In two companion papers, published today in Climatic Change, the researchers investigated the mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system and showed that increased scientific uncertainty necessitates even greater action to mitigate climate change.
The scientists used an ordinal approach — a range of mathematical methods that address the question: ‘What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?’…
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol, said: “We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation.”
Co-author, Dr James Risbey of Australia’s CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said: “Some point to uncertainty as a way to minimize the climate change problem, when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty. This result is robust to a range of assumptions and shows that uncertainty does not excuse inaction.”…
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/04/05/scientists.unmask.climate.uncertainty.monster
4 April: All Voices: Robert Myles: Mathematically speaking, uncertainty on climate change no excuse for inaction
The researchers used an ordinal approach in their analysis — a method of mathematical analysis often used to weigh the preferences of consumers when it comes to choosing different goods and services — posing the question, “What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?”…
Never too much uncertainty for action
Commenting on the findings, Professor Lewandowsky said: “We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation.”
In the debate on climate change, climate change skeptics demand ad nauseam proof of man-made or anthropogenic climate change. The absence of such cast-iron, bullet-proof “proof” is often voiced as a reason for carrying on much as before, extracting and burning fossil fuels into oblivion.
Co-author of the study, Dr. James Risbey of Australia’s CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, countered such an approach, adding, “Some point to uncertainty as a way to minimize the climate change problem, when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty. This result is robust to a range of assumptions and shows that uncertainty does not excuse inaction.”…
The authors findings are likely to find a ready audience anywhere from the Somerset Levels in England, recently flooded for months after years of inaction on flood prevention despite pleas from residents, to the New Jersey shore, pummeled by Superstorm Sandy in 2012…
The research is published under the titles “Scientific Uncertainty and Climate Change: Part I. Uncertainty and Unabated Emissions’” and “Scientific Uncertainty and Climate Change: Part II. Uncertainty and Mitigation.” It was conducted by a team including scientists from the University of Bristol, University of Western Australia, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australian National University, University of New South Wales and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16827187-mathematically-speaking-uncertainty-on-climate-change-no-excuse-for-inaction
I’ve tried unsuccessfully several time to log into shaggingtomorrowsworld. Is it really worth it?
/sarc
Earlier on I labeled “Recursive Fury” — junk science.
I am sorry. The poet in me now realizes I should have labeled it — crap science.
Eugene WR Gallun
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/04/journal-takes-lewandowsky-and-his-supporters-to-task-over-threats-over-retracted-recursive-fury-paper/#comment-1606492
John: I responded to your post. 🙂
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89768
5 April: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Green ‘smear campaign’ against professor who dared to disown ‘sexed up’ UN climate dossier
Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation
Professor from Sussex University is a highly respected climate economist
Criticised by campaigners after saying report summary was ‘alarmist’
In his opinion, it focused on ‘scare stories’
The source of the alleged smear campaign is Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
Mr Ward – neither an economist nor a climate expert – claimed on the institute’s website that he was waging ‘an ongoing struggle’ to force Prof Tol to correct ‘errors’ in his work.
Mr Ward had earlier sent an email disparaging Prof Tol’s research to several leading IPCC scientists and officials.
They included Prof Tol’s fellow co-ordinating lead author, Doug Arent, director of America’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Professor Chris Field of Stanford University, the overall chairman and editor of the IPCC report…
How IPPC report was ramped up to predict wars, extreme weather and famine… while its authors slept on the job
By BEN PILE
High profile commentators, including the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey, often describe climate change sceptics as ‘deniers’, on a par with those who reject evidence of the Holocaust.
One Sunday columnist recently insisted the parallel was exact, because the evidence of global warming is as strong as that for Auschwitz.
Academics who deviate from the perceived ‘correct’ line risk vilification…
The emissions cuts agreed by the EU and other countries at the 1997 Kyoto Treaty and imposed by our own Climate Change Act have made energy more expensive, and exported jobs and prosperity to countries such as China – which adds billions of watts of coal fired power to its grid each year. CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
The architects of such policies know they have failed, but they have no alternative except more of the same. Maybe it’s because their argument is weak that they resort to climate McCarthyism. The cost, apart from higher energy bills, is to democracy, and free speech.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html
ACTING DISHONESTLY UNDER THE FALSE FLAG OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
The editors of FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY had it thrown in their faces that Recursive Fury was a personal rant and not science. Let me repeat that — a PERSONAL RANT and not science.
Needing to exhibit at least some integrity for their journal to maintain any credibility whatsoever, they realized the paper had to be retracted — but scared of the frothing that retraction would create in the manic warmist community they could not openly state what were the real reasons for the retraction. (That would hurt the reputation of one of their own wouldn’t it.) So they made up this fiction that the paper did “not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects”.
In other words they found a way to retract the paper under the false flag of a minor methodological ethical breach that their overly worried lawyers felt created a potential for UNJUST LEGAL HARASSMENT of the journal.
So the liars found a way to lay all the blame on the “denialists” and not expose the real reasons for the retraction.
I am sure the editors at FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY are all sitting around congratulating themselves that they found such an “ethical” reason to cover up their dishonesty and bias.
Eugene WR Gallun
.
they have to fight back against the well funded oil shills. or is it kochs? or is it still bush’s fault?
i can’t keep the conspiracies straight any more. . .
I see McKibben wants to flog us all with a feather-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/strike_strike_strike/
“At this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more …”
Somehow I don’t think that will win you a lot of friends and influence among Big Climate but you did use the weasel word ‘might’. Go on mate you tell em long and loud! One out all out Bill?
Anthony,
This win has legs. You have been handed a very durable beating stick.
cross-posted at Climate Audit:
re: Dana N., SkepticalScience, and Lewandowsky
When examining the Lewandowksy/SkepticalScience nexus, has it been noticed that Lewandowsky provided the SECOND review (in temporal order) to Michael Mann’s 2012 screed when it was published Jan. 28, 2012? So before Lew got publicly involved in publishing his pseudo “studies” of climate psychology he was already a self-identified polemical ally of Michael Mann, vehemently attacking critics of Mann et al.
Lewandowsky provides rave review for Michael Mann’s polemic on Amazon, Jan. 28, 2012
i.e., after John Cook’s then-secret campaign with Michael Mann to provide digital review copies to SkS allies in order to open the astro-turf campaign, Lewandowsky weighs in immediately with a detailed (fawning) review once the door opens at Amazon. Did Lew rely upon an advance copy from SkS?
One can see the temporal order of reviews posted on Jan. 28, 2012 at Amazon by going to “all reviews” of Mann’s book, ordering by “Newest First” — and then going to the far end of the list, the oldest. Lewandowsky’s hagiography is number 2.
p.s. Curious, more than 4 years later this remains the only book review that Lewandowsky has ever published at Amazon.com
The facts that (1) it appears to have been part of the SkS “astro-turfing” operation, and (2) John Cook and Dana N. of SkS emerge as close polemical allies of Lewandowsky over the past few years, puts Lewandowsky’s subsequent “scientific” studies of his perceived adversaries in some interesting context. Maybe Frontiers has finally realized that Lew is in no way a dispassionate, disinterested academic providing them with scientific research.
I suppose I shouldn’t really call Lew’s review of Mann “detailed” — it has no intellectual or scientific detail or merit — but I meant that it is relatively long for an Amazon review and does provide indications of access to the book, whether or not Lew had read it with any care…..
Dana N. (with personal knowledge of Cook-Lewandowsky??) claims Frontiers story is “far from over”
@Skiphil 9:55PM
Just like they do at Skeptical Science with comments, it looks like Dana revised his comment post facto
re: “peer review” on Lewandowsky et al.
Interesting survey of the ‘Frontiers’ issue wrt scientific peer review and dubious student reviewer Elaine McKewon
Skiphil says:
April 5, 2014 at 9:13 am
Dana N. on Lewandowsky et al.
“I happen to know the authors agreed to all the revisions requested by Frontiers”
The only way to know that would be to have previewed the changes. The only way he could be sure that these changes were communicated to Frontiers would be an addressee on the same email or to have lodged it himself.
Otherwise it is supposition.
Dana’s suppositions are inconsequential. Journals routinely reject papers after revisions are made.
The Impaired Peers
When I came first into climate change, one of my first really eerie feelings I got was when I realized that so much money, or sinecure, is behind it. And everyone with such a sinecure tried to silence critics by saying that this or that was „peer-reviewed“, thus insinuating that it ist scientifically sound.
So, well, I thought, there is money involved, but hey have had at least their work crosschecked by someone who ist at par with them, who can act as some sort of referee and sees the standards are met. Everything was yet OK with me.
I now have to realize that Peer Review is often, not always, a hoax. It seems to be worst in matters relating to climate sciences. This may be due to the unholy influence of the consensual science concept of the IPCC and its various „reports“.
Manus manum lavat
Scientific articles are published in scientific magazines and on the internet, paywalled of course. These publishers and their staff make a living from that.
So they have to see that they sell well. The more reputable the authors are who submit their articles, the better.
How can these magazines attract authors of high reknown? They have to pamper that clientele at the first place.
Therefore, the editors make it easy for them. Do you need Peer Reviever? Who is on top of your list? Are there any reviewers you don’t want at all? Consider your wishes fulfilled.
Ah, you know your reviewers pretty well? Invite them to submit their publications here. And let them know that you’ll be glad to review their papers occasionally. There is still some honour among thieves…
Publish or Perish
It is obvious that scientists who do not publish will perish, rather sooner than later. I think that this is the reason why articles of dubious content are submitted. They go to the press without much questions asked. Hey folks, these are peer reviewed papers, that should do, shouldn’t it?
Who checks the checkers?
Actually, nobody seems to do that on a regular basis. And nobody actually can but the public on the internet(thank you, Anthony, for providing such a platform), where citizens with some knowledge can exchange thoughts and opinions. But better than knowledge is common sense and logical thinking. That alone can stop many of the weirdos in science in their tracks.
What we need are really independent critics who don’t take evil crap at face value. One great example for that is Lord Mockton, once an editor himself, and a Viscount to stop the Peers.
It is time to look behind the scenes of academic behaviour and misdemeanour. Scrutinize the CV of every Peer Reviewer. Search for hidden connections of personal or financial matter. Make research transparent by giving unconditional free access to the databases. And get peer reviewers expelled from academic grounds that do not stick strictly to the rules. Hirelings of the like of McKewon are, in my opinion, far too many.
Special thanks go to Tony Thomas for
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/climate-papers-without-peer/
Levandovsky is a failure for the same reason Mann is a failure. They don’t heed the basic scientific principles:
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that
you think might make it invalid not only what you think is right about it: other causes
that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated
by some other experiment, and how they worked to make sure the other fellow can tell
they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know
them. You must do the best you can if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly
wrong to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out,
then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree
with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to
make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those
things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the
finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge
the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one
particular direction or another.
Richard P Feynman”
Non Nomen: There is something rotten in the State of Denmark. When an Editorial Board has admitted a paper, they cannot say at a later moment that they just regret their decision and retract the paper. Like in court proceedings new evidence is needed, e.g. shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is Stapel-work (Stapel is a former Social Psychology Professor and by this word the moderation queue can be avoided). In Lew’s case we already have Stapel-work in disguise: there is no need to make up data if you can fish everything you want from the internet. For me and some others here the question remains why Frontiers initially did not return the paper. Why did it survive peer-review?
@Mindert Eiting
Thank you for that “Stapel-Work” hint. Obviously, ithose frauds happened before, and I presume that there are many more scientific icebergs in the seas of science with 90% still under water. I am particularly satisfied that the Lewtanic has hit one of them.
I think that lack of control makes such dubious papers possible: they do not disclose their database. Hey, Mann, keep up with the Joneses! So it is pretty difficult to prove inconsistencies or even that it is a complete phoney job. With respect to the Stapel-proceedings it is absolutely rediculous to let him go with 120 hours of community service.
Some people -they do not deserve being called scientists- are so thirsty for fame that they’d do everything. Honesty in science? Well, I suppose McKewon, Mann et al know better…
@ur momisugly Mindert Eiting
I love awaiting moderation. That’s the poor man’s peer review….
Some AGW-believers tried to defame all skeptics – for believing in conspiracy theories – with Lew’s ‘recursive fury’. In order to defend the ‘recursive fury’, the same pro-AGW-believers are seeking for a refuge in conspiracy theories, which the Frontiers in Psychology declared now unsubstantiated? Oh, the irony.
As I noted over at Steve’s blog, this is going to make the UWA look a lot more deceitful and foolish….
I predict that Lewandowsky will write a “peer reviewed” paper attacking Frontiers using an internet survey.