Seems there’s a little too much emotion with this one, Ugo Bardi, who seems to have a burr up his butt for WUWT (in comments to his own article) while completely ignoring complaints like this one.
It is important to note that Mr. Bardi is NOT the editor of Frontiers in Psychology, where Lewandowski’s Recursive Fury paper was published, then retracted. He’s just some guy that works for the same publisher on another publication. His resignation would be akin to some middle level division manager at a company resigning because some other division manager made a decision he didn’t like, even though the decision doesn’t even affect his division.
He writes:
After the recent events in the saga of the paper titled “Recursive Fury” by Lewandowsky et al., I am stating my disappointment by resigning from Chief Specialty Editor of the Frontiers journal
You may have followed the story of “Recursive Fury“, the paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and others that the journal “Frontiers“ had published in 2013. The paper reported the results of a survey that showed that the rejection of climate science was often accompanied by a similar mindset on other scientific areas. So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.
As it might have been expected, after publication, a storm of negative comments was unleashed against both the authors of “Recursive Fury” and the journal. What was unexpected, instead, was the decision to withdraw the paper taken by the editorial board of Frontiers.
I found the behavior of the publisher already highly objectionable at this stage. However, I could at least understand it (if not agree on it). They stated that “[Frontier’s] 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 themselves seemed to share my opinion when they said, “The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article”
Unfortunately, now Frontiers has issued a new note where they backtrack from the previous statement and they seem to indicate that they found substantial problems in the paper. The new Frontiers’ note is discussed in detail by Lewandowsky himself in a post titled: “revisiting a retraction“.
…
The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don’t take a strong stance on this issue. Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can take, that is I am resigning from “Chief Specialty Editor” of Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the “Recursive Fury” case. I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.
=============================================================
You can read his full statement here: http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html?m=1
h/t to Barry Woods via Twitter
An amateur publicity stunt.
Another definition of a “Global Warm-monger”: One who always picks up a stick by the wrong end.
DLTDHYOTWO
Good Ridance to the stuff that float on dirty water.
You go Bardi. You have no idea about how little I care.
Ugo Bardi is a Club of Rome member. ‘Nuff said.
Ciao, Ugo … careful the door doesn’t smack you on the butt on your way out. Member of the Club of Rome ? Good one weeded out, where’s the rest of these frauds ?
seems global warmers think any journal that takes down a paper with valid problems in it is ‘giving in’ to intimidation lol
From his ‘Professional Home Page’: Ugo Bardi is the author of “EXTRACTED: how the quest for mineral wealth is plundering the planet.”
“He is a member of the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Florence, where he teaches physical chemistry. He is active in research in subjects such as mineral resources, renewable energy, system dynamics applied to economics and more. He is member of the Club of Rome, of the scientific committee of the ASPO association for the study of peak oil, and of the scientific committee of the “Climalteranti” group active on climate change. Founder and former president of the Italian section of ASPO. He is chief editor of Frontiers in Energy Systems and Policy . His articles have appeared on “The Oil Drum,” “Energy Bulletin”, “Financial Sense on line” and on Cassandra’s Legacy.”
Climalteranti is a green activist organisation.
Just another greenie feeding at the teat of misguided government largesse.
Have known Bardi for a while…the Italian climate debate is minuscule and that’s life. He is well famed for seeing Peak here and Peak there, starting from decades IIRC of Peak Oil doomspeech. There is plenty of material on the blog of a self-proclaimed Cassandra for any small psychologist mind to peruse and diagnose all sorts of conditions, really.
Bardi is also an enthusiastic Mann supporter and has fantasized about having his own Magic Circle of good and convinced people. A potential cult in the making, considering also he’s got his own set of Supporters already who believe everything he says.
As far as I am concerned these latest antics are not unexpected, just a sad cliché, the passionate Italian who immolates for a cause, only he doesn’t really, as I suspect any Frontiers monies (if any) have never been a major source of income.
Club of Rome, all heavily affiliated with the UN, the chief promulgators of the cAGW myth. We must all note the comment from IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres on January 13th – Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model. This stunt should get us all smelling a rat about the true motives behind it all. Club of Rome (publishers of “Limits to Growth”) supports depopulation. Just wish they would start with themselves..
“The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general”
Firstly, climate alamists have been intimidating those who disagree with them for years (e.g. see Climategate 1 & 2 releases).
Secondly, most real scientists do not see Climate “Science” as actual science, more like astrology.
Thirdly, climate “science” cannot have its reputation damaged since it is seen as pseudoscience. Built on years of data manipulation, cherry picking and mistruths.
“All ready” not “already”…
‘Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.’
Only if you are reading Archie Comics, bub.
Aahhh diddums
Don’t worry. This man still has lots of sources of income left. In Germany we call that: “he falls softly”.
“The founder of The Association for the Study of Peak Oil“. Say what??? That must be a fascinating group. I bet they alternate their time with the Association for the Study Of Paint Drying.
Confusedphoton says: “Secondly, most real scientists do not see Climate “Science” as actual science, more like astrology.”
Speaking as a scientist: I wish I had said that.
So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.
Huh?
charles nelson says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:49 am
“So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
You can spread your lies on the MSM where they might help you delude the idiots amongst the population; but what advantage do you gain from showing that you are either a liar or an idiot yourself here?
Sorry Charles. I didn’t notice you quoted him. Try adding quotes next time, please.
… did someone call me?
Well the journal now has the advantage of one less, less competent editor.
So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer.,
Actual Lew’s paper failed totally to even do this , its not just rubbish on a ehtical front its BS all the way down. Like a religion they start with an assumption that anything that supports the dogma is a unquestionable truth , even if make no sense or has no scientific validity. It is not a little ironic that those that claim AGW sceptics have no science often use an approach to the scientific mythology of which is the same as a recently dead wombat. NONE what so ever .
I would think that Frontiers is well rid of such a bigoted individual as Ugo Bardi. This is a man who has the timerity to believe that he knows the views of every global warming sceptic on Aids, cigarette smoking causing cancer, and other nasty afflictions. A disgraceful man who is prepared to lie and criticise good journalistic practice in order to promote his own twisted viewpoint at any cost. He is an insult to the profession to which he belongs, and one would hope that there is no publication in the World that would stoop to giving him employment.
Don’t
Let
The
Door
Hit
You
Where
The
Good
Lord
Split
You
FYI
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/9/ethical-confirmations.html#comments
And check his supporting cast!
“I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.”
OH! So he has not actually resigned. He’s just said he “intends” to.
What’s the betting he’ll still be there in 6 months, when he realises his little shit-fit does not make any difference.
” So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
We actually they were “found to” it was made up. That’s why the paper got retracted.
If you can’t see that then it’s a damned good move that you resign from any position where you may have influence on what gets into any journal.
You go, Ugo. We’re right behind you on that one.
Oh, you are really going , aren’t you? No just “intending to”.
“The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don’t take a strong stance on this issue. “
How many decent, scientific method observing scientists have lost their incomes if they happen to attempt to have a sceptical paper published? How many good journals have been closed due to pressure from alarmists?
How many good scientists have had to wait until they have retired, before they felt safe to comment on how poor, and anti-scientific, climate science is.
It is about frikken time that real scientists stood up for scientific integrity and enforcing a scientific method in it’s entirety. Something which Lewandowski completely failed to do.
If that forces out editors who wish to abandon the scientific method, and who defend the shoddiest of science, then good!
So they’ve been intimidated into saying they weren’t intimidated, even though the people claiming intimidation weren’t the originally intimidating ones, just some interested intimidating parties who align themselves with those who would intimidate skeptics with calls for war trials and imprisonment.
And they say we’re conspiracy theorists????
Of Lewandowski et al. 2013 Bardi writes:
“So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
The trouble about Bardi is that he did not do what any sensible person, particularly for one who has a scientific background, should have done. Before defending Lewandowski’s paper he could have invited a number of climate sceptics – and there must be some amongst his acquaintances – whether they believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. Since the paper was published I have spoken with somewhere between forty and fifty friends, all of whom are CAGW sceptics but all of whom believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. OK, a relatively small sample but enough to throw doubt on Lewandowski.
Incidentally, one would have expected Bardi to know that HIV stands for “human immunodeficiency virus” and hence his reference to the “HIV virus” is nonsense.
My wife often asks me why do so many still believe in CAGW in the face of all the evidence? I think that there are two answers. Many of us do not think for ourselves, something that the late Josef Goebbels exploited to the full. And of those that can think for themselves, most have a political or a financial reason (or both) for espousing the false conjecture.
“We must all note the comment from IPCC chief, Christiana Figueres on January 13th – Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.””
Odd since China’s main scientist expressed doubts about AGW not long ago. China is building
mostly hydro and nuclear low carbon power because of their air pollution, not because they
believe it wil affect the climate. And referring to China as a Communist country is quite a stretch.
Cuba and North Korea are the only bona fide Communist nations these days and neither of them
is doing anything with respect to climate.
These guys are clearly unbalanced and should be remanded to the custody of the brilliant Dr. Lew where they can plot the demise of civilization and a return to simpler times when humankind dwelled in caves and foraged for nuts and berries.
Editor my a**!…this is an activist who (judging by his support for the slimy Dr. Lew) was predisposed toward abusing his editing position for “the cause”.SEE YA!
Oddly enough, I am a ‘Climate Skeptic’ who also happens to have a daughter that is a Doctor involved in AIDS research and I most decidedly believe that AIDS is related to HIV ( I also do not believe that AIDS was developed by the CIA and deployed in Africa as a bio-weapons test). I also do not believe that the moon landings were faked, nor do I believe in ‘chem trails’, or that the US government was behind 9/11, rigging the World Trade Center with explosives.
If Mr Lewandowsky wants to look for ‘conspiracist ideation’ he need look no further than folks like Mr Bardi, who clearly has a firm conspiracy belief regarding ‘climate skeptics’.
nice article http://highflyersarena.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/the-solutions-to-africas-problems-lie-in-africa-prof-george-ayittey/
Why did it take so long? Did another journal offer him a job if he resined? Who cares?
“He’s just some guy that works for the same publisher on another publication.”
LOL! “just some guy”. Ha ha, that cracked me up, thanks!
http://highflyersarena.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/the-solutions-to-africas-problems-lie-in-africa-prof-george-ayittey/
The Peter Principle at work, Or maybe he is just using it as an excuse to get out while the getting is good.
Don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.
This is the second piece of good news from that journal in recent days. At this rate they may get some respectability.
Does Frontiers live up to what is advertised on the label?
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Oh yes? Intention to resign??? Not actually resign?? Hmmmmm. What a weak-kneed man of no moral virtue. If you are really resigning in protest, go ahead and resign. Be done with it. Otherwise stop being a drama queen and turn up for work on Monday and collect your pay cheque like the wages slave you probably are.
Says a lot for Dr Bardi that he even gets the overview of the retracted paper wrong:
“The paper reported the results of a survey that showed that the rejection of climate science was often accompanied by a similar mindset on other scientific areas.”
If he can’t even refer to the right paper (Recursive Fury, which purported to be a study of the responses on sceptical websites to the ‘Moon Hoax’ paper, which IS the one reporting the survey results and has not to date been retracted or significantly amended), why should we take any of the rest of his commentary seriously?
Here’s the thing.
HIV causes AIDS. This is something that can be PROVEN. Nobody with AIDS doesn’t have HIV. Before there was treatment, the vast majority of HIV positive patients went on to develop AIDS. That is called “a valid conclusion”.
Cigarette smoking dramatically increases the chances of getting cancer. This is also easily documented (not secondhand smoke, that’s NOT documented). Also, there is a huge amount of junk science associated with smoking, including doctors that put down “smoking” as cause of death no matter what a smoker died of.
Human influence, however, cannot be shown to cause climate change, global warming, global cooling, bigger storms, smaller storms, more rain, less rain, drought, floods, earthquakes, meteorites, comets, communicating with the dead, more snow, less snow, record snow, average temperatures, NONE OF THOSE. And to go one step further, the weather is NOT outside norms, neither are temperatures. Neither is ice melt, or freeze, or sea level rise or fall. NONE OF THOSE.
So really, which side of this absurd exercise is scientific, and which is voodoo?
I think we should be grateful that a person so ignorant of the facts has moved on to where he will (hopefully) do less damage.
U Go Bardi!
“Solomon Green says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:57 am
… Since the paper was published I have spoken with somewhere between forty and fifty friends, all of whom are CAGW sceptics but all of whom believe that AIDs is caused by HIV. OK, a relatively small sample but enough to throw doubt on Lewandowski.”
If memory serves (and I’m sure someone here can correct me if I’m wrong), your data sample is many times the size of Lew’s. I recall that he used a sample of 10. Have you considered publishing?
Ugo Bardi is the kind of guy who gives Euro-trash a bad name.
The Club of Florence has spoken…
He is protesting that rules of science based on things like ethics and evidence may be coming back into control. For club of Rome types, this is completely unacceptable. Club of Rome members have been falsely predicting disaster for something over 30 years. Having high level public push back by people who decline to allow them to continue to manipulate the public with false evidence and use unethical means is not acceptable to the Ugo Bardi’s of the world.
So did Ugo Bardi defend the rights of skeptical climate scientists and others to disagree? Below are a few things that sceptics have had to endure over the years. Mr. Bardi must be aware of a little science history and controversy of the past. Is this the way we settle science in the 21st century? What if you are wrong as per the IPCC’s future climate effects? Will you apologize to us?
OTHER EXAMPLES OF THREATS & NASTINESS
• No Pressure 10:10 video showing blowing up sceptics & children.
• Weather Channel expert proposed withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
• Attempting to get a journal editor fired because of disagreement with the Team.
• Willing to redefine what the peer review process is to keep sceptical paper out.
• Proposal to fire UK cabinet ministers who are against the consensus.
• Burn sceptical book from Heartland.
• Endless use of the word ‘denier’ by scientists, journalists, politicians etc.
More…..
More…..
Does this now mean that the ‘Journal’ will now publish research of better quality and reliability ?
This is a brilliant publicity stunt. Before, Ugo Bardi was just a relatively unknown alarmist. Now he is a CAGW hero who was unwilling to silenced and was willing to stand up for what he believes in. (And since he was willing to resign because of the politically correct belief, he will make more money now than ever before.) He can now claim that he resigned so as to not be part of an institution that intimidates climate scientists. None of those claims are true, of course. But you must remember the twisted logic of an alarmist: Michael Mann claims he is slandered while he goes around insulting people, Al Gore claims there is a Big Oil conspiracy while he takes Big Oil money for his former TV station, and so on. In one quick act Ugo Bardi elevated himself from small fish to big fish.
Ian Blanchard +1 – This Bardi idiot can’t even refer to the right paper. Then, like McKibbon, he thinks he’s damaging the world with his indignation. Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Thanks Espen. It looks like it migh be the same guy as he talks a lot about energy. It would appear he is an advocate for alternative energy too. No surprise he resigned.
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=6166
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=6634
It all simply says that pressure is being put to Frontiers (behind close doors) and so far it is not having the desired effect.
One less idiot working there…..How can that be a bad thing? McDonald’s is always hiring!
Poor widdo ting
Lucky day for “Frontiers” journal. They now have the opportunity to replace their “Chief Specialty Editor” with somebody who is not a fool.
My, how sour the grapes are! Bardi needs to look up the term ‘confirmation bias’.
Jimbo: You can also find him in the list of full members on their site: http://www.clubofrome.org/?cat=51&paged=3
A guy who has no idea the details and hasn’t been impacted resigns in protest.
What a drama queen.
“The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general.”
I completely agree with the guy on that statement. For example, consider the bullying of Keith Baugues reported in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/what-defines-a-scientist/
Greg says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:27 am
—
But you don’t understand. The paper came to the proper (as defined by him) conclusion, therefore it must be a good paper.
Jimbo says: April 9, 2014 at 4:35 am “Does Frontiers live up to what is advertised on the label?”
Good question and Ugo Bardi isn’t living up to the “without borders or discrimination” part for that matter posting his nonsense at cassandralegacy where every comment must be approved to be seen at all – unlike here where honest open debate is always welcome.
The alarmists are filling the moat, lifting the draw bridge and lowering the iron gate as we surround them – let the siege begin.
Chris B says: April 9, 2014 at 6:33 am ….
I went to Youtube to watch that. Guess how fast I clicked the close window button when I read: “Comments are disabled for this video” ?
Such people only listen to themselves…
– – – – – – – – – –
Bardi,
You maintain the honored practice of voting with your feet. But, you should have voted with your science instead.
John
That image of Lewny reminded me a bit of the March Hare.
Lewandowsky is a part of the non-scientific exaggerationist clique that is causing the decline in public trust in science.
The intellectual fate of the ideological basis for alarming climate from anthropogenic CO2 now rests in the hands of Lewandowsky, Mann and Oreskes. That is why its failure is inevitable and will be mercifully quite.
John
Oops.
Edit to John Whitman says April 9, 2014 at 7:23 am follows:
That is why its failure is inevitable and will be mercifully
quitequick.John
One creepy guy defending another. End result is still creepy, so ta-ta, Ugo. It is truly unfortunate that your name belies your actions.
“I found the behavior of the publisher already highly objectionable at this stage.”
Objectionable related to “Recursive Fury” or other unrelated behavior? Could just be a crank who was looking to resign for other reasons. Might have even been an unpaid position.
Not a burr. More likely an organic inverted pine cone sustainably implanted. What he wrote are the screams of a self-flagellating monk at the alter of AGW trying to pass his nugget of belief.
This was funny. It reminded me of my online gaming days when a player would rage quit.
To which other players would ask, “Can I have your stuff?”
“Intention to resign.” Yeah just like Eric Holthaus “intended” to have his vasectomy.
RE: April 9, 2014 at 4:37 am
Andrew says:
“Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
Or better, don’t let your data hit you on the way out.
Resign what? His contributing editor status? I gather that he still has his full-time job and has suffered no significant loss of income.
Poor Ugo. Wrong about so much, so loudly, for so long.
Oh diddums. Little Ugo is taking his marbles and going home
Jimbo says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:33 am
There was also James Cameron’s threat of shooting at high noon but I think you left him out because he turned yellow and ran:
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/kulaki/media/Cartoons/JamesCameronatHighNoon.jpg.html
Storyline:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/23/filmmaker-james-cameron-backs-out-global-warming-debate-he-organized
Good, good. Perhaps it will give him some time to take a remedial English course, wherein he could learn things such as writing “risk to do” something is incorrect. The correct format is that you risk doing something. So, instead of saying “risks to do great damage to”, he should simply have said “risks doing great damage to”, and instead of “risks to deteriorate”, he should have said “risks deteriorating”.
Of course, unfortunately for him, he’d still be an idiot, but at least he could be a somewhat educated one.
He sounds … furious. Hey, wait a minute. That gives me an idea for a new psychology paper. Working title: Recursive Fury Remixed, Its Turtles All The Way Down. Ok, I got to work on the title a bit more.
mpaul says:
April 9, 2014 at 9:03 am
Recursive Fury Reanalysed. With an “s” so it sounds more worldly.
Back when I worked at a large aerospace company one old timer taught me a good lesson. He said, stick your hand in a bucket of water, now pull it out. How long did the hole last? That’s how long you’ll be missed.
Buh-bye. And I really hope the door was designed by Acme and installed by Wily E Coyote.
“Lewandowsky is a part of the non-scientific exaggerationist clique that is causing the decline in public trust in science.”
That’s the sad/funny/ironic part. He and the other exaggerationists think they’re helping their cause. In reality, they are just bringing shame and embarrassment to it and therefore damaging it.
What actual effect does L think that nitpicking internet blog comments is going to accomplish? It’s such a petty little idea of what science is. It would be fine as a one-time political riposte in a blog or newspaper, but wasting time in an academic journal on it is just embarrassing. Thirty years from now, looking back, that paper will have no meaning at all, whether AGW turns out to be true or false.
(Well, it might possibly be a signature example of AGW hysteria run amok, but nothing more than that.)
So Bardi is Club Of Rome too, icky, a de-populationista as well. Hmmmm. Kinda like Ted Turner who publically espouses that all the worlds problems are solved by removing 87.5% of the human population because we all use up too much “stuff”. I guess the problem for me is who gets to stay and enjoy all the “stuff” that we are using today and subsequently in the future? Looks to me like the plan is to get as many people to agree to self terminate and not procreate ( unless you are one of “them”) so “THEY” can have all the stuff along with trout streams and beachfront mansions and of course a remnant human population living on some veganesque mandated diet “for the world”. I have my own ideas about a lot of things and I am insulted that LEWs’ paper even dared to psychologically profile a whole diverse population of very smart people as fringe lunatics. So Bardi only INTENDS to fall on his own nerf sword… baw haw haw boo hoo hoo , maybe more of these kind of editors will follow him and more younger honest truth seeking editors will replace the lot. I for one simply want the truth, good or bad. One thing I learned from some wonderful native elders was how important truth was to the ancient traditional peoples. Lies were as bad a crime as murder. Why? Because an untruth could lead a people off a cliff and hurt or kill many. Speaking figuratively here, but you get the idea.
From Lew’s latest STW post: “Although we have destroyed all correspondence and documents involving the allegations against us at the request of Frontiers…”
I don’t understand how destruction of information can be treated with such a blasé attitude amongst the warmist set.
– – – – – – – – –
kcom1,
I intentionally used the word ‘clique’ to describe them because they publically act like the puerile cliques found in American high schools. Specifically I think Mann, Oreskes and Lewandowsky appear, in public as intellectually close associates, to behave with similarly styled cliquish antics.
John
If you can stand it, the following Bardi blog is a worship of Obama, the Savior. The savior is stopping the evil American destruction of the world because of our demand for oil.
However, the Italians are not fooled. One says he is not convinced and calls this “populist Ecodemogoguery”
Another “Obama was voted in by idiots and after his destruction will not be re-elected. Pay attention to what he passes {in secret/behind the scenes} quietly with decree-law (pen and cell phone}. We will see the outcome of any leader who takes his nation in destruction. This will be the positive outcome for the world {to be aware}.
We will see that any junkie sociopath can sit in that chair. If he is, we will see in 10 years looking back the level of destruction he has caused.
Looks like Bardi didn’t have very much success ramping up his paying supporters in Italy either.
http://aspoitalia.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-bless-you-mr-obama.html
Ugo’s 15 minutes are up. Who’s next?
My other laughingstock is a Ugo.
rogerknights says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:13 am
That image of Lewny reminded me a bit of the March Hare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That image consistently reminds me of Bill the Cat… “ack!”
Ugo wrote “So ‘Climate skeptics’ were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
This smear probably originates over twenty years ago with S. Fred Singer. Mind you, Singer did not doubt that smoking and cancer were linked – only that second-hand smoke did. (And as an environmental scientists myself, I agree with him to this day because the best evidence does not support the claim: the real motive of banning “ETS” – environmental tobacco smoke – is political, ie, to make smoking socially unacceptable.)
As for HIV-Aids, during the 1980s and into the 1990s, there was a small but informed and often prestigious contingent of skeptics, the so-called “Aids denialists.” Having studied them in detail, including one Nobel laureate in medicine, I can only say that these people’s skepticism rested on an error that HIV-Aids ought to function like bacterial infectious agents, ie, rather simply and on contact.
Their mistake rests on not understanding that a virus is unique infectious agent, more akin to mineral than old-fashioned Aristotelian definitions of “life” for biologists. Accordingly, most of these scientists tended to be rather old – their training and scientific work pretty much removed from modern genetic sciences – and thus reflected out of touch judgements.
But Ugo’s conflation of “Aids denialism” with AGW skeptics is not a stance born of understanding criticism but of politically driven opportunism. Ugo Bardi’s connection with the Club of Rome and other extremist enviro-Nazi movement nicely illustrates the fact that Ruper Darwall’s recent history “The Age of Global Warming.” AGW-Believers are anti-industrial and anti-human. And very dangerous in power.
Wow, what an ugly character. Just UGLY. I need to wash…
This is a better link (the other adds ?m=1, which doesn’t show all of the comments):
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html
Ugo needs to go it alone and launch Cassandra.
RokShox – if it was sent from a UWA or Bristol email addr then it may be fair game for a request under the appropriate FOI law, particularly since he’s indicated an intent to destroy correspondence related to university-sponsored work
Has he actually READ Lewandowsky’s papers. Lewandowsky’s first paper is nothing more than a statistically incompetent analysis of an extremely poorly done internet survey! That alone makes it worthless garbage and ought to completely disqualify it from for publication in any reputable journal. His second paper is nothing more than a bunch of quotations from blogs taken out of context used to construct ridiculous speculations that the authors suffer from some kind of psychological disease. If Lewandowsky wants to do silly internet surveys or make nasty comments about people he disagrees with on the internet he should do it on his blog like everyone else. Psychology cannot be regarded as a proper grown up science if this kind of infantile stuff is to be accepted as publishable research in the area.
Ugo Bardi, by his very public resignation ploy, is not serving well the credibility of Lewandowsky. This publicity will tend to keep people thinking of the fatal survey and ethics flaws in the other Lewandowsky paper ‘Moon Hoax’ which is the essential basis of the retracted ‘Recursive Fury’. Ugo Bardi’s unwise PR on resignation reminds the public of the idea of retraction of fatally flawed ‘Moon Hoax’ as well.
I just posted this at Lucia’s Blackboard post on ‘Consent’ in the research done by Lew et al for the ‘Moon Hoax’ paper published by the journal Psychological Science’.
John
” So “Climate skeptics” were also found to reject the notion that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and that smoking causes cancer. A result not at all surprising for those of us who follow the climate debate in detail.”
Anyone posting here on WUWT like to confess to being a conspiracy theorist? If yes, please indicate if you are a Sceptic or an Alarmist. Also what your favourite conspiracy might be.
Just curious. I know it’s not exactly a very scientific study, but then, neither was the Lew paper.
[snip too stupid to print -mod]
And so WUTW shows its gutless side.
My wife says I would be handsome if I lost my gut. I vote for gutless . . . . . : )
John
John Whitman says:
I don’t know. I like to think of myself as fat and prosperous.
Interesting stuff:
Two more Editors among Frontier’s journals are (allegedly, according to DesmogBlog) resigning over the Lewandowsky saga: Colin Davis (Univ of Bristol) and Björn Brembs (Univ Regensburg)
Don’t know more about any of them, and haven’t found (or looked for) more information.
If the heat keeps up on Frontiers, perhaps they’ll admit that the real reason they rejected Fury is that they took a second look at Moon Hoax and decided they didn’t want to be associated with such a loony author.
rogerknights
Two things:
Being an ‘editor’ at Frontiers doesn’t mean all that much, there are very many of them, and the duties and tasks they carry out are quite limited. In Ugo Bardi’s case, the whole ‘journal’ seems to consist om seven publications, five of which did not have Bardi as or among the authors. Essentially all other authors were ‘editors’ too. Notable is that the ‘Editorial Board’ consists of 170 individuals, while all in all there are a total 12 authors published in that journal.
But more importantly, I too think that the stated reasons for the final take-down of ‘Fury’ are just the minimum information justifying that decision. I most certainly would hope that they factored in how exceedingly bad and deceitful both ‘Moon Hoax’ and ‘Fury’ are, that (at best!) there is no substance at all in that ‘data’, and thus realized that neither ‘science’ nor Frontiers are served by association with Lew and his scribblings …
And I would expect them to never state so in public. Actually I was surprised by how explicit they were in their 2nd statement distancing themselves from the Lew-paper (and its versions) detailing what they wanted (instead!)
Anyone who quits the editorial board over this the Frontiers journals are better off without.