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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.