A lot of popcorn is being consumed these days watching the wailing of the Lewandowsky lemming team as they furiously throw themselves over cyber-cliffs in support of a retracted paper that was doomed from the start by it’s own ethics violations: diagnosing people in absentia as having mental disorders, then using a science journal as a bully pulpit to name and shame those people.
I had the good fortune of having dinner with Steve McIntyre last night, who was in California doing some consulting on mining interests. While most of the conversation was about that topic, invariably the topic turned to the Lewandowsky “Recursive Fury” fiasco. The other people at the table, not knowing any of the history, were incredulous that Steve and I (and others) were the subjects of this paper without our giving consent to be studied as psychological subjects. That conversation coalesced some thoughts for me.
The journal Frontiers in Psyschology obviously thought Lewandowsky et al had gotten consent, otherwise they would not have published it in the first place. Once alerted to that fact, by Steve, myself, and others, they had no choice but to do the right thing: let ethics rules guide the decision to either repair or retract. Obviously, they couldn’t repair the damage, so retraction was the only viable option.
Now, there’s a great disturbance in the farce, as Lewandowsky’s slimetroopers deploy their ultimate weapon, hate, against the editor of the editor of the Frontiers in Psyschology journal who dared to fire back about the hype being generated over the retraction.
One of the slimetroopers, an errant and hateful independent scholar/anthropologist/archaeologist in Minnesota, who shall remain nameless here because he deserves no attention, decided that he was going to take this paragraph, a comment on the recent statement Rights of Human Subjects in Scientific Papers made by Frontiers editor Henry Markram, and “fisk” it for politically correct AGW behavior:
Markram writes at 10:14PM 4/14/14 (bold mine):
My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study. The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter? Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis.
Yes indeed, who does come off as the biggest nutter?
So what does the slimetrooper in Minnesota do? He takes up that challenge and calls Markham a climate change denialist! See below:
Wow, just wow. The lack of self awareness here is stunning.
It used to be that we thought people who are out to “save the planet” at all costs, leaving destruction in their wake were driven by “noble cause corruption“, i.e. the end justifies the means. This phrase was coined to describe the behavior seen in some police departments, where they’d do anything to get the bad guys, including setting people up to commit crimes, making false statements, and planting evidence to get a conviction.
Equally bad, Lewandowsky’s naming people in a science paper as having a psychological affliction without their consent was just another means to an end. Better to get the “deniers” out of the way while the slimetroopers march toward their claimed noble cause of saving the world.
Sadly, watching what has transpired over the Lewandowsky Recursive Fury paper, now it seems that there’s no “noble cause” left in this particular form of “noble cause corruption”, just corruption.
I’ll bet somebody could write a psychology paper about this.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some years ago that Minnesota professor had a debate with Christopher Monkton. It seems to have affected him on a deep psychological level.
Dana Nuccitelli is really not helping, by calling Frontiers liars:
I’ve put a few of his quotes under the line at Frontiers:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/rights_of_human_subjects_in_scientific_papers/830
Seriously (for Frontiers) Dana wrote an article that briefly appeared at Skeptical Science (reported here)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/lewandowsky-paper-flushed-then-floated-again/
(long enough for Google to cache it) before it was deleted from Skeptical Science and it appeared in the Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction
which was prior to Frontiers Retraction Notice. From that article it looks like he was well briefed by the ‘Fury’ authors (Lewandowsky, Cook, or Marriott, all involved, like Dana with Skeptical Science). and that the authors had a PR campaign ready to go (plus The Conversation articles by Elaine, and a video by Prof Lewandowsky, and interviews)
Now he says this, is it just Dana speaking, or Lewandowsky, Cook, Marriott by proxy?
DanaNuccitelli
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/34395796
15 April 2014 3:51pm
“Markham is either clueless or lying in these comments. Just as one example among many, ‘refused to fix it’ is an outright lie. He knows the authors submitted a revised version that de-identified the subjects, as Frontiers requested. This is really appalling behavior on his part.” – Dana Nuccitelli
John Cook is the founder of Skeptical Science.
Professor Lewandowsky and John Cook are co-authors of this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
AND:
Dana Nuccitelli (Sceptical Science contributor/author/admin) seem to be fighting Prof Lewandowsky’s and John Cook (founder of Skeptical Science) battles (by proxy) in the Guardian, which I do not think is very wise.
Dana flat out says that Henry is lying or clueless?!!
“And I’m less than impressed with the editor. He’s either clueless or outright lying in these comments.” – Dana Nuccitelli
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/34395320
Maybe Frontiers should consult their lawyers..
I’m not sure how Prof Lewandowsky can remain involved with Frontiers, in respect of the Chief Editor seemingly thinking he ‘made a monumental mistake’ that they refused to correct’ as this indicates that the Editor in Chief does not trust prof lewandwsky’s judgement..
ref:
previously Lewandowsky:
“I have continued to serve as a co-editor of a forthcoming special issue of Frontiers, I accepted a reviewing assignment for that journal, and I currently have another paper in press with Frontiers. After the retraction, I was approached by several Frontiers editors and authors who were dismayed at the journal’s decision. In all instances I pointed out that I continued to serve as author, reviewer, and co-editor for Frontiers.
http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
Dana
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1683
John
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1
Stephan
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=2541
If someone were to write a psych paper about the Lewandowsky crowd’s behavior, I would suggest
that it would likely find a receptive audience over at Frontiers in Science : Ethics of the AGW
Believers : A Study in Denial. Frontiers’ Markham may even be sugesting such a piece to one of his non-AGW regular contributors.
Imposing hackneyed bourgeois values (“ethics” “objectivity” etc) on efforts to root out denialist scum is itself denialism.
Sincerely,
Clueless in Minnesota
Must obtain permission from the herd of climate catastrophy scientists to include them in a paper diagnosing their tendancy towards exaggerated alarmism lacking scientific defensible observation or model. Easily swayed comes to mind. Weak minded. Greedy. Follow the herd or get left behind. Means justfies an unconnected end? Criminal thinking? With so many variables you would have to have a large subject pool. Done. We have that in spades.
The Minnesota Vileness isn’t a professor. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure he has any visible means of support. ‘Slacker’ is probably the most appropriate job description.
I just finished reading a paper by MIT prof Jay Forester who is known for his work on Limits to Growth in the 70s, but less well known for the adaptation of his work to K-12. Back in 1991 he was describing the intent to target students’ mental models and supply them with the framework to see facts through and to do lots of computer simulations to reenforce.
Beyond greed or naivete or the search for grant money, constructivism in math and science in K-12 and higher ed from the 90s on and this interest in pushing systems thinking and simulations as reflections of reality have created many adults now with a greatly diminished ability to accurately perceive the world as it actually exists or contemplate what is really possible or likely consequences. The computer scenarios have become reality and anything in variance like skeptic blogs are just treated as either places of ignorance or partisanship. Grounded in emotions, facts cannot get through.
As a cognitive science prof Lewandowsky is aware of every thing I am writing about. That’s the basis for that discipline, trying to consciously socially engineer mental models to make behavior predictable and to ground knowledge in emotions instead of reason so that the mindset becomes almost impenetrable to facts. Cognitive science is intricately related to systems science and treating the social sciences as capable of producing predictable results on a par with the natural sciences. That is only possible if psychology and the school curriculum are used to literally get inside the Black Box of the mind. That is how the cog sci researchers describe it too.
Henry Markram is now a skeptic. Like most of the readers here, I’m sure, he started out wanting to get a little more information on the “science” of climate change, or in this case the “ethics” behind a paper in his journal. The response is one that skeptics are familiar with. To ask questions is to be branded a denier. Welcome to the club. We are not nutters or ostriches. Quite the opposite, we are mostly engineers, chemists, physicists, psychologists, geologists, and laymen with an interest in science all of whom are environmentalists who are curious about how the science got “settled” when no one was looking.
“I’ll bet somebody could write a psychology paper about this.”
… and Jonestown as a comparative analysis of abuse of using psychology as a weapon of mass delusion. http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/jonestown.aspx
“In as-yet unpublished research, Zimbardo has found that Jones quite possibly learned his ability to persuade from a famous social thinker: George Orwell.”
rats fighting in a sack is always ‘fun’ for those not in it .
But you hope others would look at this and say , do we really think this is OK ?
Sadly for too long one of the worst elements of ‘the cause ‘ has been the silence of others working in science to the PP behaviour and outright poor scientific pratice of ‘the Team ‘ and its followers and for that we may all end paying the price.
What’s good for the Soviet is good for the world. We own an academic enclave, are supported by central planning governments, pop culture and media tools of all kinds.
Science is a triviality in practice.
Mr. Markham says:
” The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do?”
Mr. Markham, an editor of a journal devoted to psychology, does state his opinion about climate change. Like him, many others state their own opinions, too, contrary to his.
Yet somehow THEY are viewed by Mr. Markham as “ostriches of society” who “keep their heads in the sand”. While not exactly of a personal nature, Mr. Markham’s comment certainly appears intended to denigrate other people with whom Mr. Markham disagrees.
Seems the old saying, “birds of a feather flock together” has some validity.
In one of his online comments Lewandowsky gloated that his activities were causing the “deniers” to waste a lot of time dealing with his various assertions. Sorry, no link, but Steve so quoted Lew in one of his CA discussions. Judged by this standard, Lew ought to be considered one of the most successful participants in the climate discussion, having arguably wasted more of people’s time than anyone else.
“I’ll bet somebody could write a psychology paper about this.”
You could have an entire conference on this!
The noble cause corruption angle has always been much too kind. There are very few true believers in the faulty science, just a bunch of money grubbing jerks.
Already been turned down for a grant by UWA
I’d really like to see the Lewandowsky methodology reprised with a different set of conspiracies. Anti-corporate urban legends that tend to fit in with the CAGW proponent worldview and that free-market advocates might tend to be skeptical of, including,
Kerr-McGee (nuclear energy division) murdered Karen Silkwood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-McGee#Karen_Silkwood
General Motors killed local electric train/public transportation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
DuPont Chemical orchestrated the “ozone hole” scare in order to sell patented Freon II when the patent on original kinds of Freon expired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=dupont+ozone+freon+II+&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
etc.
Lew must have learned everything he knows about ethics from Gleick.
That darn ideated recursive fury seems to get everywhere these days.
Surely Dana’s antics at the Guardian / SKS are now bringing Tetra into disrepute?
If you are one of those scientists who devotedly believe in anthropogenic warmageddon, who is certain that there should not be any debate, and an editor from a scientific journal asks you to review a paper from some other scientist whose basic message is that we are doomed… and you know that nobody will ever know that it was you who did the review… what are the chances that you will actually do your job in trying to ensure that the science presented is sound? Now imagine that you have a good understanding about who the author could be, and it’s one of your colleagues, one you get on well with, you are together in “the cause”. Wouldn’t you let him know that it is you who are going to review his paper? And wouldn’t you make sure that he is aware in the future of any papers you send for publication, just in case he is told to review them?
This is why the peer-review system in its current form is useless and so much crap passes the filters. It’s pal-review driven by noble cause corruption.
It’s funny, I wasn’t sure this would happen, but Lewandowsky and his allies have now done far more to damage themselves, with the whining and sniping about this ridiculous paper, than their opponents could have ever done to them. It’s the ultimate Own Goal.
Oops. I didn’t finish the point.
My hypothesis, which I would like to confirm or refute using Lewandowsky’s methods, is that those who share James Hansen’s distain for “business as usual” in the 21st century will be much MUCH more likely to “believe” in the tale of evil corporations manipulating the fates of citizens, while those who are inclined to distrust governments, the UN, and the IPCC are more likely to doubt the conspiracy, and believe the standard consensus explanations for, the death of Silkwood, the bankruptcy of streetcars, the policies on CFCs, etc.
Propensity to accept “a conspiracy theory” therefore depends on the political slant of the conspiracy in question, I suppose.
If anybody has a big check from a government, corporation, NGO, or thinktank ready to help me survey 5 pro- and anti- CAGW website denizens for attitudes to these or similar conspiracies, please let Anthony know.
Do you suppose people like the slimetrooper in question are ignorant of history, or are they aware of what sort of world they are promoting?
St. Just, Committee of Public Safety, October 10, 1793
Actually, it would be very interesting to study common characteristics of climate alarmists. IMO, some commonalities i have noticed, IMO, is poor impulse control, a sense of grandiosity, are manipulative and lie easily, tend to exaggerate, and tend to be involved in drama, including litigation.
I guess I rather be a “conspiracy theorist” then um, whatever conclusion one may draw from those shared commonalities…