This is a rather long story about a battle between ‘climate deniers’ and ‘global warmists’ online. That is, Frontiers in Psychology published a ‘study’: Frontiers | Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation | Personality Science and Individual Differences by Stephan Lewandowsky. He teaches in Australia and is a global warmist who wanted to tar all scientists and others disputing the global warming theories as ‘conspiracy nuts’ and ‘stupid people’. Other professors who were tarred with this libel told the Frontiers in Psychology staff, they were going to sue everyone so the ‘study’ was pulled.
This, in turn, caused huge hysteria in the global warmists’ world as they screamed censorship. Meanwhile, they have done everything in their power to censor anyone including top scientists, from talking about the looming Ice Age we are on the verge of falling into, instead, they have run riot across the planet, yelling about how we are all doomed unless we tax energy very much and freeze everyone in the Northern Hemisphere to save the equator from being somewhat warmer.
By the way, it is going down to nearly zero degrees fahrenheit tonight here on my mountain yet again. The warmists are howling all over the internet today that we are going to roast to death very soon but I wonder, why not today? I am freezing cold! Here are today’s headlines: Clinton wants ‘mass movement’ on climate change – Wire Nation/World – The Sacramento Bee, Climate change to disrupt food supplies, brake growth-UN draft | Reuters and The climate change deniers have won | The Raw Story.
Academic journal bows to pressure from climate deniers – Salon.com
As the vast majority of the scientific community continues to insist that climate change is a real, significant and urgent problem, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that climate deniers are caught in the throes of a conspiracy theory. But they really, really don’t like being told that.
The journal Frontiers in Psychology has formally retracted a 2013 paper after climate deniers accused it of being defamatory. The paper, led by professor Stephan Lewandowsky, the chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, was a follow-up to an earlier study published by the authors in the journal Psychological Science, which found that people who subscribe to conspiracy theories — who believe, for example, NASA faked the moon landing — are also more likely to be fearful of vaccines and GMO foods — and to be climate deniers.
A lot of the anti-vax people believe in global warming and think it is the end of times. So the ‘deniers’ are not ‘conspiracy/lunatics’ but lots and lots of people. This begs the question about conspiracies since our government is indulging in many bizarre conspiratorial actions!
The reason the paper was forced out of publication was due to lawsuits from victims, that is, other professors, of this ‘research’ who are demanding he retract their names. Lewandosky went to his own blog to whine about being censored and showed his irritable character there:
Here is his own blog is one of the people who is now being sued by victims of defamation, he is ‘ Nathan D.’ in the replies section of his blog: Recursive Fury goes recurrent. Note in particular, when professor Betts comes into the conversation due to outrage because Nathan sneers that Betts isn’t even a professor, the churlish, snide characteristic of this ‘researcher’ slides into defamation of character which he can be charged due to this being an intellectual debate that forbids this sort of character assassination:
Barry Woods at 23:01 PM on 21 March, 2014
I wrote to Frontiers about my concerns about ethical conduct and conflicts of interest and vested interest of the one or more of the authors. In particular, I requested my name to be removed from the paper’s data set, Because one of the authors Marriott, (Watching the Deniers blog) had been writing over a dozen articles attacking the critics of LOG12 during the research period (ie not neutral as claimed) and more particularly, had personally attacked me, naming me (and others) on his blog Watching the Deniers.. and as such I said this compromised the paper.
I made the point,to UWA and Frontiers, as my name was merely in the data set, but not referenced in the main paper, the removal of my name should have no impact on the paper. and given the circumstances I thought this was a reasonable request.
I also said because of this it was also in Frontiers best interests to remove this paper for consideration, in light of these issues
I emailed Frontiers, links to Marriott’s personal attacks about myself and Anthony Watts, labelling us deniers, disinformation, denial Industry, writing ‘Verified Bullshit’ and worst labelling us with a psychological defect Dunning-Kruger, and he had adulterated an WUWT graphic (my article) with a red rubber stamped ‘Verified Bullshit’
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/?s=woods
This article I found was was endorsed by Skeptical Science, and it transpires that Mariott was also a Skeptical Science insider (writing rebutalls)- John Cook the founder of Skeptical Science, also being an author on this paper.
I did write to UWA ethics department, asking for my name to be removed from the paper, in light of Marriot’s conduct, as initially a reasonable request not a complaint. It was only when a complaint seemed to be the only way forward, that I made it a complaint
(I also repeated it had no impact on the paper, and this should be a simple request for UWA/ and the lead author to fulfill, given the circumstances) but UWA found no problems with Marriott’s conduct, or the other issues I raised about the paper, which says a lot about UWA, I think
From the FOI request for ethics approval for this paper, the ethics secretary directed professor Lewandowsky to a UWA webpage.
(extract from)
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/3758/
The page contains a ‘risk assessment checklist’ to guide researchers to whether a planned study would need ethics approval. It has these questions:
1 Active concealment of information from participants and/or planned deception of participants
2 Will participants be quoted or be identifiable, either directly or indirectly, in reporting of the research?
3 Will data that can identify an individual (or be used to re-identify an individual) be obtained from databanks, databases, tissue banks or other similar data sources?
4 Might the research procedures cause participants psychological or emotional distress?
5 Does the research involve covert observation?
The answer is a ‘Yes’ to many of these questions. ’Participants’ declared to be conspiratorial by Lewandowsky are directly identified by name in the paper. The element of covert observation is undeniable.
————-
so I do think ethics approval went a bit wrong with this paper.
Foxgoose at 00:21 AM on 22 March, 2014
I was one of the complainants to Frontiers and UWA about a potential libel in this paper when a quotation I made on this blog was twisted into to a completely different context to make me appear to be suffering from one of Professor Lewandowsky’s trademark maladies – “conspiracy ideation”.
Since the offending paragraph was quickly removed from the version of the paper on the publisher’s website – it seems that the publishers and or authors accepted their misconduct in that instance.
Now that Prof Lewandowsky has resurfaced to discuss both of his “conspiracy” papers – perhaps the opportunity should be taken to deal with the known academic fraud which occurred in the first paper.
This has been amply documented, by commentators on both sides of the climate debate, at the following links.
Those interested should read them carefully and Lewandowsky should take this opportunity to explain what steps he intends to take to rectify this clear academic misconduct.
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/lewandowsky-the-liar/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2012/09/18/lew-a-few-final-thoughts/
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/05/the-lewandowsky-papers.html
NathanD at 00:37 AM on 22 March, 2014
@ Barry Woods
Interesting that you feel the need to out yourself as one of the McIntyre’s co-conspirators against this academic publication (talk about ironic). From what I can tell, you seem to be one of Watt’s lackeys. I haven’t seen much from you besides your contributions[sic] to WUWT, though I tend not to waste much time researching shills. Feel free to correct me if you actually do more than add a voice to Mr. Watt’s anti-science crusade(http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/15/426174/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/).
It is not libel to write on matters of public record. Tony Watts has been paid large sums of money by the Heartland Institute to promote it’s oil sponsors anti-science agenda. You threw your hat in the ring with him, now you pay the public price for your ignorance. The intentionally contrarian opinions of the High school diploma holding Watts pale against the findings of rigorous scientific research. I can only assume you are similarly ill-equipped to talk about both science and ethics as your handler.
If you were, you would not have joined the oil man McIntyre in his publicised harassment mission against the authors of this paper (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tweet-your-permission-for-lewandowsky-to-out-you/#comment-102420).
It is not covert observation to report on published material on the internet. You give up any presumed privacy once you publish your thoughts online. Most primary school children understand this, why can’t you? It’s of little consequence ethically if a publicly published individual can be identified from a research paper. If the individual did not want their ideas or idealogical slants open to public scrutiny, they should not have published them online.
But then, if not for frivolous harassment and baseless legal action, how would science deniers make any progress[sic]?
Cheers,
Nathan
Barry Woods at 00:44 AM on 22 March, 2014
Nathan -
my concern as stated above, was not about privacy, but the ethics of a situation, where a researcher of a psychology paper was also publically attacking the very people he was researching, at the time of the research.
I had also interacted with that researcher at the time of the research in good faith on that very blog ( iahd not at that time seen the earlier derogatory article), and he as a psychology researcher ‘deceived’ me, by doing this research.. both situations are unethical.
ethics, NOT privacy, is the concern.
as for the rest of your comment, you seem to believe in ‘big oil’ conspiracy theories.
NathanD at 00:46 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Foxgoose
“This has been amply documented, by commentators on both sides of the climate debate, at the following links.” -foxgoose
link#1)Geoff Chambers blog (concerted climate science denier)
link#2) McIntyre’s blog (the one who started the harassment mission against this paper
link#3) ACM Anti-climate science
link#4) Yet another anti-climate science blog
Remind me again where the ‘other’ side is in there? Because you only linked to butt-hurt anti-science blogs.
NathanD at 00:53 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Barry Woods
You conflate the privacy of your public rantings as if it were an ethical issue. Tip: it isn’t.
Conspiracies are usually covert; the oil industry makes little attempt to hide its funding of anti-science to preserve it’s profits.
The paper did not attack individuals, and what the author does in his spare time is of no real ethical consequence to a scientific publication. Were the authors torturing graduate students in their labs, that would be unfortunate… but would have no ethical ramifications on previous publications on conspiracy ideation.
You were very quick to project your conspiracy ideation to me. Interesting, maybe I can publish a small paper on cognitive dissonance within denialist communities online.
Tip for the future: if you don’t want the whole world to know you are crazy, then don’t publish online. That includes comments, posts, and replies. Those are public record, and using them in research is not unethical regardless of your mistaken presumptions about whom you are conversing with.
GrantB at 01:03 AM on 22 March, 2014
NathanD – oil industry conspiracist ideation at its finest. Are you a “truther”. Were you surveyed?
NathanD at 01:15 AM on 22 March, 2014
@GrantB
It’s not conspiracy ideation if it’s true.
Watts is paid by Heartland, Heartland is sponsored by big oil to push their agenda.
(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism)
That’s not conspiracy ideation, it’s a matter of public record.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/
NathanD at 04:07 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Grant B
Who’s talking about Curry and Betts? Curry actually is a real scientist with relevant expertise… she also is also among the ‘wrongest’ scientists in climate science. Its not that she herself is a bad person, or even a bad scientists probably; its just that her falsifiable hypotheses have been falsified… Though you wouldn’t guess that when listening to her non-scientific opinions.
Dr. Betts is not a scientist, his degrees are in liberal arts.
Just because Curry doesn’t receive as much oil money as Watts, does not negate the public record of him taking money from the Heartland institute to push the agenda of the Heartlands sponsors.
Foxgoose at 04:24 AM on 22 March, 2014
Nathan D
Whoever you are – you are a fool.
Richard Betts is Head of Climate Impacts at the UK Met Office.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/richard-betts
His degrees are in physics, meteorology and applied climatology.
Suggest you learn something about the climate debated before beclowning yourself further.
NathanD at 05:27 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Foxgoose
Richard A. Betts is a mainstream climate scientist who has countered denialists ad nauseam. He is also NOT a professor, as the OP originally was referring to. He is a lead scientist at the U.K. Met office, but again, NOT a professor.
Grant was referring to “Profs Richard Betts and Judith Curry “, and since Richard A. Betts is not a professor, grant must have been referring to Richard K. Betts, who actually IS a professor (or else he is, as you say “a fool”).
Professor Richard K. Betts is a Professor of war and peace studies at Columbia. Obviously I knew who he was referring to, but I decided to follow the OP’s ignorance and reply based on his miscommunication.
Barry Woods at 06:05 AM on 22 March, 2014
Professor Richard Betts
Chair in Climate Impacts
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=Richard_Betts
Profile
Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. His undergraduate studies were in Physics at the University of Bristol, followed by an MSc in Meteorology and Climatology at the University of Birmingham. For his PhD, he used climate models to assess the role of the world’s ecosystems in global climate and climate change. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources.
Barry Woods at 06:08 AM on 22 March, 2014
Nathan – Grant is correct, you are wrong.
Grant was absolutely referring to the Professor Richard A Betts (not the other one you mention) of the Met Office and Geography university.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/21/lewandowsky-and-cook-in-spectacular-carcrash.html
NathanD at 06:09 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Barry Woods
Richard A. Brett is not a full professor. There is actually a meaning behind that title in European universities. Last I checked Richard was Asc. Prof, not full professor. But thanks for wasting space and time for us.
richard.betts at 06:31 AM on 22 March, 2014
@NathanD
Hi Nathan
I’m Prof Richard A. Betts from the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter. Yes, I am a full Professor – I’m Chair in Climate Impacts . This is on my University of Exeter home page, but I guess I really should get round to updating my Met Office one to say Prof not Dr!
@GrantB
Yes, the Met Office is funded by Big Oil. And Big Coal. And Big Nuclear. And Big Renewables. Basically we do applied for research for a very wide range of customers who need advice on weather and climate science. The energy & mining multinationals make very big, long-term investments (multi-decadal) and require risk assessments on those timescales, which includes advice on the range of projected regional climate conditions at the locations of their assets. It’s a growing source of funding for climate research.
Cheers
Prof Richard A Betts
Met Office Hadley Centre
University of Exeter
NathanD at 06:54 AM on 22 March, 2014
@richard.betts
Thanks for the reply Richard. I am curious though, I don’t suppose you think its a fair claim by Grant to put you on equal footing to the increasingly strident Dr. Curry?
Having the distinct pleasure of hearing Judith speak on climate more often than I care to remember, I can’t honestly believe many in the atmospheric sciences would appreciate being grouped with her brand of hubris. But I can’t speak for you, thoughts?
Foxgoose at 06:57 AM on 22 March, 2014
Nathan D
Trying to cover your stupidity by frantically Googling for another Prof Betts, who has absolutely nothing to do with the climate debate, simply confirms your clownishness.
Have you ever hear the old English maxim – “when caught in a hole – stop digging”?
I suggest you man up, admit your ignorance and offer an apology to Prof Betts promptly.
Your choice of course – we’re enjoying laughing at you anyway.
Barry Woods at 06:58 AM on 22 March, 2014
the graphic and link (from Watching the Deniers blog – Marriott – co-author) shown in my first comment, were a few weeks before the ‘research’ period of the Recursive Fury paper..
here is another graphic, in the middle of the ‘research’ period by Marriott. Where Marriott is attacking Anthony Watts, who was later named as a ‘source of ideation in the paper and the WUWT graphic shown, is adulterated by Marriott to say “Verified Bullshit” (the article in question is my authorship)
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/watts-explains-why-lewandowsky-paper-on-conspiracy-theories-is-wrong-its-a-conspiracy-between-john-cook-and-the-prof/
Marriot and Cook were brought in because they were supposedly independent of LOG12, yet Mariott was cheerleading Lewandowsky, and attacking LOG12 critics.
I don’t care what was said by Marriott, the issue is that ethically, how can a researcher be seen to be publically attacking his research subjects, before after, or especially during the research period of the paper. (I am even interacting with him in the comments!)
geoffchambers at 07:14 AM on 22 March, 2014
Now that your Recursive Fury article is no longer a peer-reviewed article but a simple blog post you will presumably not be insisting that all criticisms must be peer-reviewed. We can address ourselves as equals now, as one blog owner to another, and you can reply to the criticisms of “Fury” which I made at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/
and at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/lews-third-table/
While some of my criticisms concern questions of interpretation, many point out simple factual errors, including mangled quotes, quotes being attributed to the wrong person, or attributed to the wrong aspect of conspiracy ideation. Yet neither you nor Frontiers saw fit to correct these errors or acknowledge them in any way. This is disappointing behaviour on the part of a supposedly reputable publisher. In what concerns Lewandowsky and his co-authors, I shall continue to make the same accusation that I have made here, at Retraction Watch, Scientific American, Huffington Post, the New Yorker, the Conversation, and anywhere else where the author continues to peddle this inept blog article.
Foxgoose at 07:33 AM on 22 March, 2014
Professor Lewandowsky.
Here, and in many other online fora, you have been repeatedly challenged to justify a serious untruth which appears in your original LOG 12 paper.
The paper claims that the survey on which it was based was posted on the website of your collaborators at Skeptical Science. This was the most visited blog surveyed in your paper and you specifically mentioned it and drew inferences from it in the paper.
It has now been confirmed by several sources, including an insider at the Skeptical Science site, that no link to your survey ever appeared there.
This has been drawn to your attention repeatedly and both you and John Cook, who runs the SkS website, have given various evasive or untrue responses.
You have refused to acknowledge this fundamental falsity in the LOG 12 paper and tried to cover your tracks by lying to those who have made enquiries.
Your refusal to acknowledge or correct the false claims in the paper, about your methodology and data, constitutes serious academic fraud and you must address it by revising or withdrawing the work.
May we now have a response from you on this?
It’s a simple question – did the LOG 12 survey ever appear on the Skeptical Science site?
Your fans are waiting.
NathanD at 07:40 AM on 22 March, 2014
@Foxgoose
It seems even sardonics are lost on you.
@geoff
You aren’t equals. The paper wasn’t retracted on merit, it was taken down for legal reasons. The validity and the rigour of the review process it passed and the lack of scientific rebuttal to it while it was up is testament to it’s credulity.
One of you is a Ph.D psychologist.
The other a loud mouth on the internet.
NathanD at 08:16 AM on 22 March, 2014
@aaron
Funny, I have never gotten that impression from her. I am always left with the taste of a confrontational arrogance after reading her posts and listening to the contrarian talks I’ve heard from her.
I would love to see her publish something in the literature that actually supports what she claims online and in person though… I have a feeling I will have to wait quite a while for that though.
NathanD at 12:36 PM on 22 March, 2014
@GrantB
You are welcome to my humor anytime.
It boggles the mind how so many can warp basic science to the degree that they can’t see the clear human influence on the Earth’s GHE.
Enjoy your game, try not to join Judith’s tribe, or fall into watt’s oil pit.
Cheers,
Nathan
Tom Fuller at 00:24 AM on 23 March, 2014
Professor Lewandowsky’s paper did not meet the guidelines of social research. It did not protect the identities of respondents.
It also inappropriately used statistical techniques on cell sizes that were too small to permit such operations.
Nathan, in addition to your stupidity regarding Richard Betts, you falsely state that Anthony Watts is funded by Heartland. That is not true.
The whole controversy about this paper and its author is both the controversy in microcosm and a clear guideline to why communications about climate change is failing.
This comment will be viewed as coming from an opponent, someone who is a ‘denier’, when in fact I am not. I am a Lukewarmer. But the authors of this paper and the contributors to this site are so busy shooting themselves in the foot that they not must first not acknowledge the mess they are making, and then find somebody–anybody–else to accuse of making it.
A final comment from Goddard’s site Real Science | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman, by a climatologist who is a ‘denier’ like myself, that is, worries a lot about the looming Ice Age as the earth’s orbit, the sun’s activity and all indicators point towards another Ice Age: Gail Combs
The alternative is that the earth soon abruptly transitions into glaciation.
Whether and when this transition happens is the debate currently raging in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. A GoreBull Warming Tipping point is a real non starter. A tipping point into glaciation is a distinct possibility. The change from the Wisconsin Ice Age to the Holocene happened in THREE years. BTW.
If Ruddiman’s“Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis”is correct, it is mankind’s GHG emissions that have prevented the glacial inception thatshould have already taken placewithin the past few hundred years.
The Warmists among us had better hope and pray that human emitted CO2 is delaying the next glacial inception. Onset of the Little Ice Age, just after the Medieval Warm Period, was right when the Holocene reached the half precession point, the correct timing for glacial inception. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse. The Eemian, the last interglacial, had two thermal pulses before the descent into glaciation.
Even during MIS-11, the only interglacial to make it past half a precession cycle, it got awfully cold between the two solar insolation peaks. Additional CO2 that might prevent the planet from cooling further (and it has already cooled ~3°C from the Holocene solar insolation peak) would be mighty welcome in the coming years.
If you are a skeptic, then the Modern Warm Period was not in response to rising CO2 but might be in response to the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity now ending with“the current low level of [solar] activity, characterized by the highest ever observed cosmic ray flux as recorded by ground-based neutron monitors, the very low level of the HMF and geomagnetic activity”(Ilya G. Usoskin, Geophysical Observatory -Oulu unit.)
At the absolute worst, that is without anthropogenic influence (including early anthropogenic influence) some say we would already be deep into the next glacial inception. Others say that it is inconclusive. Either way, we are still uncomfortably close to the N65 summer solstice insolation value that was the threshold for the glacial inception of the Wisconsin Ice Age.“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, …Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
[(wwwDOT)particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf ]
That is a heck of a long time to be sitting on the edge of a cliff waiting for other factors to push the earth into glaciation.
From the paperCan we predict the duration of an interglacial?I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions:
NOW (Modern Warm Period) 479 W m−2
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,
Depth of the last ice age – around 437 W m−2 @ 60N June
NOW (Modern Warm Period) – 476 Wm-2 @ 60N June)
From (www)1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun
This would indicate that when the solar insolation gets somewhere below 500 W m−2, other factors (like volcanoes) tip the climate into glaciation.
The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:
In climate research and modeling,we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. – I 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774
Basically, it’s your classic Gordian Knot. Assume, for instance, the worst case for CO2. Then assume, for instance, that glacial inception should have already occurred if not for the early anthopogenic hypothesis (GHGs, land use etc.).
Email:
emeinel@fairpoint.net
MAILING ADDRESS:
EMS NEWS
P.O. BOX 483
BERLIN, NY 12022
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.
Filed under: weather news Tagged: censorship, climate deniers, freezing, global warming, Ice Ages, Stephan Lewandowsky