Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The climate mob targets Tol | Main | Ed Davey leads the charge to nowhere - Josh 269 »
Saturday
Apr052014

The Lew letters

Steve McIntyre and Barry Woods have published their correspondence relating to Lewandowsky's paper- Steve's complaint to Frontiers in Psychology and the University of Western Australia about breaches of the various ethical codes and Barry's attempts to get hold of the underlying data from the University of Western Australia.

This correspondence and the failure of the university to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA is not restricted to one rogue researcher. The ethical failures seem to go right to the top.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (66)

Is there a word missing after "Lewandowsky's" Bish?

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:14 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Ihaven't poste dmy Frontiers complaint yet (though it is in th eFOI materail)
the link above relates to trying to get data for LOG12 - Moon Hoax data. which resulted in the Vice Chancellor of University of Western Australia, replyingto me:

in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data for the purpose of submitting a comment to the Journal of Psychological Science.

It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Paul Johnson,

Vice-Chancellor
-----------------------------------------

This has to be nearly as bad as Phil Jones' response to Warwick Hughes
(worse in fact?) as it is the VC of the University, not a mere Prof and the request was to be able to submit a comment for peer review

University of Westren Australia has I think 2 problems now.

1 UWA have refused data for a legitimate request for data to submit to a journal

2 UWA has a Vice Chancellor silly enough to put it in writing? ;-)

and it it is now all in the public domain,

I was very annoyed my request to Prof Maybery for data, met with a response from the VC which copied a UWA's Legal Counsel, which is why I published it. Especially as Professor Lewandowsky and co (dana, Elaine), have been stating in the international media that complainants had made threats, and were bullying and intimidating (Lew even made a 40 minute video!)

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The fury-gate spaghetti is unravelling thanks to Steve McIntyre's forensic work. But yes, it all leads all the way to the top and that's a bit daunting. On the other hand, if this spaghetti blows then it's going to splat a lot of the people involved from the SkS crew through to the UWA.

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterTim Spence

Glad to see you sticking to your guns Barry.

The latest Frontiers statement puts Paul Johnson in an unenviable position.

As well as illegally withholding data - his university is now publicly defending work which its own publishers have declared is invalid & unethical.

The final nail in his coffin will be when the first paper gets withdrawn due to invalid data & methodology.

I hope Sir Eric Thomas, Bristol University's VC, is following this debate with interest.

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Apart from the UWA, the Sydney University of Technology (world ranking 300-350) might not come out of this smelling of roses either. Ms McKewon (for a Dr she isn't) is a postgraduate journalism student there with academic publications on prostitution. For some incomprehensible reason she was chosen to peer review Fury. And since the original retraction has been been filling the interwebs with articles and tweets about how disgraceful it all is. See the Conversation, SciAm etc.

I urge those with cast-iron stomachs to browse her twitter droppings . Approximately 830 tweets from January 2012 with >100 mentions of "denial" or derivatives. An obsessive, a conspiratorial ideationalist, just the right sort of highly credentialed academic to "peer review" Fury. Since the second Frontiers statement she hasn't tweeted for 17 hours. For such a garrulous tweeter, this is odd. I don't do twitter, but perhaps someone who does could tweet her to see if she's OK.

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM | Registered CommenterGrantB

Why is it that Australia seems to have been so badly afflicted by global-warming syndrome? Perhaps Johanna has some thoughts on this.

Apr 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Tim Spence:

The fury-gate spaghetti is unravelling thanks to Steve McIntyre's forensic work.

It's funny - but also a little bit disturbing - that we all know exactly what you mean :)

GrantB:

Approximately 830 tweets from January 2012 with >100 mentions of "denial" or derivatives. An obsessive, a conspiratorial ideationalist, just the right sort of highly credentialed academic to "peer review" Fury. Since the second Frontiers statement she hasn't tweeted for 17 hours. For such a garrulous tweeter, this is odd. I don't do twitter, but perhaps someone who does could tweet her to see if she's OK.

I'm not sure a get-well tweet from a known denialist can help in this case. Thanks for the extraordinary stats. There is power in the D-words and it ain't a good one. One can only hope that the cognitive dissonance prompted by Frontiers stating the truth, leading to such a tweet pause, works out in a new and generous attitude to those with whom she disagrees. We also have to be ready for the opposite.

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:06 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

The University of Westminster might also take note. This is the current listing on the paper on the Frontiers website:

Edited by: Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom

Reviewed by:Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

Swami’s doctorate was on body size ideals across cultures.

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM | Registered Commenterdavidchappell

REALITY CHECK is the optimum phrase for this event
..those nasty "deniers" are showing up to be a tenacious bunch, they have to be, as it is part of the process
of TURNING THE SUPERTANKER of climate change hysteria ..( to use a metaphor)

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:26 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

First 3 definitions of peer review from a Google search;

Evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work.

A process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted.

Whoops!

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterssat

I have also published part of my complaint to Frontiers
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/frontiers-in-psychology-vindicates-lewandowskys-critics/

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

ssat I think you would have to look long and hard to find anyone with competence anywhere close to similar to Lew's - and I don't mean that in a good way

Apr 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterHeadless Chicken

ssat: Don't be so pedantic. Elaine and Lew are working in the same field, called 'Stuff the Deniers'. Totally cross-disciplinary, people with as few academic achievements as Bob Ward and Ed Davey can also play. "You're a denier and you smell" is just one example of how one gets started in the discipline. Add in a dodgy internet poll, a significant number of fake responses and fully-computerised statistical mumbo-jumbo and hey, you're Royal Society scholarship material. No amount of googling can do justice to the intellectual revolution we're all privileged to be witnessing.

Apr 5, 2014 at 12:02 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

So - Loopy Lew got his landmark paper reviewed by an academic expert in the size of lady's bottoms and a student journalist specialising in ladies of dubious virtue.

I have a feeling his next appearance might be in the columns of the Sunday Sport.

Perhaps they could host his papers in future.

Apr 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

OMG Foxgoose, put a warning before you write something like that about Lew's reviewers, I could have hurt myself.

Apr 5, 2014 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

We’ve all been guilty of saying something stupid in the heat of the moment. Twitter seems to lure people into the same mistake. Blog posts can be more reflective and while we can’t always delete our careless remarks we can hope the mods will erase our more offensive moments or at the very least they will soon be buried by new posts. But what state do you have to get to put your stupidity into two journal papers and when called upon them, keep fighting? What is it about the climate debate that drives warmists to such a lack of basic caution?

When Heartland made the mistake of likening warmists to the Unabomber, sceptics roundly and instantly rejected it. What might have been a long running thorn was instantly removed. The posters were a few weeks of understandable incaution by a small number of people but Lew’s papers, like Splattergate, are the work of many people over many months. Did nobody stop and say ‘hang on guys, is this sensible or fair?’ Did they ever consider if the studies had been about other groups of people, would they have been acceptable? And now the poop hasn’t just hit the fan, everyone’s dripping in it, don’t they think ‘we should stop drawing attention to the smell’?

I can think of only one other area where likening a standpoint to mental aberrations might be considered fair game and that is the study of political motivation. Would I be right in thinking this or is even naming people in that kind of study also taboo? Would I also be right in thinking the preponderance of such papers would seek to determine the twisted thinking of right wing mindsets? Are Lew’s papers an offshoot of Right bashing? Did he imagine the people he slurred would act like politicians, keep their heads down and hope the slur would blow away? Did he forget that sceptics are real people?

Bugs Bunney “’E don’t know us vewy well do ‘e?”

Apr 5, 2014 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Tiny:

I can think of only one other area where likening a standpoint to mental aberrations might be considered fair game and that is the study of political motivation. Would I be right in thinking this or is even naming people in that kind of study also taboo?

A helpful defining question for me, raised by pottereaton on Climate Audit but zamboni'd by the host, I'm guessing because the author fingered the Left as particularly guilty of this habit, pe's examples being attempted psychological takedowns of

Ronald Reagan

Whittaker Chambers (an interesting figure, an ex-communist leader who fingered the very well-connected, Ivy-league-educated Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, something that was doubly confirmed when the Soviet Union broke up and certain archives were opened)

I replied giving the example of Leo Abse's 1989 book on Thatcher, adding my view that public figures cannot expect to escape such scrutiny in a free society, however odious it is for them and their families. Something can be morally repugnant in its motivation and execution yet vital to defend for the sake of wider freedom. If only an accurate psychological study of Adolf Hitler had been published to influence German voters some time before 1933.

I also give the reasons I consider Lew's 'scholarly paper' to be quite different to all this. But it's a tricky area. Feedback appreciated.

Apr 5, 2014 at 12:56 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Anybody know what is Professor Paul Johnson's academic area?

Apr 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Elaine McKewon - no tweets for 20 hours. And counting....

Apr 5, 2014 at 1:44 PM | Registered CommenterGrantB

Elaine McKewon - no tweets for 20 hours. And counting....

Apr 5, 2014 at 1:44 PM | Registered CommenterGrantB


Similar to no temp increase for 20 years. And counting ;)

Apr 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Anybody know what is Professor Paul Johnson's academic area?

Apr 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

He's a Brit Sociologist - from that well known bastion of Marxist dogma LSE.

Further words are probably superfluous

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22461/1/03_92.pdf

Apr 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

.FG wrote."...his university is now publicly defending work which its own publishers have declared is invalid & unethical."

I've seen several comments to this effect on various blogs. Am I missing something? I agree the paper's been declared unethical, but where have they called it invalid? The two are not mutually inclusive.

Apr 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterpokerguy

Hart Above re Australia. Me thinks its due to many British/european and US citizens/union leaders and scientists who really could not make it in their own countries and migrated there in the 80s and 90s. Hawking and Keating instituted some deadly higher education reforms in the 80 which fostered politically correct stuff at the cost of science as well. We are now seeing the results: Flannerys, Cooks, etc....

Apr 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterEliza

Poor old Prof Edwards, does all that work gaining her dept at Bristol University some kudos in the climate debate and along comes Lewandowsky.

No wonder she's been quiet!

Apr 5, 2014 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSwiss Bob

A phrase oft used by my statistics prof, "it's obvious to the casual observer," serves well to address the issue of invalidity. When the principles that have long guided scientific research are obviously abandoned, anyone with a neutral viewpoint will reject the study on its face due to invalid methods (NOTE: it doesn't take an expert in the field to perceive such a condition).Even in the unlikely event the results are correct, the study is still invalid as it is the process that lead to the results that determine the quality of the results.
Unfortunately the culture of climate science stands this common sense principle on its head while at the same time making knowingly false claims that the rigor of traditional methods serves as their foundation. Why are the practitioners of such activity seemingly immune to accountability? In a word, politics. Examples abound of slanderous, hypocritical behavior going unpunished across the spectrum of Western life. How long this condition survives will be left to the common person who first becomes willing to open their eyes and then be motivated by righteousness, not convenience.

Apr 5, 2014 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterJackyboy

@jackyboy re validity

Of course it's quite obvious to the fair minded observer that the paper's methodology is ludicrous, but I've seen nothing like that admission from Frontiers, nor would I ever expect to. I can certainly envision a study which violates standards of ethics yet otherwise remains well designed.

Apr 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterpokerguy

Eliza, well they certainly got their revenge. We've got LewinBristol now.

Apr 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I agree the paper's been declared unethical, but where have they called it invalid? The two are not mutually inclusive.

Apr 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterpokerguy

Frontiers said:-

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.

I think, since this is a comment on their withdrawal of the paper, the inference is clear and intended.

In any case, I would have thought that if the paper is deemed to be so ethically deficient that it can't be published - it automatically becomes invalid.

Apr 5, 2014 at 5:05 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

News flash!

Dana N. has posted a couple of very 'interesting' remarks, angry and bitter, claiming personal knowledge that the Lewandowsky authors had agreed to all revisions sought by Frontiers. Now Dana is exploring the "let's trash the journal" approach to defending Lewandowsky et al.

Dana N. on Lewandowsky et al.

[emphasis added]

"...Now they throw the authors under the bus, claiming their revised submission “did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.” I happen to know the authors agreed to all the revisions requested by Frontiers, so if those revisions did not adequately deal with the issues they raised, that’s Frontiers’ own fault for not requesting changes that would satisfy them. To announce that like it’s Lewandowsky et al.’s fault is just despicable behavior by Frontiers...."

Apr 5, 2014 at 5:29 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

I give a lot of credit to Frontiers. They rejected the study due to what they know. Perhaps they know what they don't know thus limited their commentary to current information. It is understandable Frontiers not coming out with various charges of malfeasance at this point. Of course just as the scientific method is often a false flag these days so is the peer review process. It is welcome to see a publication who may have been sloppy up front, take corrective action.

The important point to be made here is that those pushing AGM are not worried about being held accountable for the extreme claims and slanders they make. The MSM mostly reports what they say but never pose any challenging questions. With all due respect to Steve McIntyre, whose efforts are critical to the challenge, the core of this conflict is ideological. We have a group of people who either think they have an elite understanding on what is best for humanity or are simply careerists. Furthermore, both groups have a hard edge 'ends justify the means' perspective and all their efforts are camouflaged as traditional science. We must place our first focus on the pseudo-scientific environment within which the AGW crowd is so dependent. Until their scientific credibility is widely put in question, they will simply continue to change the rules to suit. The fact that the MSM and AGW culture still mostly ignores the facts that challenge the premise is a sign that a reboot is in progress and some new set of arguments are being prepared. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mann and Lew abandoned in an attempt to prove legitimacy.

The biggest need at this time is to expose the corruption academia in general has experienced. AGW is worthy for this task. After all, what good will it do us to ultimately bring light to the global warming phenomenon, if no reforms to science attends it. You can be sure some new bully boy scare scenario will soon replace AGW as the vehicle to push agendas.

Apr 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJackyboy

Wow! Add this to the list of deceptive, dishonest, and/or delusional utterances by Stephan Lewandowsky. Yesterday he posted a faux 'summary' of what he claims are the mainstream media coverages of his retracted paper. One problem is that although he purports to summarize 'mainstream' .... 'media' .... coverage, almost all of the quotes on his list are from his close allies in Blogworld. Only 2-3 out of the 10 items could plausibly be described as coming from the mainstream news media (depends on whether one considers Salon.com or an activist's blog article at The Guardian as mainstream news media or not).

Sure, most of us are fans of what (we regard) as good blogs, and want our favored blogs to be taken seriously, but we don't pretend that they are identical to the "mainstream news media."

Also, he utterly avoids confronting the new statement from Frontiers; instead he quotes a stream of mostly fringe commentary that came out well BEFORE the new statement from Frontiers. So Lewandowsky is doubly deceptive here: little of his material is 'mainstream' media and none of it (so far) comes after the new statement from Frontiers.


Lewandowsky on his 'mainstream' media support


title: "Recursive Fury: A Summary of Media Coverage"


Lewandowsky: "This post highlights some of the mainstream coverage"


Lewandowsky then includes blog quotes from such renowned mainstream news media eminences as PZ Myers, Graham Readfearn, Scholars and Rogues, "Sou" at "HotWhopper".... also Dana N's blog at The Guardian, the blog of activists at the "Union of Concerned Scientists" etc. etc.

Apr 5, 2014 at 6:06 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Perhaps I am missing something, but in what way was this paper (and his previous one) ever "science"?

I just cannot see any actual science in any of it. Its just a load of comments collected more or less at random.

Am I missing something?

Apr 5, 2014 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterTim

"Am I missing something?"

Yes. The issue is whether Frontiers cops to its being a bogus paper or not. The answer of course is they don't. How can they? They published it.
***

Foxgoose, you're reaching. The statement you quote is this: "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."

They're actually implying the opposite of what you claim. Think about what the word "but" means in this context.

Apr 5, 2014 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterpokerguy

I think it's sometimes easy to forget what these two papers were. Ad homin dressed up as 'research'. In a sense, I guess, the sloppiness would be undetected in the so called 'social sciences ( oxymorun with emphasis on morun). So, fools rush were idiots feer to tread and project their psyco-pathology on so called 'deniers'. How drolle. It's what the Soviets to there enemies.

Apr 5, 2014 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterLewis Deane

Skiphil: Thank you for the links both to the Retraction Watch debate (I've tried to paste some of that under your comment on the subject on Climate Audit but that's awaiting moderation) and Lewandowsky himself on what he consider MSM support. One thing this does is to highlight the role of the Manchester Guardian, enthusiastic supporter of Joseph Stalin when it really mattered to the millions who were being slaughtered or starved by him, in giving a phony sense of mainstream status to this name, of whom none of us had even heard before he 'broke into' the climate scene with an appalling series of papers. The Royal Society deserves perhaps even greater shame in the final reckoning - but at least it's not lending its name to 24-hour rolling defence of the completely indefensible.

Apr 5, 2014 at 7:09 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Skiphil, thanks for the link showing Dana weighed in at long last. Given the disparity between the carefully prepared spin from Dana and Lewandowsky right off the bat from the original retraction, and the silence after this one, we can see that they've been caught off guard. I'm glad Dana has commented though, poor Alvin seemed to be stuck defending the indefensible all on his own.

What I particularly enjoyed about Dana's second comment, though, is his conversion from a fortnight ago, when legal action against journals was a terrible imposition on academic freedom, to now seemingly fully endorsing legal action against journals and publishers - but then, a week is a long time in politics, so a fortnight must be, y'know, forever. Relevant bit of Dana's comment:

The authors and the journal agreed to language regarding the retraction, and now Frontiers has reneged on that agreement too in order to throw them under the bus. It’s hard to think of how Frontiers could have handled this whole fiasco any worse. They’ve made one stupid decision after another, and frankly I suspect they’ve now opened themselves up to legal action by the authors whose legal agreement they broke.

PS: Earth to Dana, I don't think an informal agreement on language used to describe some event is likely to be bound by any law I can think of.

Apr 5, 2014 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpence_UK

Spence_UK: 'Skiphil, thanks … defending the indefensible' - snap!

Apr 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Spence, I wonder if it feels like a novel experience for him, commenting on a blog where he cannot delete the posts that he doesn't like. So much nicer for him at you-know-where and at the Guardian where "comment is free" but is a lot freer for some.

Apr 5, 2014 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

[Snip, trolling]

Apr 5, 2014 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraigThomas

"Why are the practitioners of such activity seemingly immune to accountability? In a word, politics." --Jackyboy

Politics, i.e., WHAT SPAWNED LYSENKO.

Apr 6, 2014 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Nuccitelli 's approach makes sense. They have already made one journal disappear. Frontiers' real problems have just started.

Apr 6, 2014 at 12:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

Lewanclownsky's cynicism has borne fruit for him:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2014/04/05/scientists.unmask.climate.uncertainty.monster

Why am I not surprised ?

Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

Now Dana is exploring the "let's trash the journal" approach to defending Lewandowsky et al.

What journal will now take the risk of publishing Lewandowsky? (or Nucetelli, Cook etc).

It's all very well to get indignant with the opposition's mouthpieces because there's little blow-back when you attack them, but Lewandowsky needs these journals far more than they need him.

It will be interesting to see who will take any further climate related psychology pieces from these clowns.

Apr 6, 2014 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMooloo

SpenceUK
"What I particularly enjoyed about Dana's second comment, though, is his conversion from a fortnight ago, when legal action against journals was a terrible imposition on academic freedom, to now seemingly fully endorsing legal action against journals and publishers"

I agree!! This is hilarious.

Apr 6, 2014 at 12:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterKeith L

"...frankly I suspect they’ve now opened themselves up to legal action by the authors whose legal agreement they broke."

This is all speculation but...could it be that the journal expressed concern at getting sued should they republish, and pending failure of the authors to come up with a safer second version of the paper expressed their unwillingness to publish, which the authors in turn accepted in great reluctance but in return expecting full rights over framing of the retraction event in their own terms?

The authors will swallow the bitter pill of retraction, but, in return the journal will secure safety from litigation.

Examine Dana's statement. This is a retraction of a paper for various issues. What legal agreements does a journal have to enter with authors who publish with it None!

Apr 6, 2014 at 1:27 AM | Registered Commentershub

Ref Dana

"4 Apr 2014:

Dana Nuccitelli: A new two-part study shows that higher uncertainty means larger climate risks and more need to cut carbon emissions"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/04/climate-change-uncertainty-stronger-tackling-case

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at this man.

Apr 6, 2014 at 2:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterjones

As an aside I'm really really REALLY uncertain whether a 50km diameter asteroid is going to hit us in the next couple of centuries..

I think we should pour the entire global GDP into NASA....

Just as a precaution....

Apr 6, 2014 at 2:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterjones

Has Lewandowsky been denied?

Apr 6, 2014 at 3:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman

Let's talk about extravagant Alarmism, it seems that Lewandowsky could better devote himself to examining the psychology of hyperventilating "end-of-the-world" clowns like Bill McKibben.... who is now calling for climate scientists to go on 'strike' because apocalyptic scenarios are not being embraced fervently enough:

McKibben calls for 'strike' by climate scientists

[emphasis added]

"...Or, better yet, the scientists could join the rest of us in the growing climate movement - they could come out in the streets. A few already have, great leaders like NASA’s James Hansen. But we need many more to follow – at this point the white lab coats would be better used drawing attention to sit-ins and protests than drawing yet another set of ignored conclusions....

....

...Because it’s perfectly clear by now that you can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending. It’s going to require convincing them that something they really care about might disappear: their jobs.

Apr 6, 2014 at 4:00 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Strange, at RetractionWatch.com I tried to ask (11 1/2 hours ago) for Dana N. to provide evidence of his claimed personal knowledge that the Lewandowsky et al. authors had agreed to all journal requirements for re-publishing the paper. For some reason that request is stuck in moderation there, perhaps because of the word 'lying' ..... it seems like a simple, plausible request, although I know that Dana N. may not want to respond. But why should he not be challenged on his claim of personal, secret knowledge that supposedly contradicts the new statement from the Frontiers journal?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Dana N. claims personal knowledge that the Frontiers editors/executives are lying in the new statement. Would like to see that evidence.

Skiphil

April 5, 2014 at 12:24 pm

Apr 6, 2014 at 4:55 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>