Motivated by the numerous media accounts expressing fury at the retraction of “fury”, Frontiers has issued a clarification. Their clarification begins in the second paragraph:
As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threatsâ€; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.
Contrary to many of the furious media reports complaining that Frontiers caved into ‘threats’ which were evidently “baseless”, Frontiers says they received no threats and that the complaints they received no threats. They did receive complaints that were “well argued and cogent”.
It appears that Frontiers agreed with the complaints about ethic issues,
Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics.
They gave the authors an opportunity to remedy the issue: That is, “Lew and Crew” could resubmit if they remedied the ethical issues
Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.
The authors seemed to accept this condition….
The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.
But then somehow couldn’t manage to rewrite the paper in a way that dealt with the issues raised by Frontiers. (One must conclude that they somehow couldn’t figure out how to not “categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics”. )
I can well imagine it would be difficult for ‘Lew and Crew’ to write the paper without ‘the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics’ since the entire premise was to categorize behavior of commenters at blogs as suffering from “conspiracy ideation”. So, for example, my suggesting that Lew having contacted Climate Depot a month after initiating data collection suggested “less than reputable” behavior on the part of the lead researcher was diagnosed evidence of pathology by Lew and Crew as follows:
This hypothesis never matured to the point of clarifying how this delay could have had any bearing on the outcome of the study given that none of the skeptic” blogs posted the link. The hypothesis therefore represents another instance of unreflexive counterfactual thinking, in addition to suspicion and the attribution of nefarious intent (NI, NS, MbW). We also suggest that this hypothesis meshes well with the criterion that nothing is an accident” (NoA) because it imputes signifi cance and intentionality into an event (i.e., a delayed email) that could equally have been accidental.
That seems to be four ‘psychopathological characteristics’ attrabuted to me (i.e. NI, NS, MbW and NoA).
I’d like to discuss each of these “pathologies” starting with NI. far as I can tell, my ‘hypothesis’ (if you can call it that) was not an instance of “unreflexive counterfactual thinking”. Whether reflexive or not, ‘counterfactual thinking’ requires basing an argument or opinion on facts that did not occur. My opinion is based on facts that did occur. I think failure on the part of the lead researcher to develop a survey plan that would result in the two ‘blog types’ posting links to the survey nearly simultaneously is itself disreputable. Lew and Crew inviting skeptical blogs a month after surveys had been posted at alarmist blogs is a fact that did occur. Moreover, it was (and still is) evidence that the lead researcher did not take proper care to have links posted near simultaneously at both blogs.
As for whether care was required: Given the proposed study– to compare believes of group A and group B, steps to ensure the survey was presented to both groups should be seen as essential to the researcher and the lead researcher should consider equal treatement of both groups important and devote a considerable effort to ensure unbiased collection. If he is too lazy take steps to do this, or lacks creativity in figuring out how to do it, we should consider him an incompetent with respect to developing a research plan. This is especially so if it would be trivially easy to get links posted nearly simultaneously. Lew could have done so by inviting people, getting acceptances, and then sending links out after he’d lined up blogs on both sides. This would give him time to line up blogs on both sides even if one side was less willing to participate. (And it’s worth nothing: journals often have black out periods for news agencies. So the idea of a blackout period is hardly unknown to researchers.)
I think a competent researcher would be able to think up such a trivial simple plan and, having been able to carry it out. So: I think Lew’s reputation as a researcher should be placed in the “low” category not because he has “nefarious intentions”; it belongs there because he is incompetent.
As for “NS”, I have no idea why my thinking an incompetent researcher show be held in low repute would be “Nihilistic Skepticism”. This evidently translates to “conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not into the conspiracy
theory”. What precisely did Lewindowsky diagnose me as “not believing”? And whatever is I supposedly did “not believe”, was I incorrect in not believing it? As far as I am aware, many people agree with me that lead researchers who conduct their research in a careless, thoughtless fashion should be held in low repute. Maybe all of us exhibit “NS”.
Of course, the other pathology I exhibited was “MbW”. That is: ” the belief that the official version is wrong”. I should note Lew’s diagnosis is particularly odd. First: I’m not sure what version of events is considered the “official” one. But if Lewandowsky considers “his” version to be the “official” version, at the time I wrote my post which he quoted, no official version existed. For those whose memories of the incident are dim: Lewandowky had been refusing to provide details of which blogs he invited, how he invited them, when he invited them, the contents of the letters. In fact: when I asked him to tell me if he’d invited my blog, he wouldn’t even tell me that. So it’s rather unclear how I could be rejecting the “official” version of who, when or how “Lew” invited Morano when no official version about that invitation existed.
Finally, as for Lew’s diagnosis of “NoA” (Nothing happens by accident)…. This evidently is
… small random events are woven into a conspiracy narrative and reinterpreted as indisputable evidence for the theory. For example, the conspiracy theory that blames the events of 9/11 on the Bush administration relies on evidence” (e.g., intact windows at the Pentagon; Swami et al., 2009) that are at least equally consistent with randomness.
I have no idea why my thinking implies “Nothing happens by accident”. In fact: I think when a lead researcher fails to create a robust research plan lots of things happen by accident.
So, for example, had Lew and Crew carefully thought out how to involve skeptical sites– possibly by querying a month before sending out the surveys and creating a list of people who would cooperate– he likely would have been able to post links simultaneously on a number of blogs. But instead, Lew shunted the task of inviting the skeptical blogs to an assistant who sent an unsolicited emails to people who had never heard of either him or Lewindowsky. Most people who received the emails failed to reply.
From Lew’s point of view that blogs declined to participate or failed to answer might be a ‘small random event’. I’d say if your planning is crap, the results are often a crapshoot. I’d also say that a researcher whose planning is crap should be held in lower repute than one who makes proper plans. And it appears Lewandowsky’s planning is crap. My suspicion that invitations being sent to skeptical bloggers a month after links were already posted at alarmist blogs suggests less than reputable behavior has nothing to do with thinking “small random events” were themselves planned. It has to do with believing numerous “small random events” going counter to plan in a rather dramatic way is evidence of craptastic experimental design on the part of someone whose job it is to devise a decent experiment.
But of course, all of that merely explains why Lewandowsky’s diagnosis was bizarre and based on what he imagined someone might think. If I were inclined to diagnose his psychological state, I might suggest is retaining his theory of what I think despite the fact that I stated my premise (i.e. that he was incompetent) in other posts he cited in his paper indicates he is subject to NI, MwB and NS because he (a) assumes my thinking he deserves a low reputation is due to my ‘nefariously’ ascribing nefarious motives to him, (b) does not accept my official account of stating that I think he’s incompetent and and (c) he refuses to believe any interpretation of my views that does not fit into his “theory” about my suffering from “conspiracy ideation”.
But I’ve digressed from commenting on how Lewandowsky might have been able to recraft his paper to make it acceptable to Frontiers.
It seems to me that given his central premise and is ‘evidence’ and ‘argument’, Lewandowsky really couldn’t write his paper without ‘diagnosing’ these pathologies in identifiable individuals.
His claim is that a group of people exhibit certain pathologies. His method of providing ‘evidence’ to support his ‘diagnoses’ without citing the blogs and quoting. The latter would, by definition, mean he was diagnosing identifiable individuals. After all: even if I am not named, anyone can either (a) look at the citation or (b) google to discover that I am the person who was quoted. As such, I am an an identifiable person who, according to his paper, ‘suffers’ from these pathologies.
Of course, since I am an identifiable person, I can also point out that his “analysis” is nutso. Which it was and remains so. Wisely, Frontiers has retracted the paper.
If you want Lew to hear you, you may have to speak up a bit, as sound does not travel well under the bus….
It appears that Lew and his friends overplayed their hands putting the Journal in a position where this further comment on the matter was necessary.
I’m glad to stand corrected about the journal receiving threats. Seeing the actual circumstances of the retraction must provide a sense of vindication and satisfaction to those, including you, who were named by Dr. Lewandowsky.
The wheels on the Lewandowsky / SKS bus are falling off.
And skeptics are proven right, again.
Retraction statment: “This 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.”
Clarification: “As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects.”
So Frontiers do not consider that ascribing psychological pathologies to personally identified individuals is unethical, just illegal. Interesting perspective.
Hmm. While I welcome this clarification from Frontiers, it is belated and leaves open a number of questions:
– why did they originally say their investigation did not identify any ethical issues? Not protecting the rights and privacy of subjects seems a core ethical breech.
– why did they publish the authors’ response without comment next to the retraction notice? This made it appear that they endorsed (or did not disagree with) Lew’s claim that the paper was withdrawn for legal reasons
– why did they wait so long for this clarification? It allowed Lew and his supporters to successfully change the narrative to that of an unimpeachable study having being victimized by lawsuits from bullies.
Again Frontiers is to be commended for the clarification – but it does not fully make up for earlier missteps (it also would have been nice for them to acknowledge the shoddy methodology).
carlb, it’s also interesting to ask why Lewandowsky choose to characterize the journal’s decision as purely a legal one, when he know there was other context. This is unethical.
Lucia—If you haven’t already, I suggest sending Lewandowsky a copy of your comments plus a link.
When one is stuck in a deep hole, one should stop digging.
Frontier’s main problem with the Lewandowsky paper is its recalcitrant ethical incompetence – which ironically hints at a certain psychopathological disorder where victims and associates “suffer from the disorder”, but not the diseased.
Perhaps Lew’s sincere apology for unintended stress will be forthcoming. I hope so.
Lucia,
Good thing that Frontiers clarified the reasons for withdrawal of the paper.
.
Is Lewandowsky self-publishing this rubbish (eg on a web page?). If so, a good British libel lawyer might take the case on contingency. Claiming someone suffers from pathological thinking disorders (AKA is crazy) is the kind of claim that is not taken lightly by British courts.
I suspect the last word by Frontiers has not yet been written.
Carrick, That’s a good question. Looking over at CA, Ross McKitrick seems to be making similar points, including questioning how UWA can continue to justify hosting the paper after this disclosure.
SocialSciencesSpace has added the statement to their McKewon article.
http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/04/reviewer-journal-wilts-under-climate-of-intimidation/
in the last few days, people such as the insufferable Rabett and his equally self-consumed friend Russell have been making much of the reviewer’s grievances….has Ms McKewon been thrown under the bus as well? Not that that will stop the smug Rabetts of the world thinking that Lew is the greatest psychologist since Stalin
Neal J. King
Possibly not. And with any luck, we’ll hear from all the reviewers. 🙂
Heck, an American might do as well. Accusations that one is suffering from pathological thinking disorders is not looked on well by American groups either– I think it’s ‘libel per se’. If ‘false’ and ‘defamatory’ proven, I wouldn’t have to show actual damages.
That said: if it were to come to a libel suit, I assume Lew & crew would represent the “analysis” as being “opinion”. That would be rather odd given that supposedly a journal article and seems to be presented as “fact”. But I think even though there may be a colorable case, it’s likely a waste of time and money. Plus…. really not interested in pursuing that sort of thing.
Also: I don’t know if the paper was posted in Australia all along. Was it? If it’s a fresh publication, I would have a little less than a year to file in Illinois.
SteveF, the answer to your question seems contained here:
It seems to me that the journals finding of facts legally exposes UWA.
Neal, it’s worth noting who wrote this updated comment:
I’d say this is pretty close to a “last word” on the part of the journal, unless they release details of their internal investigation. Given Lewandowsky’s reprehensible behavior, I would.
Note that Viren Swami’s name does not appear there. (It’s my guess that Swami is responsible for the original, lame takedown notice being so lame.)
Neal King, you mean we have yet to reach the Final Frontier?
I predict that UWA will have no choice but to take down the Recursive Fury article. Otherwise they are subjecting themselves to serious risk of legal liability.
Not just one black eye for UWA (for the sloppy permission for the revised research), but two (for posting the retracted article)!
UWA might be a bit miffed with Lewandowsky if they were not made aware of all of Frontiers requests and the reasons for them.
I question (with pure speculation) how UWA could have made the decision to post the retracted article if they know Frontiers did not think the authors did “not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects”.
Unless UWA is just that dumb?
I’ve been planning to write a post on Lewandowsky’s ethics application for Fury, which has been available for a while, but which I’ve only relatively recently identified within the FOI documents.
Although within the scope of SImon Turnill’s FOI, the university had withheld this document. Turnill appealed and obtained the document, but within a longer document that was obtained only a couple of days prior to my filing with Frontiers and thus not considered in my submissions at the time. I hadn’t re-opened the file until recently and thus have only recently begun considering this document.
Needless to say, Lewandowsky’s ethics application did not request (or obtain) authorization for his purported tele-diagnosis of psychological disorders of named subjects (or much else that he actually did). Nor had he even submitted an application at the time that he began his taunting protocol in blogposts at STW.
Steve McIntyre
“his taunting protocol in blogposts at STW”. I like that. 🙂
http://www.psychology.uwa.edu.au/research/cognitive/?a=2523540
there you go Lucia.
That university is publishing lies about you.
and they have been warned
and they misrepresent the reasons for the frontiers take down
Mosher–
I wonder if the will update the “predendum”?
Well, take a snapshot of the page.
Then write to UWA and do an FOI to understand how they came to write that. Chances are Lewandowski ghost wrote it.
If they change it or dont change it it will be good either way.
Also, snapshot his page where he says the lawyer considers this to be an insurance matter for nuisence suits.
The insurance company would like to read that before they pay
“Given its popularity, and given that approximately 29,300 viewers did not complain about our work, it would be a shame to deprive the public of access to this article. Because the work was conducted in Australia, I consulted with the University of Western Australia’s chief lawyer, Kim Heitman, who replied as follows:
“I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.â€
— Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
##################
I dont suppose the insurance company will like to pay for things that could have been avoided.
Now perhaps Lewandowsky did not represent the case correctly to the lawyer.
In any case she is not his lawyer, and he has published their communications, so FOI the communications.
Lewandowsky is in england. There are data protection laws.
That is YOU have right to read shit about you.
especially if its medically related I suppose.
So, FOI lewandowsky in the UK. He’s diagnosed you with an illness.
you want the records.
hehe
I think Frontiers has been facing pressure that they’re not experienced enough to handle well; and they may have put themselves into position for even more pressure, which they will also not handle well.
Neal.
and when it is all done, will it have been worth it.
forgive me If I misremember.. long ago, was it you who collected
questions for Parker to answer about his paper?
@Neal J. King (Comment #127830)
I think Frontiers has been facing pressure that they’re not experienced enough to handle well; and they may have put themselves into position for even more pressure, which they will also not handle well.
Yes it does seems to be a contest in survival in some minds.
Regarding ‘handle well’
Personally I have no problems with both Frontiers and Lewandowsky “surviving”. Whatever that means. But there can be no doubt that stories that have been emerging since the initial retraction statement from Frontiers – collated by the lead author himself on his website – which are almost universally harmful to Frontiers reputation and at the same time flattering to Lewandowsky as some sort of vaguely defined academic victim.
If Frontiers have “put themselves into” a position they regret now then I can only think they let themselves be put into a position where they took Lewandowsky’s word at good faith.
Will that happen again?
I think that Frontiers have handled this pressure well by issuing this clarifying statement.
The pressure of course is to carry out on threats like we saw in the mails. Nobody contributes to the journal. boycott.
No luck with formatting comments today:
I hope people recognize the delimitation of @Neal J. King (Comment #127830) I re-quoted before the rest of my post above at 127832.
Lucia – since you are publicly “diagnosed” as having a “medical” condition, you might consider the following:
Private Health Sector: Access to health information
Western Australia
And yes, rereading my comment 127832, I admit I introduced the idea of “surviving” here.
But I think reputational survival is a powerful latent issue here; that Frontiers are the one getting squeezed as a side issue of climate politics and this is something Lewandowsky et al and his critics are exploiting.
Note Frontiers IMO almost pleading request for us to see this paper is not about climate but about psychology.
I think Frontiers are aware of the latent power of climate righteous politics and want to avoid that mire.
This makes their statement quite brave in my opinion.
Thanks David. I believe England has the same or similar.
So, I would start with an request to see the lawyers mails discussing the posting of the paper which contains your diagnosis.
Since Lewandowsky is not her client no priveledge should attach.
Mosher: Yes, I did the questions for Parker. Unfortunately, immediately after getting the response from him back to the group, I got caught up in some real-world issue and had to drop out. Was there any follow-up communication between Parker and everybody?
tlitb1: I don’t think that the internal differences among views in Frontiers have really settled. I think they might go back and forth still. I don’t think they know what they’re doing.
I think Loo and the Boyz should start their own Journal, just for articles like theirs. They can spruce it up with a Latin name.
How ’bout Psychobabblica Climatica Retracta?
This is really a sad episode. And it reflects poorly on the psychology field but especially on the supporters of the paper, like Cook et al. It appears as if Skeptical Science is really Gullible Science or perhaps Unethical PseudoScience.
It could be that Frontiers is internally conflicted and if so that shows a lack of ethical standards and a lack of gravitas. Sometimes as distasteful as legal action is, it can have a clarifying effect.
Neal J. King (Comment #127830),
I agree they seem ill equipped to handle this sort of problem. But the bigger questions are: Can they possibly learn from the experience? Can they even understand that Mr. Lew is behaving abominably with his ‘papers’ and these ought not be published? Accusing Lucia of being crazy? In a paper? Please.
.
I suspect their limited connection to reality (rather than their normally cloistered academic world) will limit what they can learn from this. Good thing I am not Lucia, or Mr. Lew would be facing a rather unpleasant legal future… I am sure my son would take my case on contingency.
Neal there was follow up as I recall once we got the answers..
I just wanted to thank you. I thought it was a very good way of handling all the issues we had. a model of reason in my mind.
Folks could have learned a lot from that, even in the present case.
@Neal J. King (Comment #127842)
How would we know when it was finally settled Neal?
Possibly only when they said something you liked?
That’s nice to hear your thoughts about their ‘settling’.
Yes it is always possible thoughts could go “back and forth”.
In my opinion though this is the sort of thing gangsters or autocrats may say when confronted with their victims saying they are not happy to wait for their dreams 😉
Which in itself is a fascinating thing to see.
Shouldn’t we focus on the real issue here?
Yes, Dr lewandowsky’s paper had to withdrawn, but that’s really quite incidental. The fact is that frontiers looked at ethical issues, and found no transgressions by Dr Mann [sic].
Copner:
Bloody d*nialist.
It is clear that Mann was exonerated by this investigation!
Neal:
From the perspective of the journal I think they have decided, and I think they do generally know what they are doing. I think the problems here are different than a lack of competency, but rather due to the strongly horizontal structure found in most academically-oriented organizations.
At journals, the editors who directly handle the papers and look for reviewers are typically unpaid volunteers. As such their allegiance towards the organization they are nominally working for is very weak.
It does appear to me that whoever wrote that original notice was not acting in the best interests of the journal, but rather were trying to protect a colleague at the expense of the journal. If I were part of the paid staff of that journal (whose income depends on the journal’s reputation), I might be a bit irate at the current turn of events. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see a bit of “reorganization” in the coming months.
I would really like to know if Viren Swami wrote the original withdrawal notice or not, and if he did, whether the words he wrote were cleared by the Executive Editor prior to their publication. From the Frontiers page Swami is a “Review Editor” and his day job is at the University of Westminster. I would expect his reputation within his academic community to matter more to him than whether he retains his role as editor.
[By the way, what a great photo of him. By great I mean “really silly.” 😀 ]
If I were the journal, I’d request a copy of all of the correspondence between Swami and Lewandowksy relating to this paper. I would want to know if there had been any sort of “writing assistance” on Lewandowksy’s part for what appeared initially on the journal’s website in regards to the withdrawal notice.
I’ve been having a recurrent nightmare, can anyone help me out?
I’m deep into a game of Climate Poker and have just bet my shirt, my children’s wardrobe and the future of western civilization on what I believe to be a very strong hand.
I’ve got a 100% Certainty, Frontiers Flush but I suspect my opponents are holding a 97% Consensus hand that may, post facto, prove unbeatable.
Should I go all in or should I fold?
So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might not hurt.
Are you feeling lucky?
-Stephan Lewandowsky
Clearly anyone who wants to run into a brick wall is crazy.
Carrick: ” I would want to know if there had been any sort of “writing assistance†on Lewandowksy’s part for what appeared initially on the journal’s website in regards to the withdrawal notice.”
Definitely. Lewandowsky writes, “The authors were involved in drafting the retraction statement and sanction its content.” It’s not a surprise that the initial retraction notice carefully avoids suggesting any impropriety on the authors’ part.
HaroldW:
Thanks. There’s so much spew-worthy about Lewandowksy that I have little heart for reading what he writes. Still I’m amazed that he was allowed to be involved in the drafting of a retraction statement on his paper. I wonder how standard that is?
Here are the properties of the RF file Mosher linked to above.
Created: 3/5/2014 1:22:42 PM
Modified: 3/18/2014 3:29:35 PM
If the file was just created in March, I would think Lucia has 11 months for a suit.
Archive.org has only one snapshot of that folder from 04/12/2013 which shows no listing for that file.
Bob– Note, it’s at least 11 months. That’s the Statute of Limitations for a static publication. The SL for internet is undetermined in Il (as in many states.) But to be safe, a plaintiff is wise to assume the shorther of the two rather than to have a fight over SL that gets to the State Supreme Court.
Someone else left a link, but I’m putting it here in a way that lets me use my browser search tool to find it:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/
That’s retractions watches’ more recent discussion of the retraction.
mosher:
I just regret that I didn’t have time to participate farther, after having set everything up.
Whether that could have served as a model for this case: I’m not sure anyone could serve as the middle-man.
.
carrick, tlitb1:
My impression is that it could take a couple of weeks. But I’m not a principal in this issue.
Ms. Liljegren,
I just read your comment posted April 4, 2014 at 10:32 pm on Retraction Watch: here Link
All I can add is bravo!
Neal, I take you’re commenting on something Lewandowsky and/or Cook is working on in response.
I must imagine that Lewandowsky was aware that the retraction was not over a threat of lawsuit, as he intimated in his vitriolic and misleading criticism of the journal’s decision to retract his paper.
I am hopeful that Lewandowsky mislead Cook on this matter, because otherwise Cook allowed a very misleading commentary of the reasons for the withdrawal of the paper to be published on Cook’s website. I am not very impressed with John Cook, something we differ on, but I have always assumed till now he was honest.
I would like to see the journal release a more complete report of the year-long investigation they undertook. I think the controversy pretty much demands it at this point.
carrick:
.
My general understanding is that Frontiers set up the framework for the retraction statement to get out from under the pressure they were getting. When they then released other statements, they destabilized whatever they might have achieved; my impression is that the situation is in free-fall. When the debris has settled, I can imagine that more detail will have to be provided than is currently available.
My guess is Frontiers has taken their first and last step into the climate cesspool. Looks like bad blood with Lew. They might be more forthcoming with information requests if they are really uptight about this whole affair, they actually seemed to invite it.
“Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.”
Neal, I think that Lewandowsky was probably more responsible for any destabilization via his intemperate remarks.
In the long run, I expect that he’ll probably come out looking a lot worse than he might have had: Researchers tend to have more loyalty to journals they frequent than they do to rivals.
But I would be happy to see as much of this get into the light as possible.
“But instead, Lew shunted the task of inviting the skeptical blogs to an assistant who sent an unsolicited emails to people who had never heard of either him or Lewindowsky. Most people who received the emails failed to reply.”
That’s a simple and obvious explanation. But it sounds like Lew believes that the failure to reply was deliberate and calculated. Does this mean that Lew also suffers from NoA (Nothing is an Accident)?
Neal J King,
I’m not sure what a “framework” would be. But after the retraction, the “Lew & Crew” side began exerting much more pressure than the critics of the paper ever did. The campaign appears to be pretty fierce. Dana has an outlet in a fairly major paper and complained. Others have access to “The Conversation” and so on. Both have reputations of deleting comments by those who disagree.
More neutral locations (e.g. retraction watch) posted rather more ambiguous observations about the retraction and permit open comments.
lucia, carrick:
.
I am exposed to information about the creation of the first statement that I cannot talk about. I remind you that I am not a principal in this situation, so there are things I cannot discuss.
.
Suffice to say that I expect there might be further changes before the dust has settled.
I have never been one to take seriously the psycho babble of those who invariably are using it in feeble attempts to defend a position that is indefensible – and no matter their academic or professional status. That is why I was not aware of what this Fury fervor was all about until I read this post. Lew has a problem, but the publisher and retractor has even a bigger problem for publishing this nonsense in the first place and in the second, as HaroldW shows, making conflicting statements about why it was retracted.
There are nutty fringes on all sides of the AGW issue and most all issues of this nature and at one time I thought Lew and people like him were merely inferring that one side of the AGW issue was controlled by a nutty fringe or at least by nutty fringe thoughts. I considered that merely the workings of an overly zealous partisan in the AGW debate. Implying psychological problems are driving serious bloggers is entirely another issue, but unfortunately one that political groups have used in the past to further their agenda.
Nel J. King:
“Suffice to say that I expect there might be further changes before the dust has settled.”
Are we to take from that the Journal may once again “wilt to a climate of intimidation”?
@Neal J. King (Comment #127873)
No offence, but personally this kind of ‘I know but can’t say‘ stuff is utterly valueless. However I can see how it might be intriguing to others of a conspiratorial bent 😉
Your being exposed to stuff entre nous from unnamed people asking *you* not to transmit it elsewhere only sounds to me like they wanted to reassure *you* rather than anyone elsewhere 😉
However that’s your issue.
Meanwhile, in the observable world. Who has the biggest reputation to lose? It seems obvious that Frontiers have a relatively new open source peer reviewed publication that (up to now) assumed a modicum of good will and honesty from its customer and reviewer base.
Using the my general understanding process – my general understanding is that Frontiers had up to now allowed a bit of freedom in the association of reviewers and paper authors. Probably assuming some sort of good will that people really wanted their papers to get scrutiny from the best qualified people and would suggest reviewers themselves.
However it seems obvious now that didn’t work out well in this case. I think this may have shocked Frontiers themselves how badly this went wrong.
I mean, for Gods sake, the primary reviewer Elaine McKewon literally announced to the world, in various articles like Scientific American, that she had not a clue about the actual content and ostensible purpose of the paper she supposedly critically reviewed!
Anyone can see this now.
Remember peer review is supposed to catch gross error? Anyone?
Heck, I am only a layman who is sick of hectoring “science says” stuff and pipes up now and then. 🙂
Neal, I suggest you ask your mates, apparently asking you to keep schtum about the clinching information that shows how bullied Lewandowsky was, to go to the next level and either say it themselves or allow you to say it.
I must admit I have an empathy and fondness for Frontiers now that can accept their reticence so far, so it would take a lot to persuade me they are the one egregiously manipulating the situation.
Ball is in your court.
I have said what I feel comfortable in saying.
If lucia finds my comments insufficiently informative, she has my permission to delete them.
@ Lucia,
(adopts tremulous 1930s newsreel voice) let me speak on Neal J. King’s behalf.
In defense of all that is good and true of enlightenment philosophy and the American way, please! For Gods sake! Let me implore you to let Neal J. King’s comments stand!
/sarc
“But I would be happy to see as much of this get into the light as possible.”
Carrick there are probably mails between frontiers and dr. lew.
Doubtless some of them could be cherry picked to support dr Lew
“frontiers says there were threats” The question is will the whole treasure trove be revealed?
That is the calculus that faces Dr. Lew. UNless he is a sociopath, he didnt make the “caved under threats” up out of whole cloth.
There was some dialogue, some back and forth.. during the course of that you can bet frontiers said something, used the word somewhere, ‘threat’. Dr. Loo is contemplating releasing that snippet.. to take the journal down..
but the journal also has a paper trail of its back and forth with dr. lew.. so he’s gotta look at that.. will they sit there and do nothing while he releases snippets?
One can only hope that the cooler heads, like Mann and Romm and Santer, Pull dr. Lew aside and tell him to handle this in the old fashion way..in a dark alley beat the crap out of lucia.
In which case I hope Dr Lew has a good dental plan
Delete your comments Neal? What do you think this is? Skepticalscience? Your input is valuable. But it goes without saying that this is a major blow to Lewandowsky. And Cook. What you fail to read however is that a categorical statement from the journal higher-ups creates a more clearer picture. The ‘debris’ has already substantially settled from before. It is now Lew vs the journal, which has unequivocally sided with the research subjects the authors and the connected university failed to protect. Remember, they took down the paper almost a year ago.
.
It also goes without saying Lewandowsky will be planning his ‘comeback’ moves.
Totally correct, Shub. Except more clearer should be more clear. Clear?
RoyFOMR (Comment #127852)
Roy, I think you will be ok if you realize it is a dream and has nothing to do with the real world. I would hate to think you needed to be sent to climate change psycho therapy with Dr Lew.
Steven Mosher:
Or maybe Lewandowsky isn’t as bad as he looks right now. I’d like to see the relevant information, as long as this continues to be a public spat.
Neal, I understand perfectly the confidentiality issues, and thanks for providing context for your remarks.
As I said, as long as there is a conflict here, I would hope as much of this as possible comes out into the open, the internal investigation by Frontiers, a summary of their findings, and related emails with the authors. I mean, it’s okay to publish diagnostic information of other people without their consent, but we should protect the rights of privacy of the journal and authors involved!?
Carrick, excellent point. What’s now left to be protected by a tissue of interconnected gag orders? Lewandowsky overplayed his hand and the journal had to step out and defend themselves.
Meanwhile Dana is shooting off about the Journal and what he knows about the incident over at Retraction Watch. Somebody has to shout, “uncle!”
Look at Dana’s comments at Retraction Watch. (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89447)
.
To date, the Lewandowsky camp has misread Frontiers. They likely underestimated them
.
First, they tried a plea bargain deal by re-arranging and snipping some sentences. I know Brandon S thinks this refers to the initial changes, I don’t know, but anyway. Then there was a long, unexpected wait period. Then they were handed the retraction decision and the negotiated retraction notice, into which they crammed as much of an escape route as possible. They took the journal’s compliance and silence at this juncture as weakness, while launching an utterly clueless victim-card campaign in the UK Guardian, no less. Whatever the merits of their own case, they went overboard with claims of ‘caving to threats’ and ‘spinelessness’ against the journal, covering themselves in martyrs robes.
.
There is only so much storytelling the other parties in your arrangement is going to take, especially if the stories involve trashing their names to cover yourself in glory.
.
The stage-managed retraction event with its articles in Desmogblog, PZ Myers, Guardian and other venues and the 45 min video, went well for the authors. The journal, while probably agreeing to the negotiated language in the retraction statement, did not and/or could not have foreseen how it would be used by the authors against them.
.
The second, unexpected statement from the Frontiers bosses is unexpected, and worse than the retraction itself. Dana is finally blinking, rubbing his eyes open.
“It also goes without saying Lewandowsky will be planning his ‘comeback’ moves.”
he is rather transparent.
Is it me, or are people who make comments like Neal J. King’s giving permission to delete their remarks just playing the victim? Nobody aside from him has suggested his comments be deleted. Nobody who’s participated at this site would expect his comments to be deleted. If he’s not setting himself up as a victim, what is he doing?
This reminds me of when Skeptical Science users went around telling everyone they knew they had been hacked but couldn’t provide any information to support the claim. I’m just grateful King has refrained from making rude comments suggesting anyone who doesn’t believe him is a conspiracy nut. Maybe in two years John Cook will release information then mock everyone for not having believed him.
I find it obnoxious when people refer to information they can’t share without the humility of realizing people have no reason to believe their conclusions. Don’t tell people they can delete your remarks if they don’t like them. Just tell them, “I can’t give you a reason to believe I’m right, but I think I am.”
@Brandon,
To me it’s a full spectrum broadcast that the individual’s objectivity is grossly compromised. That it is in association with a controversy swirling about “conspiracy ideation” just adds schadenfreude icing to the irony cake.
O.T.P.S. Heh, my browser wants me to replace schadenfreude with <i.Scheherezade
[Edit to add] Well I didn’t intend my comment to sound quite so snarky. It should be acknowledged in this instance that Neal has disclosed that he has a close association. I unfortunately do not recall the full breadth of this discussion over several threads, but at what point die Neal disclose this?
Disney-style we already know that climate is battle between good and evil, Lucia (or Curry) as Cruella de Vil might make sense to some.
For intellectuals/academics this isn’t enough, so lets give it an air of thoughtfully explanation by pathologizing it, to the same end though.
Earle Williams, I’m not sure Neal J. King has “disclosed that he has a close association,” but it’s widely known he is part of the Skeptical Science group. I guess we’re expected to believe John Cook has talked about this matter in the Skeptical Science forums. That doesn’t make King associated with the paper, just someone an author of the paper has chosen to tell things to.
I’m not that interested in the details. Skeptical Science discussed their repeated use of a fabricated quote in their forums and (apparently) decided there was nothing wrong with it. Presumably the same confidentiality that prevents King from discussing his current knowledge is the same which prevents him from condemning Skeptical Science’s use of a fabricated quote. I don’t respect confidentiality like that.
lucia, one thing I was considering is whether or not Frontiers would have grounds for a lawsuit of its own. It’s easy to argue Elaine McKewon’s article harmed their reputation, and thus harmed their business.
It’s also easy to see had McKewon made any effort to verify her claims, she’d have found she was wrong. All she had to go off of for her claims was her memory and faulty interpretation of facts. That lack of basis, combined with the ease of checking her story, combined with the fact nobody made any effort to contact Frontiers, may be sufficient for a lawsuit. I think it’s clear Frontiers thinks people didn’t do their job in their reporting as it says:
Which to me sounds like them calling reporting like McKewon’s ignorant and biased.
Neal
Sometimes people (or organizations) have obligations to say less than they know. So no, I won’t delete based on comments being insufficiently informative.
Lewandowsky has now issued a tendentious ‘summary’ of what purports to be the mainstream media coverage of the retraction. With his usual lack of rigor and probity, he lists mainly friendly blog pieces from his most strident supporters. This is what passes for balanced thoughtful analysis in that Lewspew world (linking first to my longer comment at WUWT, with link to Lew’s new blog article at STW):
my comment, with link, on Lewandowsky’s latest fulminations
tlitb1
For what it’s worth, I also know some things I told someone I wouldn’t say. 🙂
skip, I think he wrote that before Frontiers put out their statement.
Brandon
I don’t interpret it that way.
Me too. And so I will reiterate: I have information I am not sharing too. And I’m not even going to tell you why I won’t share it. 🙂
(I suspect some other people have the same information. But it’s not my place to share it. Also: I’m not asking anyone to believe any of my claims based on this unshared information. But note well Neal: you are correct that shoes can drop. Lots. Of. Shoes. )
Thx Shub, certainly possible, even likely? I don’t know. But now he has yet to qualify, correct, or amend it…. I know that academics can claim they don’t respond to the urgency of Blogworld, but this is a SWA blog post we are referring to… Lew is a blogger when he posts there…. and Lew is well aware that this matter is being actively discussed. Plus, I think it is unlikely that the timing (April 4) was unrelated to the nearly simultaneous publication of the new statement from Frontiers.
Whether or not Lew wrote his latest blog article to distract from the new Frontiers statement, he must be well aware that his assertions have been contradicted and superceded by Frontiers. Dana N. has jumped back into the fray by trashing Frontiers for throwing Lew and company “under the bus.”.
For every hour and day that Lew fails to correct their latest false record, doubts increase about his honesty, judgment, and integrity. The clock is running…..
sorry, I don’t know where ‘SWA’ came from as I was speed-typing my last comment. I meant, of course, ‘STW’ for Lewandowsky’s blog “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” —
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html
Barry Bickmore is commenting at Frontiers with Carrick:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/retraction_of_recursive_fury_a_statement/812
I thought I’d pop this comment on..
Hi Carrick, just in case you are not aware (and any casual reader)
This paper was by the Skeptical Science authors and contributors – Lewandowsky, Marriott and founder – John Cook
and wow, what a coincidence:
Barry Bickmore a Skeptical author turns up to complain about Frontiers retracting the paper
(shame he did not mention the Skeptical Science connection)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=2538
The Fury paper was about reactions to Lewandowsky’s earlier paper – Nasa faked the Moon Landings..
One of the criticisms of that paper was Lewandowsky had surveyed all sceptics hating blogs, most of whom had also been contributors to Skeptical Science (John Cook – a Fury co author’s blog)
and behold – Barry Bickmore’s blog was one of those blogs that held the Moon Hoax survey… !!
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/take-a-survey/
small world
(so full disclosure I’m frequently labeled a sceptic, I prefer member of the public, and was named in the paper and have contributed to some ‘sceptic’ blogs))
——————————
very silly, and when Rob was doing badly at Retraction Watch,
Dana turned up telling Frontiers how to run their business,
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89436
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89447
and in an about face, suggested Lewandowsky’s lawyers might be having word with the journal for breaking their agreement.. But maybe Lew did hat first hs 40 minute video, and running to th emedia saying Frontiers had caeved into buklying and intimidation..
Barry
That would be an interesting agreement to read. 🙂
Lucia (#127901): “no, I won’t delete based on comments being insufficiently informative.”
If you followed such a policy, you’d have a severe Cotton shortage.
lucia, there may be a better interpretation, but I can’t think of what it’d be. What purpose is served by posting a non-sequitur giving someone permission to delete your comments?
Brandon Shollenberger,
It could be an indirect way to remind someone who suggest there is something wrong with his comment that they are not the moderator. I am. I can think of other purposes that could be served too. I’m not going to list them all as my ability to imagine purposes exceed the time I wish to budget to posting the all!
I lean toward Brandon S. But maybe he meant to say ‘I don’t mean to lead you guys on’.
Shub Niggurath:
.
Try this interpretation on for size:
.
“My comments mean what they say. They do not mean more than they say; but they do not mean less than they say. If they don’t fit into your view of what has happened, it is possible that I have heard, from sources closer to the issue, facts and arguments that you have not. Since I am not a principal in this controversy, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss what I might have heard, as that could complicate any ongoing or future discussions or legal concerns that might, or might not, be going on. It would also be inappropriate for me to discuss the nature, subject, persons, or time of what I might, or might not, have heard. Therefore, I’m not going to.
.
If this makes you unhappy, I offer the alternative that you request lucia to remove the comment entirely: If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.”
Neal.
quit playing the game of “if my comment offends, remove it”
1. you know it is not offensive
2. you know that Lucia doesnt even block c^tton
3. playing the victim doesnt make your point
Is this the end of it? probably not. Many people have cards to play.
In the end the game is a distraction.
mosher:
.
It’s an interpretation.
.
An interpretation has to cover the full meaning of the original text.
.
Note the quotation marks: They are where they are for a reason.
.
Also: For the record, I don’t regard myself as a victim..
lucia, that’d be a strange purpose given nobody had acted like they were a moderator, but I guess it’s hard to say one strange interpretation is stranger than another.
The reason it stood out as much to me as it did is I’ve had people make similar remarks to me in forums where I was a moderator, including ones where the rules for moderation were clearly stated and followed. It always made me think, “Sure, and I could spit in your face. Why are you telling me random things I’m capable of doing but never would?”
It seems like they must be trying to imply something, but if they’re not playing the victim, I have no idea what it’d be. I don’t care that much, but… it’s confusing.
Neal J. King, I don’t think Matthew 18:9 fits your comment. Somebody requesting lucia delete your comments is not them plucking out their eye because of its offense. It’s more like asking one party to pluck out the eye of another party because it offended a third party.
Neal, I was trying to be nice to you. You’ve heard things. Haven’t we all? You’re not in a position to speak fully. Is any of us ever?
Neal’s implying the journal wanted the authors’ cooperation in the retraction for fear of litigation?
This is really good crypticist ideation.
Shub,
As far as I can tell, Neal’s core statement seems to be he knows something that he cannot tell us. I have no idea why he feels the need to reveal that. I don’t find it a particularly exciting or even interesting revelation. I don’t find the ancilliary revelations that people he knows are doing things that have not yet been disclosed is also neither exciting or interesting. Of course they are.
With that, I think it’s best if we drop discussions of Neal’s motives in revealing this non-interesting, unsurprising information. The reason we should drop that is: what his motives might be are multiple and themselves totally uninteresting.
Agreed.
.
I found this from Dana interesting:
“…frankly I [Dana] suspect they’ve now opened themselves up to legal action by the authors whose legal agreement they broke.”
What ‘legal agreement’ did Frontiers make and then break with Lewandowsky et al with their statement? Among the new things from the journal is the following:
.
Did the journal promise to not speak of these things publicly?
.
The journal broke their silence to address the ‘caving into threats’ claim. Did they promise not to do so, and to keep mum?
.
I find it incredible that Dana thinks the Fury authors extracted an agreement from the journal.
Neal,
Its an interpretation you suggested.
Im interpreting your suggestion.
Here is another interpretation
달
다리 ì € 는 ê¸ˆíƒ ì”¨ ê°€
ì¶•êµ¬ê³µì„ ì‚° ê±´ ì´ ì£¼ ì „ ì´ëž€ë‹¤
ê·¼ë¦°ê³µì› ì•ˆ ì— ìƒˆë¡œ ìƒ ê¸´ 미니 축 구장 ì¸ì¡° ìž” 디를 ë³´ê³
벌초 ë ë‚œ ë¬ë“± ë³´ 듯 곱다 ê³± 다 하며
ê³ ê°œë¥¼ 외 ë¡œ 꼬기 ì„ ë‹¬ 만 ì´ëž€ë‹¤
í‰ìƒ 다 리를 ì ˆê³ ëŠ™ ë§ˆì— í™€ë¡œ ëœ ê¸ˆíƒ ì”¨ ê°€
문구ì ì— ë“¤ 어설 ë•Œ 하 ëŠ˜ë„ ë†€ëžê±°ë‹ˆ
보는 ì´ ì—†ì–´ 사 람만 ë¹¼ê³ ë™ ë„¤ ë§Œë¬¼ì€ ëª¨ ë‘
그가 ì˜ ì •ë¶€ 사는 ì¡° ì¹´ ìƒì¼ ì„ ë¬¼ 사는 줄 알았단다
ì‚ë§ ì§€ 나 êµ¬ë¦„ë„ ì§‘ 으로 ê°„ ì—¬ ëŠ ê°€ì„ ë°¤
ê¸ˆíƒ ì”¨ 새벽 세 ì‹œ 넘 ì–´ ì¶•êµ¬ê³µì„ ë¼ ê³ ê³µì›ìœ¼ë¡œ ê°€ ë”란다
ì—´ ì‹œ ë©´ 눈 ê° ëŠ” 외등 대 ì‹ í•˜í˜„ë‹¬ì— ë¶ˆ ì„ ì¼œë”란다
ê¸ˆíƒ ì”¨ 빈 ê³µ ì› ë¹ˆ ìš´ ë™ìž¥ì„ 몇번 살피다가
골대를 í–¥ í•´ 냅다 ë°œ ê¸¸ì§ˆì„ í•˜ë”란다
ê³¨ì´ ë“¤ 어가면 ì£¼ì›Œë‹¤ì°¨ê³ ë˜ì°¨ê³ ë˜ì°¨ë”란다
ê·¸ë ‡ê²Œ 남 들 ì‚¬ì‹ ë…„ 차는 ê³µ ì„ ì‚¼ì‹ ë¶„ ë§Œì— ë‹¤ ì°¨ ë„£ ë”란다
í•˜í˜„ë‹¬ì´ ë²¼ 린 칼처럼 맑 ì€ ìŠ¤ë¬´í•˜ë£¨
ìˆ¨ì´ í„± 턱 ê±¸ë ¤ ìž ì‹œ 쉴 ë•Œ ê³µì› ì˜† 5단지아파트ì˜
앉ì€ë±…ì´ ìž¬ 분 씨가 ë‚œ ê°„ì„ ìž¡ê³ ë‚´ ë ¤ë‹¤ë³´ë”란다
ì–´ë‘ ì† ì˜ ë…¸ì²˜ë…€ 재 분 씨를 하 í˜„ë‹¬ì´ ë‚´ë ¤ë‹¤ë³´ë”란다
í•˜í˜„ë‹¬ì„ ê¸ˆ íƒ ì”¨ ì•„ 버지가 ë‚´ë ¤ë‹¤ë³´ë©°
보다 ë³´ 다 보름보다 훤 í•œ í•˜í˜„ì€ ì²˜ ìŒì´ë¼ê³
달처럼 중 얼거리ë”란다
mosher:
.
Sorry, my Korean is not very good.
.
Neither is Google-Translate’s.
Keep in mind that original peer reviewer Michael Wood expressed concerns to the authors, as a result of his review. For some reason the Journal moved forward and published online regardless, including his name, along with Ms. McKewon, as reviewers.
After online publication, when those concerns were not addressed Mr. Woods asked that his name be withdrawn as a reviewer and his name removed from the paper.
Shortly after Prof. Prathiba Nateson was named as a reviewer. Ms. Nateson is an Assistant Professor-Department of Educational and Psychological Studies at the Univ of North Texas. Ms. Nateson has specific expertise with Statistics:
Analysis of Large Scale Datasets
Bayesian statistics
Factor Analysis, Discriminant Analysis, & other Multivariate Analyses
Item Response Theory (IRT), Multilevel item response modeling
Measurement, Statistics, and Research Methods
Structural Equation Models, Hierarchical Linear Models
It would appear Ms. Nateson would have been a excellent reviewer – for the underlying LOG12 paper especially. Again though, whe lasted just a day or two before her name was withdrawn as well … and Frontiers Editor for this paper, Dr. Virem Swami named himself the 2nd reviewer.
While Mr. Swami would appear to be well qualified as a reviewer and Editor naming themselves a reviewer who they are responsible to oversee, especially considering the highly unusual musical chairs already seen – post publication – makes this action highly suspect.
I believe Lewandowsky and the rest’s whining and attack towards Frontiers will end up a good thing. It appears it has encouraged/allowed Frontiers to step back and resort to defending their own position and credibility first and foremost.
This is a good step in my opinion. Hopefully it leads to a fair and transparent explanation and accounting of all of the issues raised regarding Lewandowsky.
Answers as to the peer review process, data and the like. Frontiers could certainly take the position that their data policy be applied to the underlying LOG12 paper as well – as without LOG12 this paper is worthless.
It seems clear this is far from over. And that is a good thing. The issues raised are not unique to this paper – and the larger scale problems need airing.
It seems the list of people who wish they’d never heard the name “Lewandowski gets longer and longer.
A Scott,
“without LOG12 this paper is worthless”
.
I suggest with or without LOG12, it is worthless.
Neal
Sorry, my Korean is not very good.
What do you think I meant by suggesting it as an interpretation?
“Answers as to the peer review process, data and the like. Frontiers could certainly take the position that their data policy be applied to the underlying LOG12 paper as well – as without LOG12 this paper is worthless.”
That’s a suggestion well worth forwarding to Frontiers.
Neal J: “Suffice to say that I expect there might be further changes before the dust has settled.”
What, is Lew preparing another paper on the reaction to the clarification of the retraction of the reaction to the first paper?
Whatever they think about the affair, I wouldn’t expect Frontiers to unnecessarily further annoy its economic base (submitting authors and readers). Once Fury has been been withdrawn from their journal, Frontiers has no reason to be involved in any debate over the LOG12 data (Hoax). Even if the editors of Frontiers thought the data should be released, they don’t have any leverage over Lew. Under normal circumstance, editors force authors to comply with requests for data by threatening to retract their papers.
Perhaps Neal’s comments suggest that Lew has arranged/is arranging to get the Fury material – combined with the “outrage” of its retraction – published elsewhere. Are you prepared for the front page of the NYT, Lucia?
There are significant problems associated with the spread of conspiracy theories about 9/11, vaccines, and AIDS; and many believe that ordinary people must be protected from such ideas. The same applies to global warming skeptics.
Tom Scharf:
.
In line with what I wrote earlier: I’m not at liberty to deal with any questions on this matter. That was the point.
.
mosher:
.
I don’t know, it’s open to interpretation.
Tom Scharf: “What, is Lew preparing another paper on the reaction to the clarification of the retraction of the reaction to the first paper?”
Yes, and the successor to “Recursive Fury” will be called “Escherian Indignation.” 🙂
Neal, I don’t think anyone is interested in knowing how you know things but are not at liberty to reveal.
.
The latest from Dan Nuccitelli on retraction watch:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-90046
So a third part announces a response will come after a some time – without any immediacy!?
Is this good?
To me it smacks of positioning and spin.
Why not state the clear information straight away?
Why should justice need time to come out?
Shub Niggurath (Comment #127950),
Nope, no more than they are interested in all my dark secrets on any subject. Neal would do better to stay away from comments like: “I’m sure a large asteroid will hit Earth in the next year because of secret information….. which I can’t tell you.”
Rob Painting, Neal King and Andy Skuce have shown some form of reservation or regret. Not Nuccitelli.
.
I don’t get why the climate blogs should extend any form of courtesy to him when all he does is use its material in furthering his career.
tlitb1,
“Why not state the clear information straight away?”
.
Maybe they are preparing a lawsuit against the journal. Or preparing a “scathing and devastating” public reply. Or it’s mostly bluster and spin. I don’t think it makes much difference what the reason is for their delay. What matters is that the editors at Frontiers had the good sense to withdraw a libelous paper.
.
Maybe other journals will take note and look very carefully at Mr. Lew’s future ‘research’ papers.
Given that Dana gave us at least part of ‘his’ side, Lew made a video about the retraction and wrote a blog post, I would hardly say that “part” of the story has been unheard. That each side might reveal more in the form of “Fury: the soap opera”, hardly surprises me.
It”s crazy. Things are really getting out of hand. Dana, Lew, Mann & co seem to be in a mental stage as if they would be in the middle of the third world war. They just can”t loose. Whatever it takes. It”s mad. Paranoia.
I can’t imagine what Dana and Lew could have that would make a material difference. Dana seems to believe that they “made all the changes requested by Frontiers” which is by itself of no consequence. The journal could still have decided to retract the paper. Maybe there will be carefully redacted emails released that are thought to “prove” this. They seem to me to already have blown their wad so to speak by attacking the journal publicly.
The team is hoping that the journal will “cave in to threats”…
Sven,
We don’t know what they Dana is hoping. But we are on alert to discover that “all will be revealed”.
David Young,
It remains to be seen whether Lew and Crew made all the changes requested. To determine that we would need to (a) read what Frontiers requested and (b) read what changes were made. And we’d need to be acertain the provenance of the info we are provided to make sure it’s not cherry picked to– for example– provide some stray email from one low-level clerk or “Lew-leaning’ editor who might not have had authority to speak for the higher ups while not providing a lengthier more formal communication from the official representatives.
Of course, being this suspicious of Lew and Crew official narrative would probably be diagnosed as “MwB”, but being suspicious of “Frontiers” official narrative is probably “insight” (and so not MwB) because currently Frontiers seems to be pinned in the role of “the bad guy” in the narrative of those on “Lew and Crew”‘s side. I imagine so anyway.
Lewandowsky’s web page with his publications continues to host the paper, and continues to show it published in Frontiers. I should think the Journal could insist that publication claim be taken down.
Lucia,
The comedy in all this is the recurrent liberal/left ideation that anyone who disagrees with them on policy simply has to be delusional, a conspiracy nut, heartless, and the rest. I therefore define a new pathological thinking disorder: leftist projection ideation. I am beginning to actually think that lots of liberal/left people who suffer from this ideation are poorly equipped to deal with reality…. Of course, one might draw that same conclusion based on other independent lines of evidence.
Lucia @
wrote, “That each side might reveal more in the form of “â€, hardly surprises me.” That is so good it deserves a place of prominence.
Perhaps updates on Lewandowsky’s saga could go under a thread named something like, “Fury: The Soap Opera”.
SteveF @(Comment #127966)
…”a new pathological thinking disorder: leftist projection ideation.”
+1
It’s possible that Lew, Cook and Dana are secretly in the pay of Big Popcorn. So for the sake of the agricultural sector please stop trying to talk sense into them on RW.
SteveF (Comment #127955)
I found some guidance here:
“…However, legal advice may be helpful to determine appropriate wording for a notice of retraction or expression of
concern to ensure that these are not defamatory or libellous. Nevertheless, retraction notices should always mention
the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree a form of wording that is clear and
informative to readers and acceptable to all parties. If authors consent to the wording of a retraction statement, this
provides defence against a libel claim. However, prolonged negotiations about wording should not be allowed to
delay the publication of a retraction unreasonably and editors should publish retractions even if consensus cannot
be reached.”
http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf
It should be noted that the original Retraction Notice hasn’t changed. Dana N is blustering over the public statement. I don’t think Lewandowsky can make the case for libel.
“It should be noted that the original Retraction Notice hasn’t changed. Dana N is blustering over the public statement. I don’t think Lewandowsky can make the case for libel.”
he cant make the case.. and there is more to come.. but first it’s important for lewandowsky and others to play their hand. Once they play their hand and big names join his position.. then more will be revealed.. it’s big. but first let him overplay his hand..
“but first it’s important for lewandowsky and others to play their hand” It’s kind of like politicians who suddenly are faced with an accusation of sexual impropriety. They are trapped between two constituencies: The public, and their wives. As regards the public, they would be best off saying, “None of this is your business, no one cares what I do in my private life. Buzz off.” Unfortunately for them, they have to deal with their wives as well, so their first response is always, “I swear that this is absolutely false and a scurrilous lie and everyone saying it is evil.” Then when it turns out to be true, they lose the public as well because of their interim behavior.
To continue the feeble analogy, here Lewandowsky and co. have two constituencies as well: the general public and the fever swamp. To satisfy the fever swamp, they have to hold on to the picture of Oil Money, anti-science hater den^iers, journals caving under pressure, no real science except us. They dare not admit anything else. Unfortunately, that is trapping them into a position of going further and further into territory where everyone but the fever swamp sees them as conscienceless liars.
fever swamp
That was laugh out loud funny!
Thanks
Duke C.
I don’t see a case for libel either. But there are so many types of torts. We need to wait to see what they allege before making any conclusion about whether whatever they might present might have some merit. Basically: lay in some popcorn and butter. And. Wait.
Lew has put a post up today about the retraction.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
Fresh bloviation from Lewandowsky to help muddy the waters:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
^ ninja’d
Interesting comments by Lew
Somebody needs to explain to Lew that Pointing out legal danger is not a threat.
stop signs threaten me every day
Since Frontiers and the authors signed an agreement that was negotiated by their respective lawyers and the agreement specified the original statement, this is, if anything, a clear marker of the pressure that Frontiers is under from those unhappy with the paper being retracted in the first place.
Eli, I have no idea how standard negotiated statements are in a case like this. So it’s not a particularly “clear marker” to me.
I’d love to see Lewandowsky or the journal release that document too.
I have the first comment on that post. I wasn’t going to comment on it, but I couldn’t resist when I saw something incredibly stupid. Stephan Lewandowsky portrayed a comment by Foxgoose as contradicting the journal’s claim that it hadn’t been threatened. Foxgoose’s threat has been discussed here a couple times, but the dumbfounding part was the comment Lewandowsky referenced specifically said:
It appears Lewandowsky’s penchant for misrepresenting what he references is still around.
Lew writes in post urled above;
“. Our narrative analysis was independently verified and further refined by a philosopher and a historian of science.”
Is this sort of thing often done in Lew’s discipline? Ever?
Or is our hero once again breaking new ground?
j ferguson, referencing a “philosopher and a historian of science” as verifying their “narrative” is a new one for me. Next we can expect a creative dance interpretation as proof of the veracity of their methods and analysis.
I’d say, “I think this guy’s losing it,” but I don’t think he ever had it.
Being a musician, and having read around the
Carrick,
I wonder if philosopher and historian of science is one person.
Being a musician and having read around the various strands, as far as I understand it the current situation is something like this…
Subterranean Sick-survey Blues
Lew is in the basement, surveying the evidence,
Dana’s on the offence, tryin’ to mount a defence,
Says he knows the true quotes – next week, stand-off!
Has he got the real stuff or is it just a big bluff?
Look out kid, you don’t know what you did,
Nihilistic skepticsm,
Evidence revisionism,
You must just be a nutjob,
Part of that denial mob,
Man in a nice white coat,
Says you’re crazy,
Might have to lock you up soon,
If you don‘t say what we say..
Australian University somewhat academically,
Pronounces you a casualty of mental instability,
It says it in the survey,
You don’t see things our way?
It’s a sign of your pathology,
If you fault our methodology!
Look out kid,
Our emails are all hid,
Orwellian paranoia?
Not according to our lawyer!
We’ve got FOI endurance.
We’re relaxed about insurance,
If not we can just play dumb,
And you’ll look like a bum,
You won’t get no pardon,
When we spin it in the Guardian!
It is hard to imagine that this will end well for Lewandowsky and his cronies, oops, I mean associates, if they keep pursuing this.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
I’m laughing so hard my sides are splitting.
Not: “this is untrue”. But “this isn’t what we agreed to say”!! 🙂
All that “contractually-agreed” stuff. I wonder if threats are being exchanged on skype. Break out the popcorn.
The key point was made by Brandon. The statements in Lew’s latest bloviation cannot be independently verified except for one which is very misleading. It would be interesting to hear Frontiers’ version of the alleged legal agreement. Or perhaps Lew could release it himself if he is so sure its contents will vindicate him.
I wonder if the legal document they signed had a “no party shall write bullshit, self-martyring blogposts lying about the matter” get-out clause?
In any case; I hereby copyright ContractualAgreementGate in perpetuity.
Someone needs to point out to Lew and Eli that lawyers work for you, and not the other way around. If your work is ethically sound, it will be legally safe. There is a mountain of advice available in the social sciences and online research literature on how to handle blog-based research. None of which would have helped as there is not one paper suitable for the conflicted position Lewandowsky and associates were in to begin with.
Brandon Shollenberger,
You need to return to your comment at STW, and instruct a subsequent commentator, MikeH, about the fundamentals of reading comprehension.
David Young,
Correct. Unless Lew and Crew post the revised manuscript, we can’t tell whether people are not identifiable. Unless we read a detailed description of what was done we can’t tell what this means
It could mean that people were provided out of context snippets from the SI. It could mean they were shown full comments threads. It could mean all sorts of things. We don’t know. (Also, I would hardly be surprised that content at blogs would not rate high on the quality of scholarly critique. Come. On.)
As for this
If true, this might take care of the defamation issue. It raises other issues though. Given that some paraphrases in the original Fury are utter distortions of what was said, this strikes me as possibly anonymizing but also means it’s impossible for anyone to determine whether the paraphrases faithfully represent what was said. It also makes it impossible to determine what the original writer meant in context.
Also: the fact that the original manuscript remains in circulation might have implications relative to the idea that a reader could identify the person quoted. That’s unfortunately uncurable.
philosopher
I’m betting on Torcello.
Perhaps just maybe Frontiers is responding to pressure from within the psychology community, from those who regard psychology as a serious therapeutic science, who believe that those who truly are “objectively disordered” need treatment and shouldn’t be stigmatized for seeking it, who find it repugnant that a colleague would stoop so low as to use the tools of their discipline as weapons to stigmatize people whom he clearly hates?
The good doctor Lew writes: “Although there has been considerable media attention, the authors have made few public comments since the paper was retracted.”
Sure the authors have made no public comments. They left this to their henchmen. Dr. Lew himself has given an overview of this “media attention”. All of it was written by his pals (and a pal reviewer) trying to use the “contractually-agreed retraction statement” to score points and badmouth the journal. Without this despicable activity there would clearly not have been another statement by the journal. And looking at the timing of the Guardian article by his pal worrier Dana, it’s clear that it was all planned already during the drafting of the “contractually-agreed retraction statement”. And that’s why doctor Lew kept silent. All so legalistic… I’m sure the good doctor has sent in the lawyers again. What a sad bunch really.
I imagine Dana will now put up another article at the Grauniad trying to show how poor little Lew is being badly treated.
There are several gaps in Lewandowsky’s latest storyline.
The original paper was retracted in Aug 2013. This retraction must have come with the recommendations of the senior academics that reviewed the situation. Team Lew then acted on these suggestions, including incorporating some of their own (pathetic) fresh data in submitting a second version.
The second version included anonymizing the conspiracists! And they complied with it. In one stroke, this invalidates any suggestion that there were no ethical concerns or questions. Why did he do it then? For kicks?
Looks more like Lewandowsky et al kept focusing on the legal angle since that was one of the concerns, but imagined that to be the only one in front of the journal, tried to work their paper through the newly changed law (he mentions it three times) and …triumph.
Secondly, consider the following. The decision of the retraction came in February. Post-Feb, the retraction statement was worked out and everyone signed off on it. All involved parties would have known about it. There’s every reason to expect it.
How do you then square with statements such as this:
Shub,
Why would you expect her to understand this part after not understanding much of the rest of it?
Shug,
Good catch! There is now no disagreement that Frontier expressed reservations about the ethics, because both sides discuss the “anonymizing” comments. So Lew knows Frontiers wanted participants to be non-identifyable. The difference of opinions seems to be whether Lew’s paper successfully addressed Frontiers concerns.
Frontiers says whatever Lew did, it didn’t address the concerns; Lew says what he did did address the concerns.
On the legal front: Lew and Frontiers may have a diference of opinion about how a legal battle might pan out. There could be a number of reasons for for differences of opinion, including whether Frontiers is willing to publish stuff that would be ‘defamation’ under ‘normal’ laws while using a ‘shield’ of special protective language in the new statute to give them “more than even US Sullivan rules” protection non-journals would not qualify for.
That law appears untested. Reading the plain text various ways suggests it might give huge protection, or …. not…. Depends on how the caveats are interpreted.
I love this (likely bit of snark) by GrantB
I hope Lew is working on “Recursive Fury (3rd iteration): Conspiracy ideation among psychological researchers and journalism students researching conspiracy ideation in climate change denial”. His statement seems “infused with [an] assumption of nefarious intent.” Several of his statements and earlier cited commentary appear to display “persecution-victimization.” The clasping of the tiny comment evidence of legal threat and subsequent dismissal in comments of both Brandon and Foxgoose (not to mention claims on the McKewon piece that the question of threats is “undeniable”) smack of “refusal to believe anything that does not fit”, apparently a marker of “nihilistic skepticism.” The recent hacking narrative over at Cook’s site repetitively claims that their tendency to leave structural and sensitive information in insecure locations could not possibly be the way people have infiltrated their site as the links were impossible to guess smacks of an assumption that “nothing happens by accident.” They certainly seem to indicate that the journal’s retraction-response-response “must be wrong” (which is interesting as their assault on the journal’s editorial protocol does not seem to suggest that faith in the reviewed quality of the journal’s output is misplaced). It’s almost as if they believe that the retraction is “self-sealing” evidence of the vast, well-funded and highly motivated influence of climate change deniers.
It is pretty clear to me now what happened. Frontiers always had ethical concerns about the paper (at least after the initial complaints) and realized they needed to retract the paper. However, in order to placate the authors, they negotiated joint retraction language seemingly blaming legal uncertainty for the decision. Unfortunately, the authors and their supporters could not leave well enough alone. We saw an avalanche of commentary (video, Guardian article, multiple blog posting) changing the narrative to that of an unimpeachable study being withdrawn by spineless editors because of legal threats by bullies (Notwithstanding this is just stating facts, I would not be surprised if Lew were to see my “avalanche” comment as yet another conspiracy theory. I look forward to being featured in “Son of Recursive: The Fury Returns”). This put Frontiers in an untenable position and forced their hand to clarify the real reason for the retraction.
Friendly advice to Lew – next time quit when you are ahead. The original retraction notice could reasonably have been read as an exoneration. You pushed it too far and now your credibility is in tatters.
Is Frontiers based in the U.S.? If not, that U.S. law may not offer them any protection.
Edited to clarify: when Lucia mentioned the “new statute” I thought that referred to the U.S. law which blocks claims from U.K. defamation suits. If that was intended to refer to the change in the U.K. defamation law, a similar question applies. Is Frontiers based in the U.K.?
Wow. Someone got a screen shot quickly!!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/contrarians-bully-journal-into-retracting-a-climate-psychology-paper.pdf.
If you search for the title now, the google cache date is
The thing is also cached here:
http://archive.is/df9oS
But if you search for that title now the page was ‘unpublished’ and the cache reads
This is Google’s cache of http://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2462. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 20, 2014 03:05:16 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Text-only version
Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper
Article not yet published.
Creative Commons License The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
So…. the ‘pre-announcement’ at John Cook’s (coauthor of Fury) appeared quite early. The “embargoed” until March 20, 2014 is.. uhmmm… interesting!!
Maybe the “philosopher” referenced is the Dr. Larry Torcello that Lew quotes in his recent video, the author of this gem discussing the “well documented corporate funding of global warming denial”.
lucia:
#128005
.
I’m curious: What do you find interesting about the embargo date?
Poetic exploration, stuck in moderation,
Zero explanation, lost my motivation,
Nothing happens by accident,
Must mean that this event,
Is part of a conspiracy,
Ideation policy.
Look out kid,
She kept your words hid,
Your Dylan parody might as well be Japanese,
They stuck you in the borehole,
A sinister philosophy:
Wait until the thread’s dead,
Then your comments get released.
(Guitar solo)
Lucia (#128005):
I don’t understand the point. This appears to be a copy of Dana’s Guardian post on the topic. So what’s surprising about finding it at the SkS site? Or are you surprised that it’s not still up?
huh… oh I guess I knew that about the cache. But anyway:
1) Dana’s discussion of retraction announcement briefly appears at SkS (blog run by co-author of fury on March 20. This quotes the contractually agreed on language of the retraction and elaborates giving the SkS spin at length. That is: places in context of “bullying”.
2) Dana’s discussion vanishes very quickly. (In the interim, I had seen excited tweets! Also, some people got screenshots.)
3) Dana’s discussion appears at the Guaridan on March 21. March 21.
5) March 21, Lewandowsky announces the retraction
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html where he published his version of the retraction. He also tells us
So, whatever this contractual agreement over the retraction entails, the authors of Fury interpret it as not prohibited them from telling people they don’t agree with the retraction statement. In fact, Lew does so before Frontieirs publishes the retraction statement!
4) March 21: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/ Retraction watch comments on retraction. They note “Here’s the retraction notice, which isn’t live on the journal’s site yet:” There source of information is Lewandowsky who … “somehow” managed to get his ‘spin’ in before Frontied retracted.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html
5) March 27. Frontiers publishes the ‘contractually agreed on’ language of the retraction along with the retraction itself on http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full
6) lots of other people publish things at different places. for example, “climate crocks” publishes a video on March 21. http://climatecrocks.com/2014/03/21/stephen-lewandowsky-in-whose-hands-the-future/ . This starts with lewandowsky.
7) 04 Apr 2014 Frontiers clarifies their retraction
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812/all_blogs
8) April 4. Retraction watch comments on the clarification statement and requests reader input. They get them in spades (including me). http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/
9) The certainly not previously silent Dana who wrote the very first post about the retraction appears in comments at retraction watch. I’d diagnose some of his comments as “expressing fury”, but perhaps he would characterize his emotional state differently. By April 6, Dana intimates dishonesty on the part of Frontiers writing
That’s all you have, and that’s the problem. You’re assuming Frontiers is being honest and accurate in its new statement. You’re only getting one side of the story – that will change next week.
dana1981
April 6, 2014 at 2:43 pm
”
10) April 7: Lewandowsky post. This is presumably “his side” (or at least part of it) He says lots of things (which I leave to readers to read). In that post he states “the authors have made few public comments since the paper was retracted”. http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html (Note that this is in some sense true. Lew, the lead author, made plenty of public comments on the retraction 6 or 7 before the paper was retracted. A lengthy public comments also briefly appeared at the second author (i.e. John Cook’s) blog 6 or 7 days before the retraction was published– though these were published by “Dana”. Dana then published an article containing similar discussion of the apper at The Guardian. All before the formal retraction was posted.
Anymore important time line stuff? (I’m thinking of putting together a more formal timeline. If you suggest something, I’d love to add it. But since I’m requesting info: if you think you have relevant info for a timeline, please give the date, some sort of synopsis in your own words and a link. I know lots of people like ‘snark’, snark is obscure. If you resort to obscurity I probably won’t follow it up because the time I might need to invest in figuring out the significance of ‘mere snark’, how to add it to a time line explodes.
Lucia,
That cache was available for a good amount of time after the news broke. It wasn’t until SKS inserted “noindex” into their headers that it disappeared. That’s what made me check the HTML.
Neal/DGh
It shows that the Lewandowsky affiliated sites were publishing well before the Fronteirs announced, and that there was sufficient planning involved in the decision to write and publish to create an embargo date.
DGH,
What’s interesting is that Lew now discusses that the authors were silent after the retraction. That retraction occurred on March 27. But remember: The Lew posted at length before the retraction date. And this shows that a post appeared on a John Cook controlled site before the embargo date. It’s true that Dana’s post at The Guardian doesn’t have any official connectin to John Cook– but the ‘pre-post’ at SkS does connect this to SkS and so, John Cook.
Note that Dana is was also intimating access to insider knowledge in his comments at Retraction Watch. Of course the authors (John Cook and Lewandowsky) don’t “need” to make public announcements when they can have Dana post things at SkS (JC’s blog) and also The Guardian!
I would include blog’s pre-retraction article and Elaine McKewon’s piece at the Conversation.
edit- and Dr. Lew’s video with the creation date as the timestamp.
Lucia,
I think you were responding to HaroldW. I made that point at STW earlier today.
“It is pretty clear to me now what happened. Frontiers always had ethical concerns about the paper (at least after the initial complaints) and realized they needed to retract the paper. However, in order to placate the authors, they negotiated joint retraction language seemingly blaming legal uncertainty for the decision. ”
well, thats been on the top of my list of not implausable explanations.
Of course there were ethical violations: Lew had an Obligation to inform people that they had been deceived. He did not. In fact he used his deception the create the very kind of situation that the guidelines about deception are intended to prevent.
one of the many fascinating things about this retraction is that the Lew-boosters are fixating on the differences they perceive between the 2 retraction notices, whereas it seems that most people who think that the Lew paper is junk are just reading the first retraction notice as a general statement of concern regarding the law (which would also cover ethical worries) and see nothing untoward in the second notice narrowing down the problems that the journal had with the paper.
Another fascinating thing is why so many “scientists” (Bickmore, Halpern etc – does Laden count as a scientist?) continue to stand in support of this pile of junk. What can it possibly matter to them if this pile of possibly libellous junk is retracted? I realise that this seems like a rhetorical question but why would anyone want to associate themselves with this “research”?
Diogenes, it matters to them because they see it as a real war against evil. And in a war you have to protect your own until the bitter end. And in such a war the end justifies the means.
Don’t forget Elaine’s (peer reviewer) The Conversation article..
http://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085
and the SciAm article, the Conversation article got most attention? pushing Frontiers to react?
OT – March UAH is out and is .170.
I am pumped because I actually bet warmer this time!
There have been some suggestions that there was contractual agreement between Frontier and Dr. Lewandowsky regarding the terms and language of the retraction.
As any lawyer knows, an agreement is unenforceable as a contract unless it is supported by “consideration” from each party. “Consideration” is a legal term of art that can be defined as, “Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual promises.” In other words, each party must give up something of value for the contract to be enforceable in court.
It seems to me that prior to any negotiations, Frontiers was legally free to retract the paper and provide any explanation it deemed to be appropriate. Frontier may have voluntarily agreed to issue the retraction using language agreed to by Dr. Lewandowsky. For this agreement to be enforceable as a contract, however, Dr. Lewandowsky would have been required to make promises that would constitute consideration. In other words, he would have been required make a promise to do or refrain from doing something of value.
Before we can even consider whether there has been a breach of contract, I would want to know what consideration Dr. Lewandowsky provided to make the contract enforceable.
I hope I have explained this concept clearly. It is elementary in the law of contracts.
PaulD,
would helping Frontier avoid litigation be consideration?
Was is germane to the timestamps for me, is it demonstrates that Cook had discussed this retraction prior to the official notice with Dana.
One of the “outs” that Lewandowsky is trying is that he didn’t personally write any of the really negative stuff on his blog. He just collated what people were saying and posted it.
But if there’s evidence of coordination (which there is), that means he or the other authors colluded to bypass any legal agreement he had with Frontiers.
Lewandowsky seems to be complaining that, unlike their critics, the journal should have been bound to some sort of gag order to prevent them from fighting back.
The trouble is among his many flaws, Lewandowsky has no common sense: If you make the threat existential enough, people are going to stop playing nice and fight back.
GrantB is hilarious!!!
Comfortable as a goat in Mecca?! Like a goanna?!
“PaulD,
would helping Frontier avoid litigation be consideration?”
Possibly. Us lawyers spend a good deal of time in law school studying what constitutes legally sufficient consideration and the issue can be complicated. If Lewandowsky had a pre-existing colorable claim in tort or contract against Frontier, then agreement to not pursue the claim would definitely be valuable consideration. However, an agreement not to pursue a legal claim that has no validity is not legally sufficient to support a contract regarding the wording of the retraction.
I would like to see someone from Lewandowsky’s camp address what, if any, consideration he provided. I could then address whether it was legally sufficient without undue speculation.
j ferguson:
Yes – avoiding litigation is consideration.
That is the consideration underlying every settlement agreement.
Of course we would need to see the legal agreement to verify that they mentioned avoiding litigation as consideration.
Usually there would also be a release.
Personally, I would be surprised if there was an actual legal document drafted related to the retraction.
More likely it is a series of emails which L thinks of as a legally binding agreement, but which is probably just an informal agreement related to the retraction language.
If we are lucky – all the various documents will be released and we can judge for ourselves.
I don’t know if someone has earlier pointed this out, but Frontiers guidelines for authors includes the following sentence: “For manuscripts reporting experiments on human subjects, authors must identify the committee approving the experiments and must also include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects.”
While Lewandowsky et al. have plausible cover for the committee part, they couldn’t possibly have satisfied the second criterion. Makes one wonder how the paper was accepted in the first place.
PaulD,
my thought was that Lew’s consideration was helping Frontier remove the paper which was likely to provoke litigation aimed at Frontier. It wasn’t litigation by Lew, but maybe from people we know.
PaulD, what? We don’t have no stinking undue speculation. It’s all due, for sure.
Tom Curtis responded to what I said. It seems remarkable to me:
Tom Curtis doesn’t deny Foxgoose’s threat had no bearing on the paper being retracted, yet he insists Lewandowsky is right to suggest the journal was wrong to say it received no threats in its retraction notice.
It’s amazing. The retraction notice was for a different paper than the one Foxgoose threatened the journal over. How could anyone get that from Lewandowsky’s post?
Would an agreement of a retraction statement actually preclude the journal from making further comments? It seems slightly off to me that Lewandowsky made comments regarding the retraction, yet claims that the Journal is in breach for doing so.
The retraction notice still sits in place of the retracted article, but absent an NDA, I’m not understanding why the Journal, or it’s editors, or other staff would be gagged from commenting further.
Doesn’t the effectiveness of a contract also depend on a meeting of the minds? It seems like there might be a weakness in this one given the conspicuous mindlessness of our hero.
“PaulD,
“my thought was that Lew’s consideration was helping Frontier remove the paper which was likely to provoke litigation aimed at Frontier. It wasn’t litigation by Lew, but maybe from people we know.”
Frontier was likely within its legal rights to retract the paper for whatever reasons it chose and for no stated reason at all. It did not require any help from Lew to retract the paper.
Moreover, Lew cannot control what lawsuits are filed by other persons so I don’t know what he could have contractually promised regarding litigation by other persons.
JoeShill: “The retraction notice still sits in place of the retracted article, but absent an NDA, I’m not understanding why the Journal, or it’s editors, or other staff would be gagged from commenting further.”
Yes. We need to see the contract, if one exists. In the absence of some type of contractual “gag order”, Frontiers would be entitled to comment regarding other reasons for the retraction.
RickA: “Personally, I would be surprised if there was an actual legal document drafted related to the retraction.
More likely it is a series of emails which L thinks of as a legally binding agreement, but which is probably just an informal agreement related to the retraction language.”
I agree that this is most likely the case. I think that if an actual legal document existed, Lew’s associates would be citing the provisions breached.
RickA: “If we are lucky – all the various documents will be released and we can judge for ourselves.”
Yes, that is what needs to happen. Until this happens, any talk of “breach of contract” by Lew’s confederates is just hot air.
I have obtained** the following letter from Frontiers’ counsel to the editors about their clarification:
Fred & Costanza,
Go ahead and post your statement. I’d be quite comfortable dealing with any confected outrage from Lewandowsky et al.
I. Cheetham, Esq.
Dewey, Cheetham & Howe
**that is, made up out of whole cloth
From Lew’s site (I don’t bother registering over there, so I’ll write over here as it’s known that he does lurk here)
“Now some, not Eli to be sure, might wonder how a paper that was never published (the second version of Recursive Fury) could be retracted? It can be withdrawn by the authors or refused by the journal.”
No some, pretty much every thinking person to be sure, might think Eli is confused. Again.
At Shaping Tomorrow’s World Stephen Lewandowsky writes,
“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.”
One wonders why he would continue his relationship with a journal that his supporters characterize as incompetent, dangerous and unethical liars?
DGH:
I would have thought it self-evident.
Yes, obviously. Equally obvious that masses of scientists won’t be boycotting the journal due to concerns over the strength of the journal editor’s spine.
The second version Brandon is talking about, Eli, is not the one that ended up not satisfying the journal and thus not being published (as explained in the journal’s explanatory statement) but the one that satisfied foxgoose’s “threat”.
The motivation for Recursive Fury is evident.
All psychologists know the best defence is to accuse your opponents of being defensive.
Lucia – regarding your chrinology I thought these two points should be included.
3/20/2014 19:42 “DeSmogBlog has learned the paper’s four authors, led by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, the chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, have signed gagging orders preventing them from discussing the nature of the complaints about their work, carried out when Lewandowsky was a professor at the University of Western Australia.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout
3/18/2014 Dr. Stephen Lewandowsky takes us to the land of climate change. Â In the last several minutes he discusses the circumstances surrounding the retraction.
Dr.  Lewandowsky recently wrote, “Although there has been considerable media attention, the authors have made few public comments since the paper was retracted.” Contradicting this claim is the vimeo view counter which indicates that Dr. Lewandowsky’s discussion has been viewed more than 3,000 times since the retraction of the paper.
http://vimeo.com/89099432
I suspect that the higher ups at Frontiers were under the impression that the study had no ethical issues as they had been reassured by Lewandowsky’s University Ethics Office that this was the case.
When the FOI requested documents were posted in the public domain then the senior administrators and lawyers at Frontiers became aware that Lewandowsky himself had drafted the letter from the Ethics Office stating all his work was kosher.
I suspect that this was when the fertilizer impacted with the ventilation system.
mYBE THIS MIGHT HELP:
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/lewandowsky-timeline/
I am particularly fond of this post from Geoff:
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/lews-thinking/
Just some basics for your timelime with links:
March 18, 2013 – Published
June 14, 2013 – (according to Lew) Skype conversation regarding defamation risk. Foxgoose and JeffId?
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
August 28, 2013 – Discussed defamation risk, paper must be retracted. Was invited to submit replacement article (same link as above)
January 1, 2014 – submitted new article (same link)
February 12, 2014 – Rejected replacement article (same link)
Journal Retraction-
Received March 21, 2014
Accepted March 21, 2014
Published online March 27, 2014
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
Pass the popcorn…. looks like another titanic legal clash is brewing. You know they have lost the public argument when they have to use lawsuits to ‘prevail’.
Lucia –
Very admirable that you put this detailed exegesis together, and I agree with your analysis completely. But, it was not really necessary. This whole sorry “paper” is nothing but gibberish. Lew belongs in a padded cell.
Since the uncertainty principal means we do more, not less, according to Dr. Lewandowsky, I propose this:We cannot know with any degree of certainty that the good Dr. is not schizophrenic. So we need to medicate Lewandowsky with a goodly round of the latest anti-schizophrenic meds, and due to the lingering uncertainty, electroshock therapy should be started stat. A lobotomy should be strongly considered, since we still cannot be completely certain.
@Mosher
No frenzy here, folks. No hope for a “treasure trove” of secret emails, no sir. The most energetic feeding frenzies seen at sites like this are not the climate issue, but the hunt for the “treasure troves”, the secret conspiracies.
Bugs,
Maybe we’re all just looking for all the good stuff Neal and Dana have been promising us for the last week. Or have you been asleep.
So what “skeptic” could possibly be sufficiently grandiose in “conspiracy ideation” to deal with people who have already announced their explicit intentions to (re-) shape the entire world?? Lewandowsky et al. have interfered to widely influence the very circumstances they purport to study objectively and scientifically.
[the following cross-posted with Climate Audit]:
A general point that I have not seen emphasized (I may have missed it): Lewandowsky et al. intervened pervasively in the materials of their “research” by first founding this blog with the grandiose title “Shaping Tomorrow’s World”…. They announce that they intend to shape (re-shape) the world, then pretending that they had not provoked the very critical responses they pretend to “study”….
Merely that title, never mind the many vitriolic and alarm-oriented screeds which they published there before and during their so-called research, propounds their comprehensive goal of…..
“shaping” …… “tomorrow’s” ……. “WORLD”
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/
So first Lewandowsky, Cook, Skeptical Science moderators, et al. issue declarations of their intent to “shape” the very “world” in which we all live.
Then they attempt a study which is supposed to be scientific analyzing critical responses to their own grandiose pomposity.
Talk about injecting themselves and their ideas into their own subject of study, and then pretending to “research” the critical responses.
Another perspective on grandiose plans for “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” —
a different example:
Karl Marx famously said, ““The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
(“Theses on Feuerbach”)
These words are even inscribed on his gravestone.
Now suppose that Marx or any of his followers had started railing against anyone who objected to their plan to “change” the world by publishing pseudo-scientific “research” in psychology journals etc. (well had such existed at that time…during most of the 19th century psychology was still treated pretty much as un-empirical philosophy)
Suppose such Marxist psychologists had raged that anyone who objected to their grandiose plans to “change” the world must be in the grip of “conspiracist ideation” with delusions of “nefarious intent” … “unreflexive counterfactual thinking” …. “must be wrong” …. “nihilistic skepticism” …. “nothing by accident” …. etc.
My oh my, such Marxian psychologists would have a field day giving pseudo-psychological explanations for every form of intellectual and scientific criticism of their plans.
bugs,
When people who lie and cheat get caught out, there is certain amount of dramatic resolution. Lew, like Gleick and others, have been caught lying and cheating. As you demonstrate, when one’s side gets caught out lying and cheating a certain amount of sour grapes is about the most we can expect from people like you.
As for climate, it seems to be muddling along quite well. No climate catastrophe is underway or seems likely to. Another thing for you to express your sour grapes over.
My oh my, such Marxian psychologists would have a field day giving pseudo-psychological explanations for every form of intellectual and scientific criticism of their plans.
“Would have”?
Joseph W,
I think the reference was intended as a bit of sarcastic irony.
Hunter, I think so too but how could I resist pointing out that it was also historic fact? (Just a few decades later than in his hypothetical and with the resources of a totalitarian empire behind it.)
(Per this book Freud’s Vienna circle were not above using similar tactics against their critics, either.)
Thanks to diogenes, I’m getting a lot of hits from here. I’ve just posted an update on the Lewandowsky saga at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/lews-cannons/
and I realise that I haven’t paid as much attention to this blog as I should have. For example, it was here that a commenter revealed that kwiksurveys, the site which published the original “Moon Hoax†survey, had been hacked, lost a lot of data, and gone bust. Can anyone confirm thjis, or was it the kind of in-joke we all liked to exchange in the nearly days of the Lewandowsky saga?
Also, at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/lews-third-table/
I point out that a “first attribution†of a conspiracy theory attributed to me belongs in fact to Lucia. But that “doesn’t diminish my glory†(h/t W.S. Gilbert) because the first attribution of another conspiracy theory attributed to Steve McIntyre in fact belongs to me. In fact, the attribution of conspiracy theories by Cook and Marriott, the authors of this part of the paper, seems to be perfectly random. They clearly had no idea of what they were doing, and nor did the peer reviewers Swami Wood and McKewon, or the numerous supporters of this paper, who include prominent professors at Australian Universities, as well as journalists at Scientific American, the New York Times, the New Yorker, Huffington Post etc.
The unravelling of this complex story will take some time and effort. Foxgoose, at Bishop Hill and at Lewandowsky’s own site at Shapingtomorrowsworld, is currently suggesting that a class action by those of us who have been quoted and therefore defamed by Lewandowsky is the way forward.
Opinions welcome.
Geoff Chambers … I posted the information on KwikSurveys being hacked. A simple Google of “kwiksurveys hacked” would answer your question as to the validity of the comment.