{"id":24316,"date":"2014-04-15T16:24:50","date_gmt":"2014-04-15T22:24:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/?p=24316"},"modified":"2014-04-15T19:50:10","modified_gmt":"2014-04-16T01:50:10","slug":"fury-authors-interactions-with-participants-john-cook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2014\/fury-authors-interactions-with-participants-john-cook\/","title":{"rendered":"Fury Authors Interactions With Participants: John Cook"},"content":{"rendered":"

As many<\/a> know know documents obtained under FOI<\/a> revealed that Lewandowsky’s ethics request for work involved in Recursive Fury said the effort would not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153 involve experimentation, surveys, questionnaires or a direct approach of participants of any sort\u00e2\u20ac\u0153.
\n<\/p>\n

Shub Nigguruth<\/a> posted on the extent of interaction by Lewandowsky. Today, I want to highlight some additional involvement by the authors during the second phase of the study. This period is described in Fury as follows<\/p>\n

The second phase of the search traced the response to LOG12 in the blogosphere.
\nAn on-going web search in real time was conducted by two of the authors (J.C. and M.M.)
\nduring the period August-October 2012.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note: I refer to LOG12 as “Moonhoax”. Recall that this paper’s content related to the notion that climate skeptics might tend to believe in conspiracies. So, tracing response to LOG12 would involve examining discussions touching on any topic of the paper: i.e. believe in conspiracies, or any discussion of the quality or finding of the paper.<\/p>\n

The three authors are Lewandowsky, John Cook (J.C.), and Marriot (M.M). Presumably, these gentlemen number among those who will not approach the blogs. One might imagine this might also mean they would not write things to affect the discussion about ‘conspiracy theories’ or get involved in discussion of any of the hypotheses later touched on in their paper.<\/p>\n

The blogs whose participants were not being “approached” were wattsupwiththat.com, joannenova.com.au, junkscience.com, climateaudit.org, bishophill.squarespace.com, australianclimatemadness.com, climatedepot.com, rankexploits.com\/musings, warwickhughes.com, and noconsensus.wordpress.com. <\/p>\n

Participants specifically named are <\/p>\n

JN=Jo “Nova” of joannenova.com.au; ROM=Anonymous commenter with pseudonym
\nROM at www.bishop-hill.net; GC=Geo\u000b Chambers (commenter at
\nwww.shapingtomorrowsworld.org); SMcI=Steve McIntyre of www.climateaudit.com;
\nAW=Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

For today, I will highlight some interactions between John Cook and studied participants. I make no claims of completeness, and would welcome any other evidence contacts between John Cook and either named individuals or blogs listed above during the relevant period.<\/p>\n

John Cook: Interactions with blogosphere during phase 2.<\/b><\/p>\n

On September 21, 2012, while involved in collecting evidence of reaction to “Moonhoax” in the blogosphere, John Cook posted a blog on at Skeptical science 21 September 2012 <\/a> in which he brought up the topic of “conspiracy” theories and specifically named the lead bloggers (Watts and McIntyre) at two blogs being studied:<\/p>\n

… for now, let’s shine some sunlight on the most over-the-top conspiracy theory of them all. This originated from Anthony Watts<\/em> who claims:
\n…
\n involved relatively small-scale conspiracies to falsify data (Steve McIntyre<\/em> uses the word “scam” 21 times in one article). Watts<\/em> takes it to a whole new level with his imagined “global climate activism operation”. The subsequent comments thread is a journey into the surreal – look for the out-of-left-field assertion that Maths Professor Kevin Judd is the puppetmaster pulling the strings behind this global conspiracy (affirmed by two other WUWT<\/strong> commenters).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the Recursive Fury, McIntyre is specifically named. Watt’s blog is studied. <\/p>\n

—<\/center>
\nDuring September 2012, on a thread mentioningStephan Lewandowsky<\/a>, John Cook interacts with Geoff Chambers, responding to questions about whether Skeptical Science posted a link to the survey in “Moonhoax”. Some screen shots of the interaction follow all can be clicked to enlarge:
\n\"JohnCookInteractsWithGeoffChambers\"<\/a> 
\nNote the response by “John Cook”. Also note that Geoff’s comment is edited by the moderator. While the moderator is likely “DB” and not “John Cook”, the blog itself is John Cooks, as such one might interpret the moderator’s interactions to be under the agis of John Cook. If so, this means John Cook is both participating in by adding his own comments, and shaping reactions on the part of Geoff or other participants in the blogosphere by either editing Geoff’s comments or allowing them to be editing. <\/p>\n

\"JohnCook_interacts_with_Geoff_again\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

\"GeoffChambers_JohnCook_3\"<\/a> 
\nNote in this conversation, Geoff mentions a post at one of the blogs being ‘studied’ (http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2012\/multiple-ips-hide-my-ass-and-the-lewandowsky-survey\/)<\/p>\n

Finally, the moderator instructs Geoff to contact John privately.
\n\"SkS_mod_tellsGeoff_tocontactCookpvt\"<\/a> <\/p>\n

My understanding is Geoff did contact John by email, and further interaction occurred by email. Note the conversation involves members of the blogosphere attempting to sort out which blogs Lewandowsky contacted, when he contacted them and when invitations to participate in the survey were posted at blogs. Two of the ‘conspiracy hypotheses’ discussed in “Fury” fall in this general category. <\/p>\n

In Fury, Geoff is later identified by name and associated with discussion of “conspiracy theories” relating to how, when or if Lewandowsky contacted blogs. As we can see, John Cook interacted with bloggers involved in these sorts of conversations. <\/p>\n

—<\/center>
\nSo we see that during the period Fury authors ‘observed’ responses at the blogosphere, the 2nd author was interacting with the participants at the blogs whose behavior they were observing and with other participants who they named in their study. <\/p>\n

As I said: I make no claims of completeness here. These are interactions I found. I hope others can assist me in finding more. To maximize helpfulness, I urge people to stay on topic in comments on this post. For this post ‘on topic’ means specific<\/i> interactions between John Cook<\/em>, and named<\/I> blogs or named<\/I> participants during the observation periods. Please provide links to evidence where possible. I will later be writing a two posts one discussing Lewandowsky the other Marriot. <\/p>\n

If you wish to discuss other issues — including your opinion about the ethics surrounding the interaction — please leave those on the miscellaneous thread.<\/a> Keeping this on topic will help me find bits of information when I need them later on. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As many know know documents obtained under FOI revealed that Lewandowsky’s ethics request for work involved in Recursive Fury said the effort would not \u00e2\u20ac\u0153 involve experimentation, surveys, questionnaires or a direct approach of participants of any sort\u00e2\u20ac\u0153. Shub Nigguruth posted on the extent of interaction by Lewandowsky. Today, I want to highlight some additional … Continue reading Fury Authors Interactions With Participants: John Cook<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[134],"tags":[446],"class_list":["post-24316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-lewadowsky"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}