Bishop Hill The Secret Science Society
Nov 1, 2013 Climate: Mann FOI ;)
Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky have a typically overwrought article at the website of the Association of Psychological Science. Also on the roster of authors are Linda Bauld and Gerard Hastings - anti-tobacco scientivists from the University of Stirling - and a psychologist from the University of Irvine.
One of the principal themes in the article is that bad people keep asking to see scientivists' data and correspondence. This, apparently, is unacceptable behaviour - not a position for which I have much sympathy, or indeed any sympathy at all.
However, it's interesting to see this cross-disciplinary enthusiasm for secret science. Perhaps these paragons of scientific integrity should form a "Secret Science Society" (although the name is already taken). Most of the scientific establishment would sign up.
Reader Comments (141)
Think that SoundCloud URL should have been https://soundcloud.com/secretsciencesociety/ Bish
From the Mann/Lew article:
Outrageous, that "individuals outside the scientific community" are taking it upon themselves to carry out this sort of harassment!
Bullying, coercing and threatening to oust "rogue editors", not to mention redefining the peer review process, should be safely left to individuals within the climate science community.
Alex Cull: Or, more simply, reversal of the truth. Mann and Loo in same bunker. Worse people have gone on to do greater damage in the same spirit of self-deception - which means the Bish and others here are right to keep the spotlight in place in my view. Well let's hope they were worse. These guys having the tacit or explicit backing of (some of) the establishment also rings bells from the past. But as Malcolm Gladwell's latest book says, we have many advantages as the underdogs.
PS The Bish's final link gave me a 404 error earlier but now seems fine. Sorry about that.
If I was Michael Mann I would want to keep my "science" secret!
I wouldn't be able to stand the laughter
Gave up after a page and a half of their whining.
Neil, I didn't get beyond the title and author list.
"The Subterranean War on Science"
sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Professor Lewandowsky is clearly (in part) refering to me personally:
I made 2 comments in reply to this APS article, they were both removed
missing comment 1:
The nature of the error in LOG12 and it's implications is linked below, in a comment I made on Prof Lewandowky's website (he had not responded)
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyFAQPLoS1.html
I also reported the substantial factual error in the methodology of LOG12 to Psychological Science and asked the Chief Editor of Psychological Science to investigate it, and if he would ask Professor Lewandowsky to supply the proof of posting timestamps and the raw data to me, if Prof Lewandowsky failed to respond..
and to quote, the Chief Editor said this:
From: Eric Eich
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:33 PM
Dear Barry--Sorry to disappoint, but no. Best, Eric
this was in response to my email request below:
On 27/08/2013 10:20 AM, barry.woods wrote:
"Dear Professor Eich
Ok.
I will try to contact Professor Lewandowsky (& UWA) and ask him again. If he fails to respond to my requests, will the journal consider asking on my behalf?
Best Regards
Barry Woods"
-----------------------
Hard to make a comment about a paper, if a data request is refused, and the journal will not help get it.
If the journal will provide the requested data, I will put a comment to the journal about this paper.
However, given the Chief Editor's email to me refusing to help me to obtain the requested data, how confident can I be that I am not wasting my time?
I am a member of the public, who now finds this article (and the authors & APS response to my concerns) quite intimidating. "
end missing comment
I wondered when Mann and Lew would have their one night stand.
P R O J E C T I O N ...again
Interestingly, Mann perhaps would appear to be starting to accept the existence of the Medieval Warm Period:
"..... the second author is a paleoclimatologist who has shown that current global temperatures are likely unprecedented during the last 1,000 years or more; "
School girl stuff, the most contemptible people, like Lew and Mann - are always the ones who feel the world owes them a living and that the world cannot or, is incapable of being able to see their particular point of view.
What they both need to do - to book a sequence of visits to see a suitably trained medical expert in corrective and remedial therapy, to realigning the deluded fantasist - because, really it is disturbing.
Mann and Lewandowsky are a perfect pair. They both work their craft by starting with a conclusion and then find support to build a case. It's great politics but lousy science. It's also great for fund raising since many government grants these days want support for a case as opposed to enlightenment with regard to the truth. With this type of environment, it's no wonder Michael Mann was cleared so quickly as the review panel found that the quality of a scientist is proportional to the grant funds raised. But both these people seem to be getting more shrill and are playing up their role as victims. Does anyone here know of a scientist who is confident in their standing in their scientific/technical community that has such a thin skin as these two do? I certainly cannot name one and I suspect that there may be many people who find people with such thin skin are that way because they are not really that confident that what they are doing will stand the test of time.
The Association for Psychological Science are the publishers of one of the two articles by Lewandowsky which were the subject of complaints by a number of us. Their journal, Psychological Science, is currently conducting an enquiry into these complaints. The other journal involved has removed the article complained of from their website. Both articles are cited in the second paragraph of the Mann / Lewandowsky article.
They hve no shame.
Holy cow that is one almighty pitiful and poorly organised whinge.
The only purpose seems to be to hook up some names together. I don’t know about the histories of the recovered memory author, and only vague on the tobacco researchers, but if they had genuine complaints and think they can only gain by pooling their outrage with Lewandowsky and Mann then I think they've been had.
Barry Woods may have a libel claim. Mann et al write: "We are concerned about the activities of individuals outside the scientific community and of little scientific standing, who systematically insert themselves into the peer-review and publication process to prevent the publication of findings they deem inconvenient."
As far as I am aware Woods and others (Steve McIntyre among the most prominent) have confined themselves to requesting data and code used to support work that has been published . In fact most such review are acting under the publisher's guidelines that work make such data and code available. All this is published by the publishers to be a feature of the publication process and is designed to facilitate, not block, post-publication review by peers with any interest in the work or topic, regardless of "community" or "standing."
Bishop your stile is becoming more and more turgid. You must take remedial action. Take this little example.
"This, apparently, is unacceptable behaviour - not a position for which I have much sympathy, or indeed any sympathy at all."
This is unacceptable behaviour. Not a position foe which I have any sympathy at all, is what you should have said.
"University of Irvine"
Are you referring to the University of California at Irvine (UCI)? I know of no "University of Irvine."
The combination of self-importance, pomposity and affected superiority in Mann et al's whinge is such as to make you wonder if it isn't an exceedingly cunning satire.
On second thoughts . . .
As an aside, I am very taken by George Steiner's 'stile'. To say nothing of his spelling. Clearly, a very superior gent.
'Infamy, Infamy; they've all got it in fer me!' [youtube.com].
Lewandowski and Mann, the perfect couple. Pseudo science dripping from every pore. I am actually quite happy to see this kind of article because it simply detracts further from the credibility of the whole CAGW meme.
If I was a conspiracy theorist like Lew, I might suggest the threats and vilest abuse was from warmists making a case for victim status. But I'm not and accept that both sides of the debate have their own nutters. Of course theirs are peer reviewed.
I wonder how many comments to that article will be published? Will they too be used as data on how poor scientists are harassed? Is Lew hoping for abusive comments so that he can point and say 'see, I told you they were mean to me'? I admit to being jealous of those appearing in his former works so this time I've made an effort.
Last time I looked, American Psychological Association ethical guidelines required all raw data to be available on request for up to five years after publication, I don't recall the ethical guidelines saying who was allowed to request raw data. I made one such request once, like trying to get blood out of a stone, but was successful in the end. In theory, a breach of ethics should be taken seriously by the psychology 'professional' organisations, and certainly a journal editor who is not prepared to uphold ethical behaviour might find his/her position untenable.
Pouncer (Nov 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM)
All of us who complained to the editors of the two Lew papers may have a libel claim. The second one (“Recursive Fury”) was altered twice following complaints about potential libel, and is currently “removed” (though not withdrawn) pending an enquiry.When Lew talks about “the intimidation of journal editors who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient by deniers” he clearly means us. We’re complaining about false statements in both papers. For the PSA to publish libellous accusations in a paper by Lew while its editor is conducting an enquiry into our complaints about his previous papers is odd behaviour, to say the least.
Lew’s first paper on climate denial was a clear attempt to link Watts (whose blog was referred to) and McIntyre (who was mentioned by name) to the kind of people who believe the Moon landing was a hoax. His second paper named several of us as “conspiracist ideationists”. This paper links those of us who criticised the first paper with a variety of nasty people, including those who make anonymous racist insults and send threatening packets of false anthrax, and those who interfere with medical research.
Preparation of the paper was facilitated by an Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council and a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society. Time for some more letters of complaint I think.
I knew a whole grad class of PhD students in Psychology when I went to university because my roommate was in the class. They were all nuts.
Like Barry and Geoff, I was one of those who complained to Lew's university and publishers - albeit only under my anonymous user name.
In his "recursive fury" paper, Lew et al took a quote I made on his blog and fitted it onto a completely false context as an example of "conspiracy ideation".
Interestingly - the entire piece built around the quote was removed from the final version of the paper.
What Lew is really bleating about therefore isn't
but rather "individuals who have correctly identified academic misconduct and fraud".He ought to be grateful for our attempts to help prevent him from destroying what remains of his academic reputation.
In any case, he must know his reputation is doomed now, since Geoff and Barry caught him out in direct documented lying about the non-appearance of his first questionnaire at SkS. Presumably he's attaching himself to Mann so that he can join in Mann's highly developed "victim status" when the shit finally hits the fan.
I'm intrigued also that they've both joined the shroud waving activists with the 150,000 "climate deaths" per year nonsense. When Katherine Hayhoe tried this in her US lectures, Richard Betts was quick to put her straight on Twittter by pointing out her figure had no scientific validity. I'm very interested to see if Richard will do the same now the Mighty Mann has joined in the shroud waving.
George Steiner.
Such pedantry is unnecessary.
I would say that the Bishop's "stile" written like that is conversational and therefore friendly.
http://serendipityproject.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/oct-26-2011-eleven-victorian-studio-portraits-of-men-plus-one-couple-english-1880-1900/
I'm just guessing but I assume that Lew didn't poll prominent sceptics (in and out of academe) if they too get harassment and abuse? Perhaps he thought they deserve it?
Sounds as if a certain climate enthusiast, who had best remain nameless, might be in danger of making him/herself ill.
How intetresting that there are no police reports about midnight phone calls or white powder. In the US they take white powder in the mail quite seriously.
Oh wait it is unlikely that anything like that happened if there are no reports of it. How droll.
Zed and responses removed
Under the article it says “Comments go live after a short delay. Thank you for contributing.”
My comment appears to me immediately, but I imagine it’s not visible to anyone else.
There are no comments so far.
Nov 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM George Steiner:
George, given your own compositional, punctuational and spelling skills, I would take great care when criticizing someone else's. They might leave your comment where others can read it - and laugh.
not read it yet , but I would take a very good bet its full of Mann projecting his faults on to his critics.
And its a good bet because that is one of his default approaches .
Meanwhile in science there is reason why its 'critical review' and not just review which is done to validity work, although its a reason these authors fail to understand , which suggest and this comes as no surprise. Their not doing science at all.
I for one will never question anything Mann writes again. (I will never read anything Mann writes again).
This isn’t Lew’s only current activity. He’s giving a talk next week on “Taming The Wilful Ignorance Monster”.
See
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/lewandowsky-scratches-the-scab/
for details.
So are you the parody or the fake?
It will never work. Science makes no sense without providing evidence for one's claims. These fools are only allowed to hide data because of the running hysteria. Take that away (as it is happening) and they sink faster than a box of rocks.
Creepy is creeping back again.
Can you smell the detritus?
PM
Eleven more troll removals and some follow ups as well. Please DNFTT
Seems APS have a policy of showing your comment to *you* alone while they wait to moderate.
Much amusing chundering on twitter about this now - Geoff ;)
So here's mine awaiting:
Nov 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM | geoffchambers
======================================
When Lewy was appointed to the Uni. of Bristol Experimental Psychology, I wrote to both his faculty boss and the Vice-Chancellor of the the Uni. to point out, with links, citations and references, that the man is a charlatan and that his work is beyond flawed. I got a standard blah reply from his boss's secretary and the same from some minion of the VC.
Why was I not surprised.
Nothing to stop others doing so, however
Another instant Mannian classic:
What on Earth he's smoking?!? (Those needing some background, see discussion about Preisendorfer rule N on pp. 154-156 in HSI)
Syria didn't quite work out they way they planned it so they've got to wage war on someone.............or something:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-01/obama-issues-executive-order-prepare-climate-war
Geoff 7.55pm I'm afraid you must have misread the journal's notice about comments. It says that comments are moderated and may take a few days to process. And comrade, I can assure you that it has always said this.
That the AGW crowd are now being defended by these two nutters say's it all.
Paul
On my screen, right under my comment, it says
“Comments go live after a short delay. Thank you for contributing.”
OOh! Secret Science, mmm! This reminds me of something I read a while ago. Oh, yes:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/MechanixIllustrated/7-1939/xlg_mental_poisoning.jpg
There's a ton of Messianism, complete with acolytes, hierarchy, and several candidated for pope, within the CAGW "movement." The only thing missing (so far) is funny hats, long robes, and insigniae. Can they be long in coming?
How embarrassing for both to have the other as a co-author. I'd rather wiz on a spark plug.
This is how Lewandowski describes himself....try not to laugh.
Read on....
"I am a cognitive scientist with an interest in computational modeling. That is, I try to understand how the mind works by writing computer simulations of our memory and decision-making processes. Recently, I have become interested in how people update their memories if things they believe turn out to be false. This has led me to examine the persistence of misinformation in society, and how myths and misinformation can spread. I have become particularly interested in the variables that determine whether or not people accept scientific evidence, for example surrounding vaccinations or climate science."
Oh dear...
Note he bases his work on "computer simulations" and he thinks we live in a fantasy world!
This guy should be sectioned.
Like the Catholic Church of old - only the high priests can interpret the data.