Friday
Mar212014
by
Bishop Hill

The Lew roll


You turn your back for a few hours and all hell breaks loose!
I return to my desk to find that Desmog blog has published the University of Western Australia's correspondence relating to the Lew Paper - in other words all the complaints by sceptics. I'm hearing on the grapevine that some of them are missing however.
Meanwhile Lew himself has written about the takedown of the paper here, and there is a long video here if you have a strong stomach.
Meanwhile, Retraction Watch's coverage of the affair can be seen here.
Reader Comments (71)
I clicked on the "comment" button on Desmog, hoping to see if there were any comments extant. Without any further input from me I was told that I'm not authorised to make comments. I've rarely visited the site before and never made, or tried to make, a comment. I'm not on a fixed IP address. Have I been singled out, or is it just that nobody outside a small circle is allowed to comment?
When the broughah breaks
Juggernaut argot naughty;
Rock a bye, baby.
===========
Egad - Lew is a whiner, isn't he? It's always someone else's fault, it seems... still, I suppose it means he's going to take his massive and unstable ego somewhere else for a while. I hope.
Meanwhile his side kick is already trying to rewrite history at the Guardian, that this paper made a series ‘mistakes ‘ and it authors made a series of claims bordering and over bordering libels, gets no mention of course. But then scooter boy never let facts or what people ‘actual wrote ‘ in the way of his BS
Given the amount of time he gives to CIF , his ‘evil fossil fuel employees’ seem to be rather generous in what they allow him to do at work.
Heh, the fault risks tipping Bristol into the sea.
=========
Elftone: Some of the 'somewhere else's we already know. Seldom have I had such a urge to attend the BIG Green Week Festival as part of the Bristol Festival of Ideas on 18th June (h/t Geoff Chambers). Wouldn't it be fun to hear the spin put on this week's developments by the Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award holder and even, perhaps, to ask a question about them? And my Mum and sister now just down the road. A summer of delights awaits?
Popular Technology has written extensively about the De Smog Blog:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
Seems to me, the Lew paper has found an appropiate home there.
I don't waste my time on Lewsers
.. and Steve M joins in the fun
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/21/lewandowskys-fury/
You couldn't make it up.
‘evil fossil fuel employers’
Do Tetratech know they have a viper in their bosom? Perhaps they do, and just letting him have more rope...
Philip,
We couldn't, but Lew can.
For those on the verge of throwing out their transistor radio I suggest having it to hand next to an open window facing the garden hopefully range of the local squirrel population later this evening.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03y3lkv
Lew lends itself to sooo many possible one liners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03y3lkv
Mar 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul
Lew and The BBC all in one year is enough for me let alone a day. Aaaarrrrggghhhh
Yeah, the Looney Dowser Paper.
==================
Delusional, just plain delusional.
But the great thing is (as the Irish would say) that just when things might have settled down, another hornet's nest has been stirred, courtesy of them. Fancy poking a stick at Steve McIntyre, Barry, Shub, Geoff and all the other people who they intensely annoyed last time around.
All they need to do now is to engage Mark Steyn to complete the assembling of all their enemies ... which in a way has already happened.
I've started transcribing the video, since few will have the stomach to watch it. Here's the story so far:
He then links anti-semitic emails he's received with Roy Spencer's (apparent) comment about climate policies possibly risking more lives than the Holocaust, and accused Steve McIntyre (without mentioning him by name) of trying to elicit a smear campaign by publishing the email address of an UWA official.His account of the matter of the contacts with Sceptical blogs is peculiar, missing out his initial refusal to name the blogs contacted and his sneering taunts at ShapingTomorrowsWorld. True statements by sceptics are quoted anonymously, with no attempt to refute them.
He cites Wood et al 2012, who famously got a positive correlation with a sample of zero.
After summarising briefly the findings of Recursive Fury, without mentioning the existence of this non-paper, he goes on to discuss “the Dark Side”, the “Subterranean War on Science” He goes on to mention McIntyre's (?) FOI request for dates and times of blog postings, relating to Lewandowsky's claim to priority in revealing the identity of sceptical blog posters who failed to identify the (effectively anonymous) requests for his survey to be publicised. And once again he links McIntyre to one of his conspiratorial criteria without naming him.
Then (27'35”) he gets on to Recursive Fury: From there we go to study showing the connection between sadism and trolling,, defined as “behaving in a deceptive or destructive manner on the internet”.
Then there's a slide headed “In Whose Hands the Future?”:
And here he reports on some new research he's done showing sceptical blog comments (he doesn't say which ones or cite any examples) to a random sample or respondents, and demonstrating that they rate us high on “attributing questionable motives” “suspicion” and “something must be wrong”.
He then dismisses the possibility of discussion with sceptics, citing a truncated contextless dialogue and a quote from the sceptic which he's deliberately paraphrased in order to prevent identification on Google.
The desmog post includes this little snippet:
They screw up, someone notices, but of course it's the other guy's fault.
Geoff, thanks for that.
As in the old joke about the mosquito in the nudist camp, I know what I want to do, but don't know where to begin!
It reminds me of those late night televangelist shows on TV.
Heh, 'confected outrage'. Let 'em eat cake.
==================
5:11 PM Paul
fortsooth! it raineth! the BBC run a climate program that involves seventeenth century literature ... Shakespeare's take on cloud albedo, were Don Quixote's windmills aesthetically better than modern ones, what would Samuel Pepys made of an electric car? - there's so much material... Chuck in Noah too...
A small step for man, but possibly not a giant leap for mankind. I am wondering if the arrival of Noah might, after all, be of some use here. A leader who must ignore the sceptics and take powerful unpopular action to save the planet has to have real backbone to see it through. Maybe it's not just Russell Crowe who needs God's voice in his ear.
Glad I've no radio in the house at the moment
I didn't yet have the stomach but those excerpts are a tremendous help Geoff. Holocaust scholars call the process radicalisation and hack academics were always at the forefront of it. I know that view might seem merely to create two equal and opposite Godwins but I have to say it the way I see it. We do see development in Lewandowsky's poisonous worldview and it isn't good development. Thanks a bundle for keeping a handle on it. And thanks johanna for the mosquito analogy. Bite away!
So, after all the Nazi revelations at SkS, the taking apart of Lew's papers by McIntyre and now the effective retraction of the Recursive Fury paper but with spin to make it look like climate deniers are bullies. After trying to claim that climate deniers are suffering from some kind of mental illness and that they harber sympathies with other conspiracy theories such as the moon landings were hoaxed, Lewandowsky prepares a self-indulgent 42 minute video seeking to justify his actions in psycho-babble language. You just couldn't make this stuff up, could you?
And he thinks we are crazy? Lewandowsky - take a look in the mirror. You really do need help. And you need to find friends on-line who don't have a penchant for pasting their own pictures onto Nazi images. In secret forums.
Eventbrite wants to know. Please don't disappoint them - now or on 18th June.
Richard - Perhaps Tamsin Edwards will attend and send us a report?
Turney and Lew
Do we have some sort of nutter-exchange arrangement with Australia
Steve M thoughts now up at CA
thinkingscientist: I have the impression Tamsin stays clear of Dr Lew, as a subject and as a colleague, and I would understand if she had. But it is Bristol's 'Festival of Ideas' after all. Some deserve to be shot down from all sides.
I think it's a competitive sport. "We see your Turney and raise you a Lewandowsky." (Old country folds amidst mutual cries of "Unfair," "Suck it up Pommies," "Just as bad as bodyline" etc.)
'You turn your back for a few hours and all hell breaks loose!'
There is also quite a kerfuffle over an article Roger Pielke wrote for Nate Silver's 538 web site, Judith Curry has a post on this issues.
Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers
Sorry Geoff, no help. Weak stomach.
Richard Drake: if you and any other BHers are really likely to attend the Bristol Big Ideas event, I would definitely like to go too, not only to see Lew (with a sort of horrid fascination), but also to meet any BHers that might be around (I live in Bristol and don't find it easy to get to your other pub get togethers). i will invest in a ticket anyway. i'll bring my Josh calendar for identification!
Caroline: Consider it an increased probability! Any good pubs in Bristol for a debrief afterwards? (I think I remember some. My climate scepticism began with some Rio Tinto geologists shooting the breeze in a Bristol cafe in the early 1990s. Happy days.)
Richard Drake:
I'm sure there are some down round the waterfront. Am not too familiar with them, but will reconnoitre. have already bought my ticket for the event! so will go, even if no-one else does. but i hope there will be some back-up!
Richard Drake
There was a scrumpy pub of about 400 years tradition that I met on a long ago brief visit
Thanks for the transcript Geoff.
It whetted my appetite enough to devote 42 minutes of my remaining life to the video.
I can't say it was wasted time. I think I learned a lot about psychology from Prof Lew - but possibly not in the areas he intended.
It's odd to think he's living, breathing, hating & ranting only half an hour away from where I'm sitting. I even have a vulnerable young relative studying there at the moment.
Suddenly the world seems a stranger place.
Did he just stand in his room in front of a webcam and record his speech?
Yes Fox, sadly I know exactly how you feel.
But no worries, the latest Prof Lew 42 minutes is far from being an answer to anything!
"It took "Deep Thought" 7½ million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42!"
Shub
He appeared to be declaiming to an empty office - but did you notice the deafening wild outbreak of applause at the end?
Did he have the combined Bristol membership of Greenpeace, FOE and WWF crammed into a corner of his office - or did he fake it in traditional TV sitcom fashion?
Either would be just as weird as his script.
You can figure out when he shot the video by the Hiroshima clock.
Shub
Yes, that's what he did. And it didn't cost him a cent. I had to register with Vimeo to comment there, and it turns out to be free vanity film-making for the hard up. The last time I transcribed Lew I was fascinated by his accent, which wanders from Oklahoma to Strine to Ivy League in each sentence, with the occasional shriek like that of the White Queen in Alice when she discovers that time runs backwards and she's about to make a prick of herself. There were traces of received English this time, but I didn't notice any Bristaouw.
Foxgoose
From the spelling on the slides, I think he was talking to an American audience.
The news is the announcement near the end about new research he's done which involves showing sceptical comments from the “Recursive Fury” affair to members of the public, who apparently agreed with Cook and Marriot's analysis that we are all paranoid fruitcakes. They were also shown material prepared by PhD students pretending to be paranoid fruitcakes, but apparently they were considered less barmy than the real thing (us). Once the paper is published it will be time to demand the prompt material, identify its authors and complain to Bristol University about unauthorised use of it and of the indoctrination of PhD students.
If the sceptic quotes used can be attributed to their owners, their unauthorised use would likely be defamatory. If not, then the research is worthless, the work of a charlatan. I can't wait to find out which it is.
It comes to saying Lewandowsky made the video ~ 27 days back. Does it sound right?
Thanks to geoffchambers for the transcription. Lew, speaking on behalf of Frontiers says: "Well, that's gratifying, they confirmed our academic and ethical integrity." Really?
I was struck by the statement from Frontiers: “This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.” That doesn't even qualify as "damning with faint praise." Notice they did not say, "This investigation found no issues with the . . . etc" or "This investigation found no issues that cast doubt on the ethical or academic aspects of the study." Or, to use Lew's words and state it without a negative, "This investigation confirmed the academic and ethical integrity of the study." These people are writers. The word "identify" is purposefully ambiguous. It could mean they actually found some "issues" but chose not to "identify" them publicly or even privately in their report.
Of course I'm exhibiting two of the six aspects of conspiracist ideation here--Nefarious Intent and Nothing As It Seems, so Lew and his deranged followers can immediately reject what I say.
The possibility must also be considered that Lewandowsky, given his excitable nature, could have sued Frontiers for spiking the paper-- insufficient cause, damage to his reputation and all that. By phrasing things imprecisely, or rather precisely to create a false impression, they give Lew something --the ability to claim exoneration by an "investigation" and retain his so-called "professional" reputation-- that allows them to avoid a suit by him.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that they spent weeks coming up with the wording on that sentence alone.
If anyone wants to know why the paper was retracted, all they have to do is read Steve McIntyre's letter to Frontiers and UWA.
This is a long and, already, tedious song but I can't remember who mentioned Dante but, with Solzhenitsyn, I, we are all, am in the 'first circle, the 'virtuous pagans''. Damned but virtuous. What did Nietzsche say about Dante? A hyena on graves. Not that he should have the last word but the honest and signing pagans might. The mighty of thought, condemned by a great but, ultimately, superficial poet. How do you know, or deal, with the sting of a mosquito? By scratching it. Don't scratch. Please, don't scratch.
Simon of Australian Climate Madness tracks down the UWA legal counsel ... and guess what he finds ?
Lewandowsky: UWA general counsel a Greenpeace supporter
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2014/03/22/lewandowsky-uwa-general-counsel-a-greenpeace-supporter/
Are they revealing names of writers when they publish the FOI stuff? If so they may well be in breach of the Data Protection Act in the UK. If you notice, all requests in the UK, at least from proper organisations who know what it takes to comply, will have names and identifying details, including gender pronouns, redacted.
Sherlock Holmes would have pointed out that the most interesting thing to come out of Brother Lew's 42 minutes of hellfire preaching was "the dog that didn't bark".
He addressed, with some vigour, all the evil atrocities and calumnies that we sceptics have heaped upon his long-suffering head, with one notable exception - the direct accusation that he never posted the LOG 12 survey at SkS and then lied about it.
Surely, accusing a senior academic of faking his results and lying to cover his tracks is a bit more serious than sending him a cheeky email asking if his PhD came out of a cornflake packet.
Those who have followed the Lew saga closely will have noticed that he never mentions, refers to or defends himself against the most serious, and potentially libellous, attack that has been made on him.
It's almost as if he's pretending it didn't happen.
Now that Recursive Fury has crashed & burned - we need to keep the pressure on to get the truth out on LOG 12.
"
"That link doesn't work (for me, at least). Try this one:
http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/lewandowsky/complaint%20defamation%20to%20frontiers.pdf
NOT all th ecomplaints to UWA and Frontiers have been inluded. I aware of some to Frontiers, that were not released by UWA.
My emails to Frontiers are in the FOI material.
My emails and complaints to UWA directly are NOT part of the release...
If one of Prof Lewandowsky's students asked him. Did you post the LOG12 survey at Sceptical Science or not?
I wonder what he would say?
But I bet not even ANY of his colleagues at Bristol (or any psychologist, or journals in the field) have asked him that question - Cowards. - they are the problem for allowing activist psychologists to abuse psychology to attack their own critics,