Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Lew Roll of Honour

He decided this comment was worthy of using:
"Lewandowsky is not actually offering anything
different than Gleick's forged HI trash. The
very large majority of the respondents are
extremist believers in AGW. That it made its
way through peer review is strong evidence
that anything making caricatures of skeptics is
quite acceptable for many academics, and
offsets any need for accuracy integrity or
honesty. As we saw with Peter Gleick's fraud
and forgery, the climate kooks will rally
anything under any circumstance that offers a
chance to pretend skeptics are wicked, evil
and ignorant. The irony that the believer
obsession on climate is making them become
what they claim skeptics are is apparently lost
on the climate concerned."
And Lewandowsky has proven my point.
Thank you, good sir.

Mar 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing

Simply another reminder of the utter incompetence of the Lewandowsky et al. "methodology" --- lots of people were simply trying to understand the multiple levels of malicious ineptitude involved there.

Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

Clarification from @skepticscience that Lewandowsky et al do *not* really think I was "espousing conspiracy theory"

Mar 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil


... trying to understand the multiple levels of malicious ineptitude ...

They'll come a day when we'll have even better things to do :)

Mar 22, 2013 at 10:13 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Skeptical Science have responded. I have a few comments posted..

including this one: (fromating better in the link)

I was fascinated to find one of my comments was included in the Recursive Fury paper's Supplementary data, alongside such exalted company as comments/articles by Prof Richard Betts (Met Office- Head of Climate Impact, IPCC AR4, AR5 lead author), Prof Judith Curry, and Paul Matthews (Reader of Mathematics Nottingham Uni)

but I was concerned to find that my comment included appears to be quote mined and not displayed in full, 'quote mined' is how I perceive it, let me explain carefully.

ie when I tracked down the link (I could not cut and paste it, some tech probs from PDF) I found that my FULL comment had not been included/quoted... just this:

“someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory” – Barry Woods

LOG12 heading/Tilte:

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

the url provided in the supplementary data didn’t work for some reason (tech issue), so I had had a search for my comment and found that just 2 sentences had been used from a much longer comment.

Why did the papers 'raw data' exclude my very next sentence? where I describe how some of the conclusions made (and title) of the LOG12 paper, is actually rected by its own data!

"Looking at the data, those that most strongly ‘reject’ climate science, ALSO strongly reject ALL the conspiracy theories…" - Barry Woods

MY full comment is show below, which backs up my statement, whilst linking to an analysis of Lewandowsky’s actual data for LOG12, a link which contains survey data, so anybody can check for themselves

Barry Woods (Comment #102532)
September 2nd, 2012 at 3:53 am

someone has looked at the data. and the conclusions and title of the paper are utterly fraudlent. ie 45 out of 48 those that reject climate science REJECT the moon landing conspiracy theory

Looking at the data, those that most strongly ‘reject’ climate science, ALSO strongly reject ALL the conspiracy theories…

extract below-

So what of the conspiracy theory that most the moon landings were faked? The one in the title 'NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science'

45 out of 48 of those who dogmatically reject climate science, also dogmatically emphatically reject the conspiracy theory. The two who score 4 are rogue results.

In fact, the response is pretty emphatic in every group. Consider the abstract.

We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets.

Let me be quite clear. The title of the paper makes a false claim from authors with an agenda of silencing opponents. It is entirely without any proper evidence.

The other eleven results are below

well worth a look at the pivot tables in the above link"

that was my full comment, link:


thus this full comment which linked to LOG 12 survey data, and fully backed up my concern that the title of LOG12 was not supported by the survey data (in fact, those that most strongly – as you say ‘rejected the science’ in fact STRONGLY rejected the conspiracy theories), making the title of the paper, problematic. and perceived by many, hence the criticism, that the paper was as deliberately and incorrectly provocative..

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science - Lewandowsky et al

If you may recall from Skeptical Science and Shaping Tomorrows World comments by SkS regular Tom Curtis, he also had similar concerns (full comment, my bold):

"Sou @42, the direction of causation conspiracy theorist -> AGW "skeptic" correctly represents the findings of the paper. The use of "therefore" in the title, however, indicates that that is supposed to be a logical inference. That is not supported by the paper, and is not reflective of the reasoning of any person I am aware of, or (I believe) any real person.

It is very difficult to believe that the title is anything other than a deliberate attempt to be offensive so as to draw attention to a paper of poor quality, but which is thought to be useful for "messaging" in the climate wars. Steve McIntyre has incorrectly attempted to infer a moral condemnation of Lewandowsky from certain of my comments (now corrected). Let me leave no-one in any doubt. In choosing the title of his paper, Lewandowsky not only acted unscientifically, but immorally as well. It was a despicable act. - Tom Curtis

link Shaping tomorrow world blog here

I await the final publication of LOG12 with interest, as it would be of course by far the best course of action, to respond formally to a journal any concerns or issues with LOG12, than by comment on blogs. Unfortunately that is all that I and others could do, despite the paper having wide media attention, yet it is still (not quite?) published. thus LOG12' many critics are not yet able (many of whom, whose blog comment/concerns that the Recursive Fury paper is about), to actually formally respond to the journal Psychological Science.

Personally, I do not see how LOG12, can be published with this title..

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

yet if the title were to change, the Recursvive Fury paper would be about, with criticisms about, a unpublished (in the journal) version of the LOG12 paper. This would make the publication, and of the Recursive Fury paper, in its current form problematic aswell.

Please add my full comment to the suplementary data, as I think you misrepresent a name identifiable person comments.

Additionally can you advice me of the ethics considerations and approvals for the Recursive Fury paper.

Mar 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Someone should study agitprop activists and "scientists" from the standpoint of Lewandowsky's own "conspiracy ideation" methodology and categories.

i.e., analyze the thought patterns of people prone to hysterical reckless generalizations about a trace gas destroying the world due to conspiracies of fossil fuel lovers, etc.

One thing that spurred my own doubts and 2nd look interest in all this has been the frequency with which the agitators for alarm and crisis seem to be very conspiratorial, alarmist, and given to catastrophism.

Ever since Bill McKibben's "The End of Nature" (1989?) and Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" (1992) I have been more alert for grandiose catastrophe theories dressed up as political action plans (and "radical" action plans dressed up as the only solution to alleged climate catastrophism).

Perhaps compiling and analyzing alarmist quotes and thought patterns could provide insights and comparisons toward understanding the Lewandowksky/Cook conspiracist ideations.

Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Skiphil, fear not. Science by its very nature will remain forever aloof from politics/activism. As a skiing friend of mine is wont to say; “The mountains are not mocked”.

Mar 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered Commentersimon abingdon

Oh dear ! Marriot (co-author) again, referring to an article of mine at Watts Up With That.
“The latest piece of denial to ping around the echo chamber comes courtesy of Mr Watt’s blog and is titled “What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?” As you may have guessed it is the there is no consensus myth/meme/lie.
This post is authored by well-known climate “sceptic” Barry Woods”
his blog about MY Watts Up article is tagged: BULLSHIT, Climate Change Sceptics, Deniers, Disinformation, Dunning-Kruger

Mar 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I forgot my login to frontiers journal, I will add this when I get home

I am a named very recognizable individual in the data for this paper

One of the author of this paper has previously written about me and my Watts up articles.
He tags the article me and my article: bullshit, denier, disinformation

Please would the journal consider removing the suplementary data from this page, until such a time, that my name and comment is removed from it.

As I have note previously, my comment cherry picked, for 2 sentences, and my full comment ignored. In light of the above I think that would be a minimal course of action for this journal to take.

I cannot see how this research passed any ethics consideration, or comprehend how authors who are so atagonistic to the human subjects they research, 'sceptics' would be considered appropriate researcher in this field.

I further note that this previous article by a co author states

States: "the well known,"sceptic" Barry Woods"

Refering to my article at the most WELL known sceptic blog Watts UP With That

Thus I consider the potential to damage my reputation, is high

Mar 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Some valuable info from Steve McIntyre and others on this thread:

Someone needs to write up a factual, dispassionate listing of all the mistakes, false statements, and innuendo from Lew et al. in these papers, the SI, and the various Lew blog posts and comments. There will be a strong case for academic and ethical misconduct when all of the evidence on Lew is assembled.

Sorry that I can't volunteer for such a project right now, but I will warmly applaud anyone who can do it!

Mar 23, 2013 at 5:09 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

I can't, I've got a life, job, three young kids, elderly parents a grandmother that suffere 5 falls this week, and a wife and family fed up with the time I've spent on this..

Someone, should be psychologists that care about their field, not us.

Mar 23, 2013 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Understood, Barry, and best wishes for dealing with some difficult times. I have spent much time and energy helping aging family and hospitalized family members in the past couple of years, so I know something about that.

You have contributed much on these matters already. Let's hope that someone on these blogs, new or old-timer here, can swoop in and organize a lot of the key details into some kind of Bill of Indictment.

I don't think we can expect much from psychologists or the academic professions on this. There is little motivation even to think about such professional failings, never mind actually to do something about it.

Mar 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

What an honour to be listed with these people in Lew's spreadsheet! I am not worthy ...

My humble comments were critical of a couple of aspects of the methodology, aspects which anyone who had done the most basic course on survey methodology would be familiar with (e.g. not publishing progressive results while the survey is still open).

This is conspiracy ideation? Cripes, I must have hit the mark - although it was like shooting at the Great Wall of China from 5 metres away.

Made my day!

Mar 23, 2013 at 9:58 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

Wish I was on Lewandowsky's hit list

I spent years denying climate change at Richard Blacks blog and where did it get me? Nowhere :-(

Unless you count threatening comments from Albatross on SkS and people on RB's blog

Even RB doesn't talk to me anymore!


Mar 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM | Registered Commentermangochutney

I'm distressed because I managed to make it into the Lewspew SI for such an innocuous factual comment, merely noting the origins of the "Shaping Tomorrow's World" blog as involving Kevin Judd, Lewandowsky, and the SkS blog.

If I get to be included in the Roll of Honour at least they could have used a comment where I liken them all to a gang of thugs crawling out of their cesspool, or something...... (no I don't think I ever said that but maybe I could, just for the SI).

Mar 29, 2013 at 3:19 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

a note on Lewandowsky and Cook mired in incoherence and double-standards (cross posted with CA):

Since Lewandowsky is already on record (last Sept.) insisting that various bloggers should have perfect email records and recall for any unsolicited two-year old request(s) from his assistant Hanich, Lew has unwittingly set the bar very high for himself.

While the skeptic bloggers had no reason in 2010 to know the name Hanich (or even Lewandowsky), or to care about a spammy request from the equally obscure Univ. of Western Australia, Lewandowsky reviles and ridicules them for not instantly sorting out the long lost details two years later.

Yet, Lewandowsky and Cook, still cannot now after many more months, provide a precise, accurate accounting of the details of their own studies and email correspondence pertaining to such work. Their research, their work.

So in Lew-world, bloggers can be chastised, maligned, and mis-represented for not displaying instant recall for spammy emails from years past, but “scientific” (sic) researchers are not expected to keep their own records of scientific data and correspondence in any state of order at all.

This is incompetence of a peculiar kind, drowning in hypocrisy and ignorance. The Cook-Lewandowsky team can be proud!

Mar 31, 2013 at 10:44 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Nice point Skip. If we were to total up all the hypocrisies we'd be a very long time. But that's a crisp one.

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:09 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I call the man a war criminal, and he files it under methodology. What's not to like?

Apr 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

I call the man a war criminal, and he files it under methodology. What's not to like?

Hey! I'm now in the peer review social science litichur quoted describing LOG12 as "hacky shite", so I have mixed feelings about the idea of a retraction too now ;)

Apr 2, 2013 at 11:15 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Tom Curtis - of Skeptical Science ! confirms the LOG12 survey was NOT posted at SkW - he write to Steve McIntyre to absolutely confirm this.

my thoughts as well (with brief history)

Apr 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

On a thread where one might expect words of support from an SkS apologist the silence from the Bitbucket troll is deafening.

Apr 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Registered CommenterRKS

Don't provoke it, it'll have the thread derailed before you can say "solar panel".

Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

People might like to know that a fair number of formal letters of complaint (and some not so formal) have gone to the editors of the two journals and to the University of Western Australia, from BH regulars and others. The editors of Frontiers in... have been polite and correct, asking permission to forward complaints to the authors of “Recursive Fury” in confidence, but pointing out that they can’t guarantee that they won’t be released via an FOI request.
My conspiratorial mind suggests that this will happen, our complaints will be published, and be the subject of a third paper, for which the second paper will provide the supplementary data....

Apr 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Apr 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM | geoffchambers

My conspiratorial mind suggests that this will happen, our complaints will be published, and be the subject of a third paper, for which the second paper will provide the supplementary data....

No wonder Lew's fury is so ... recursive ;-)

Apr 11, 2013 at 5:34 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Alex Cull has spotted the first Moon Hoax paper surfacing again here
Alex and I have got our comments in.

Apr 11, 2013 at 8:34 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers