It is such a potentially huge problem, that not looking at the issue realistically is too dangerous. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Moreover, one of the bloggers who was also involved in the response to LOG12 recently called for the retraction of a peer-reviewed paper that had underscored the pervasive scientific consensus on climate change through an analysis of nearly 12, peer-reviewed articles Cook et al. No-one had a right to privacy: Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Fergsuon is a long-time political staffer who went into climate anti-science at Frontiers of Freedom, then fired up his own Science and Public Policy Institute, which is actually a PO Box in a USPS store within a mile or two from his house. That puts her in the denier blog category for me, even if her stated views are not exactly denying ACC.
The retraction has nothing to do with problems with the paper itself. An attack against the promulgated dogma, a doctrinal breach. That would be impossible. Is it asking for falsifiable hypotheses instead of invective streams? TK Talk June 20, at 1: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. Elaine McKewon, one of the reviewers of the study who was involved in some of the negotiations, has an article describing this sequence of events in The Conversation. That article stimulated considerable discursive activity in the climate blogosphere—i.
So what rights and privacy do the authors of public statements have in social research? I only caught the end of it. In effect, the authors were reteaction a scientific journal as a weapon against their enemies. The complicated Lewandowsky study saga. Your definitions are just plain wrong in this context. This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Do you think Frontiers came to the right decision… but for the wrong reasons? But they carefully did not say that.
Is it academic freedom? Al Gore should be sending you flowers. Jaime Jessop April 19, at Without the appendix, the paper is neither libelous nor reproducible.
Almost all rrtraction us are parts of groups who will choose to surreptitiously promote our own interests over others in rather underhand ways even if in very minor ways. Sceptics rely upon the words of recusive sceptics and a lesser, but no less significant body of peer reviewed scientific literature which points to the real possibility that climate change in the strictest, unbiased sense is dominated by natural factors and that man-made CO2 emissions are either insignificant or play only a minor part.
From reading the first pages I get the impression that they have done of review of the literature in related topics and the logic of their methodology seems reasonable to me. It has these questions: John Mashey April 25, at 4: Like your colleagues in the climate science denier fraternity you are long on hysterical handwaving and short on substance. This has been gone over dozens of times at several blogs.
Professor Lewandowsky wrote a series of blog posts attacking his critics during the research period, and when his critics commented on them here, they were heavily moderated. This would have been under the Obama Administration.
Search Results for “lewandowsky” – Retraction Watch
But given the extent of the media coverage — largely based on misunderstanding — Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the watc. Baiting is entirely the correct word; when the lead author goads people who question his methodology section and his description of a timeline line of events, then he is interacting with living subjects, and not harvesting published material.
No-one had a right to privacy: Frontiers in Psychology, which last month formally retracted a controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiracy ideation, says it did not cave in to threats from skeptics, contrary to what a lot of news reports and commentary implied or claimed.
Scott April rrcursive, at 7: Our angle on the story was how Frontiers, which publishes Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, where the study appeared, had handled … Continue reading Update: They have also been linked with the Nature publishing group who is interested in the open reteaction model Frontiers is developing.
Of course, the host of this blog is an expert, and could do better.
Whoa — my post above was wrong. This information has been covered in other Retraction Watch articles on the subject, and ffury some serious concerns about the wording of the quoted statement from Frontiers.
The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process. Those concerns were not addressed, yet the Editor, Dr.
It should have taken less than a day for Frontiers in Psychology to realise this. At worst the possibility eecursive false conclusions owing to flawed survey exposure arises. His affiliation for the paper seems to be a vanity creation — Climate Realities Research — of which no records can be found. Such posts have not appeared on his blog ever since.
Side note, funny how universities and journals can not be trusted to investigate allegations of misconduct, except when the allegations are made by people with unpopular opinions. My point is that as long as the information in the paper is accurate and it is properly documented and conforms to reckrsive legitimate research then then whatever transgressions occurred in making the decursive do not undermine that basic point.
As a consequence of this interlinked network of ineptitude it is very difficult to disentangle all the errors from each other. It would not be unprecedented for the journal or the university to set the scope of the review in such a way that the study passed muster without actually considering the claims at issue. If you read the FOIed documents on DeSmog it is extremely clear that someone was threatening a lawsuit:. Kind of seems odd, from a statistical point of view, but regardless; If there is a correlation to be made; CAGW accepters would be more strongly correlated with serious belief in faked moon landings than rejectors of CAGW.
Are there other reasonable ways of analyzing the writings, etc.
Search Results for: lewandowsky
As a release describing the new partnership notes: Every code of ethics for psychological research spells this out. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent.
This understanding can potentially inform communication and engagement strategies with the general public and decision makers. After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits.
Mike H above is correct. This makes all the difference. A scientific journal should be held to a higher standard.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.