Reviewer: Journal Wilts Under Climate of Intimidation


A response to this article from the editorial director and executive editor of the journal publisher appears at the bottom of this post.

***

Censored bookIn February 2013, the journal Frontiers in Psychology published a peer-reviewed paper which found that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Predictably enough, those people didn’t like it.

The paper, which I helped to peer-review, is called “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”. In it, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues survey and analyze the outcry generated on climate skeptic blogs to their earlier work on climate denial.

The earlier study had also linked climate denial with conspiracist thinking. And so by reacting with yet more conspiracy theorizing, the bloggers rather proved the researchers’ point.

The Conversation logo_AU
This article by Elaine McKewon originally appeared at The Conversation, a Social Science Space partner site, under the title “The journal that gave in to climate deniers’ intimidation.”

Yet soon after Recursive Fury was published, threats of litigation started to roll in[here’s an example of one criticism, albeit without threating legal action], and the journal took the paper down (it survives on the website of the University of Western Australia, where Lewandowsky carried out the study).

A lengthy investigation ensued, which eventually found the paper to be scientifically and ethically sound. Yet on March 21 this year, Frontiers retracted the paper because of the legal threats.

The episode offers some of the clearest evidence yet that threats of libel lawsuits have a chilling effect on scientific research.

In announcing its retraction, Frontiers made the following statement:

In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.

The retraction of Recursive Fury has attracted sharp criticism from the scientific community.

In the course of private discussions, I have learned that a number of scientists who had submitted work to Frontiers fired off letters to express their dismay at the retraction and to seek assurances that their studies would not be retracted under similar circumstances.

Other researchers went public with their remonstrations. One scientist who lists 23 peer-reviewed scientific publications on her Frontiers profile page bluntly challenged the journal’s judgement and commitment to academic freedom in a comment posted under the retraction announcement:

I am dumbfounded to see a scientific paper retracted by the editor because of threat of libel. The fundamental job description of a science editor should include the defense of academic freedom. I certainly expect my newspapers to defend freedom of the press; do scientific publications now hold themselves to lower standards?

The inside story
As one of the peer-reviewers of Lewandowsky’s paper, I am also profoundly disappointed by its retraction. Here, I’ll share my experience with the review, publication and retraction processes and provide some more context to the story.


A Critical Response

I’m writing in regard to multiple factual inaccuracies in a recent article published at your site,”Reviewer: Journal Wilts Under Climate of Intimidation,” written by Elaine McKewon. I discussed this in some detail here (republished at a more popular blog here), but I’ll summarize here.

The article’s first sentence is wrong.  It claims the paper it discusses (Recursive Fury) “found that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.” It did nothing of the sort.  It only examined one group of people (those who supposedly reject climate science). As such, it couldn’t possibly make a comparative analysis between that group and others. All it could do is say what traits that group might have.

More importantly, the entire narrative of Elaine McKewon’s article rests on the idea Recursive Fury was taken down in response to complaints regarding two sentences. She discusses the paper being taken offline because of them, her involvement in a discussion regarding them and concludes:

“Just how clear would the legal context need to be for Frontiers to stand up to intimidation and defend academic freedom? First, the two sentences discussed in the conference call had been amended as agreed, which satisfied the journal’s lawyer even under the former libel laws.”

The reality is those two sentences were not what caused the paper’s final retraction. The paper was taken offline because of them, as McKewon claims, but it was then republished with changes made to address concerns regarding them.  Then, when more complaints came in, the paper was taken offline a second time. That is what led to the paper being formally retracted.

Elaine McKewon’s narrative is false. It is built upon her failure to disclose undisputed facts I presume she was simply unaware of.  This is inexcusable as those facts were common knowledge amongst people who followed the topic she discussed, and they were readily available to anyone who researched the topic.

It’s difficult to understand how an article which misrepresents basic facts would get written and published.  Regardless, I must ask some measure be taken to address the problem. Either the article should be amended, a response should be published, or the article should be withdrawn. I would recommend one of the first two.

– Brandon Schollenberger


Early last year, I accepted the journal’s invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers in response to Lewandowsky’s earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free-market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

(A note here on the use of the term “denier.” Denial is defined as “a refusal to accept that something unpleasant or painful is true” – e.g. “The patient is still in denial.” No fewer than 97 percent of climate scientists now endorse the scientific consensus on the reality, causes and significant risks associated with climate change. The term “climate change denier” or “climate denier” describes an individual who rejects the science of climate change and the considerable body of evidence on which it is based. It has no further meaning or connotation beyond this.)

Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence. Satisfied that the paper was a solid work of scholarship that could advance our understanding of science denial and improve the effectiveness of science communication, I recommended publication. Two other independent reviewers agreed.

The paper names and quotes several blogs and individuals. Shortly after publication, Frontiers received complaints from climate deniers who claimed they had been libeled in the paper and threatened to sue the journal unless the paper was retracted.

After taking the paper down from its website, Frontiers began its investigation and arranged a conference call so that the journal’s manager, legal counsel, editors and reviewers could discuss how to proceed.

The journal’s lawyer, who is based in England (as was Lewandowsky by that time), was very concerned about the journal being sued for libel. At that time, British libel laws left scientists, peer-reviewed journals and journalists exposed to potentially ruinous lawsuits for publishing fair criticism of a company, person or product. (Of all the jurisdictions in which academic journals are published, the UK has historically been one of the most generous to libel claimants.) That changed on January 1 this year, when Britain’s libel laws were amended to reverse the chilling effect on science and legitimate public debate. Claimants must now show that they have suffered “serious harm” before launching legal action.

But in February 2013, the journal had no such protection, and the lawyer raised concerns about two sentences in the paper that had been the subject of threats of litigation. By the end of the 20-minute conference call, we had all agreed that, if the authors made minor modifications to these sentences, the content would remain intact and the paper could be re-published without fear of successful legal action.

Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed.

Yet the paper remained in limbo while the journal’s investigation into the academic and ethical aspects of the study dragged on for more than a year. Finally, the journal reached the conclusion that there was no academic or ethical case to answer; in the meantime, Britain’s Defamation Act 2013 had kicked in to provide scientific journals greater protection against threats of litigation, by privileging statements contained in peer-reviewed studies.

It is hard to imagine a set of outcomes that would have better remedied each issue flagged by Frontiers as a matter of concern. So it came as quite a shock to hear that the journal had decided to retract the paper ostensibly because “the legal context is insufficiently clear.”
Clear intimidation
Just how clear would the legal context need to be for Frontiers to stand up to intimidation and defend academic freedom? First, the two sentences discussed in the conference call had been amended as agreed, which satisfied the journal’s lawyer even under the former libel laws. Second, Britain’s new libel laws offer science journals greater protection for precisely this kind of situation.

In any event, the journal’s management and editors were clearly intimidated by climate deniers who threatened to sue. So Frontiers bowed to their demands, retracted the paper, damaged its own reputation, and ultimately gave a free kick to aggressive climate deniers.

I would have expected a scientific journal to have more backbone, certainly when it comes to the crucially important issue of academic freedom.The Conversation

***

Elaine McKewon receives an Australian Postgraduate Award from the Australian government’s Department of Education. This scholarship enables research that is in the public interest and free of vested interests.



Retraction of Recursive Fury: A Statement

There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.

As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.

As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.

We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.

One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.

Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.

Costanza Zucca, Editorial Director
Fred Fenter, Executive Editor


0 0 vote
Article Rating

Elaine McKewon

Elaine McKewon is a third-year journalism PhD student at the University of Technology, Sydney examining coverage of climate science in Australian newspapers during 1996-2010. The primary aim of her study is to explain how the scientific consensus on climate change was reconstructed as a 'scientific debate' in the Australian news media.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

48 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MikeR

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

Frontiers reiterates their point of view: the paper was unethical. Nice, and simple.

s_c_f

There was nothing scientific whatsoever in the two papers. They were an attempt to smear and harm the reputations of individuals, and the papers were filled with falsehoods and flawed methodology. The author of this article does not even have the qualifications to review a scientific article in psychology, climate science, or any other scientific discipline. In fact, there are numerous falsehoods in this article as well. It is clear to anyone who follows this story that the climate of intimidation is coming from people like Elaine McKewon herself. The retraction of the second paper was obviously justified and here… Read more »

willard

Readers should read the editorial **Furious Reviewer: Elaine McKewon** at Lucia’s:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/furious-reviewer-elaine-mckewon/

Readers should also read the comments under that editorial, and compare with those who commented here.

Let readers decide whatever they fancy.

Richard_Arrett

Done.

Clearly there is some overlap.

So?

Richard_Arrett

Or maybe you are implying their is coordination?

That would be conspiracy ideation!

Which is ironic and pretty funny – when you think about it.

hunterson

The more the Lewandowsky gang complain and distort the record of the faux papers and the demise of the second one, the more they come across as ill-informed, ill-willed and obsessed. They seem ignorant of climate science, uncaring of the norms of ethical behavior, and deliberately deceitful regarding their work and what happened to it.

Michael Snow

Just the facts, Ma’m. http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812

As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some
of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible
publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers
did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.
The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the
thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.”

ClimateLearner

Elaine is a casualty of the climate scare campaigns. She will have been exposed to them all her life, and did not have the intellect nor the fortitude to check the reality and see what a flimsy foundation the scares all stood upon. Now she has damaged her own career as a result.

Kaedwon

“Denial is defined as “a refusal to accept that something unpleasant or painful is true.” You mean unpleasant, painful and true facts such as there has been no global warming since the Clinton administration? Who are the real “deniers” anyway? The Lewandowsky paper should never have been published in the first place, on ethical as well as methodological grounds. His conflict of interest goes (or should have gone) without saying. To quote Dr. Tol: “Naming and labeling people is such an obvious ethical and legal minefield that this episode casts severe doubt on the judgement of the authors, referees and… Read more »

John

Its pretty sad when you jump over the thought that you may be wrong and right political damage control.. The science of political science isn’t very scientific at all..

Replying to valid criticisms with,: I know you are but what am I” deserves to be defunded into the dust bin..

TerryMN

For being “an Inside Story” from someone who is pursuing a PhD in Journalism, this article gets a surprising number of basic facts wrong. I hope the author finds time to reply to both the Frontiers update and some of the commenters here, or at least correct the article.

PhilJourdan

Sadly, she is not alone in getting so many facts wrong on basic reporting. That seems more the norm today than the exception.

Richard_Arrett

After reading the new statement from Frontiers I now wonder if the two sentence change Elaine is referring to is the same article as the ” substantially similar” article which Frontiers said “did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers”. Or was their a different article submitted much later? Now we know there were ethical issues reviewed in the Frontiers investigation and the decision to retract was based on ethical issues – not legal issues. What I still wonder is what did Frontiers review determine as to the academic issues (i.e. flawed methodology). We have yet to hear… Read more »

Les Johnson

I think this says it all about the scientific basis of the paper:

Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research

My emphasis.

Richard_Arrett

I am sure the paper is not “valid research” – but I still want to see the results of Frontiers internal investigation. Thank you for posting at SciAm (and here).

Les Johnson

Is there anything that Elaine Mckewon got right?

Frontiers says it recieved no threats, and that it was concerned about the rights of the subjects. It relayed this to the authors, who agreed to re-write the article. On resubmission, Frontiers found that the initial objections had not been met, so pulled the paper.

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812

Carrick

I would like to see a statement from Mckewon that she was unaware of this additional context when she wrote her critical comments, because otherwise she is guilty of deliberately misleading people, I suppose under the misguided assumption that details of Frontiers internal review would never be made public.

Richard_Arrett

I agree. It may very well be that the peer reviewers were out of the loop between Frontiers and the authors of recursive fury. At least I hope that is the case.

If so – perhaps Elaine Mckewon is now also wondering about the ethics of Lewandowsky.

Les Johnson

Unlikely that she has had an epiphany about Lew. She was heavilly into conspiracy (ala big oil funding) as far back as 2012.

https://theconversation.com/think-tanks-talking-points-deepen-the-divide-over-climate-change-5119

and here

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2011.646403

Carrick

It is interesting that McKewon ideates conspiracy theories herself and was asked to review this paper. Is it the fact she imagines boogiemen a qualification for critically judging this paper?

I’ve not yet found another plausible explanation for assigning the review of this paper to a graduate student.

If people like Lewandowsky and McKewon did not exist, “Big Oil” might have to invent them. As things currently stand, they can just pop popcorn and watch.

Paul Matthews

The claims made by Elaine McKewon in this article have now been shown to be false. Frontiers have issued a statement, confirming that

‘Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.’

So her claim that “threats of litigation started to roll in” appears to be a total fabrication.

MikeR

I see that this article is published on two sites. On this one, there are a number of detailed comments disagreeing strongly with the author. Several of them bring evidence.
On the other site, there are essentially no such comments. There are a lot of comments agreeing with the author, then a few others disagreeing that make no real sense. And then there are about _one half_ of the comments Removed by Moderator. Just sayin’.

BarryWoods

Retraction Watch has most of the original information, and a number of the complainants appear in the comments. The first Article http://retractionwatch.com/2013/03/28/why-publishers-should-explain-why-papers-disappear-the-complicated-lewandowsky-study-saga/ the second article.. http://retractionwatch.com/2013/04/03/update-lewandowsky-et-al-paper-on-conspiracist-ideation-provisionally-removed-due-to-complaints/ and if any reader wants to see most of the ethical complaints (look in the comments under what’s left of the abstract) http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full If we just focus on one co-author Michael Marriott (whose affiliation Climate Reality Research seems to be a vanity creation (no records to be found) was publically attacking people that were named in the paper, both before during and after the research period. Michael runs a one man blog called –… Read more »

Carrick

I’d like to address the issue of climate denier, since McKewon brings this up. Even though, to my knowledge, I have never been described as a “climate denier”, I do not have kind words to say about people who insist on using terms to label another group, that the other group views as derogatory, as McKewon is clearly doing here. To start with, McKewon’s own words: No fewer than 97 percent of climate scientists now endorse the scientific consensus on the reality, causes and significant risks associated with climate change. The term “climate change denier” or “climate denier” describes an… Read more »

John Dawson

You make a crucial point Carrick – to conflate the 4 points into one is to a fallacy that is almost universally applied by AGW alarmists. I would like to divide number 2 into: 2) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. 3) CO2 is increasing. 4) Humans are causing an increase in CO2 and therefore warming the planet. Making 7 points altogether. Sticking to your 4 points, I would agree with the first two, would be skeptical about 3, and deny 4. To conflate that and call me a “climate denier”, which is exactly what AGW… Read more »

stevenmosher

As someone who rather liked the Lewandowsky paper, I’m surprised that Elaine,a reviewer, got facts wrong about the paper and facts wrong about it’s eventual retraction. The paper could have used a minor rewrite to avoid many of troubles that plagued it. It’s baffling that this option was not taken. The reviewer also seems to have no knowledge of the actual people who requested that changes be made to the paper. None of them are what those of us active in the debate would call “deniers.” Some, in fact, have expressed their belief in climate change for the past 7… Read more »

lucia liljegren

stevenmosher, Beyond Elaine not seeming to know the actual people who requested changes, what they requested be changed she also seems to mischaracterize the paper as “a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers”. My blog numbers in the group of posts evidently published by “climate deniers”. Yet, I have always maintained: 1) CO2 causes warming. 2) Man has introduced CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and this is detectable. 3) There has been detectable warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution– and at least some of this is due to CO2 and that this… Read more »

stevenmosher

Thanks for commenting Lucia. I remain dumbfounded as to why the reviewers did not check these facts. Having read a large number of the comments on the events as they unfolded there were plenty of comments that could have been used to support the thesis of the paper. There is no shortage of comments from people who deny the science that show evidence of conspiratorial Ideation.
Instead, the authors focused in individuals who have openly accepted the main tenets of climate science.
And I note that now they ironically play the victim

Carrick

Given that I frequently pull up references cited in papers and review them, when reviewing papers, I admit I too am gobsmacked by the claims of McKewan here, with the apparent lack of care with which she reviewed this paper, and further, her willingness to double down on … whatever she’s double-downing on.

In this case, it appears Lewandowksy’s own narrative is confused, flawed and even self-contradictory.

You merely have to read what he said carefully to realize there are serious problems with his paper.

lucia liljegren

Stevenmosher, Oddly, I’m not sure Lewandowsky could have found many comments suggesting he didn’t try to contact bloggers at all. I doubt if he could find many discussing the notion before Lewandowsky himself introduced his theory that people were suggesting this. For example: Desmogblog reports that Lewandowsky attributes this theory to Skeptics on 9/05/12. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/05/research-links-climate-science-denial-conspiracy-theories-skeptics-smell-conspiracy In that post, the link to Simon Turnhills’s post discussing a FOIA request. But no one at Simon’s blog is suggesting Lewandowsky actually failed to contact blogs. Simon is FOIAing emails: his motive? To learn what is in the emails. That is not “a conspiracy… Read more »

stevenmosher

Lucia, good investigation!
The only way a reviewer could figure out what you did was if she were a journalist trained in tracking down sources in texts. And Elaine.. well never mind.. forget I made that argument

A. Scott

Lucia … I also was one of those attacked in Lewandowskys Fury, and various other of his published rantings. I also believe exactly as you do: 1) CO2 causes warming. 2) Man has introduced CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and this is detectable. 3) There has been detectable warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution– and at least some of this is due to CO2 and that this has been detected in the thermometer record. When challenged at Lewandowsky’s Shaping Tomorrows World blog that if I didn’t like his results I should duplicate them myself I… Read more »

Simon Fraser

The first sentence is like, wrong. How could you peer review a paper you are obviously clueless about?

Were you born clueless or are you just trying to cover up a crappy paper and your even worse reviewing attempt?

geoff Chambers

McKewon says: “Yet soon after Recursive Fury was published, threats of litigation started to roll in, and the journal took the paper down”. The only evidence she gives for this is a link to an article at my blog which reproduces my letter of complaint to Frontiers pointing out that the “Recursive Fury” paper was defamatory of me (I was named in the paper, along with far more prominent bloggers Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and Jo Nova) as well as being defamatory of dozens of other people named in the supplemental material, including Professor Richard Betts of the British Meteorological… Read more »

RealOldOne2

Ellen McKewon is just making stuff up. Evidence for that here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/lewandowskys-peer-reviewer-makes-things-up/

RealOldOne2

Ellen and her fellow global warming alarmists are the real deniers, of natural climate change. Unfortunately for them, there are no peer reviewed papers empirically showing that natural climate variability was not the primary cause of the most recent warming period in the late 20th century. Unfortunately for them, there are no peer reviewed papers empirically showing that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent warming period in the late 20th century. Reality: In the last ~16 years humans have emitted over 460 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and it’s caused no global warming. Unfortunately… Read more »

harkin

Why is it that the agw skeptics release their data and the agw alarmists hide theirs?
#because science

BarryWoods
BarryWoods

A comment from under the abstract (Geoff complained to Frontiers) http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full Geoff Chambers to the editors of “Frontiers” Author of “Recursive Fury” Michael Marriott runs a blog http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/ Between 28 August and 22 September 2012 he published 13 articles attacking climate sceptics who had criticised LOG12. According to the above article, the content analysis of sceptic blogs was carried out “in real time” starting 28 August, by John Cook and Michael Marriott, chosen specifically for the task for their lack of bias. It”s not surprising the raw data (see supplemental data above right) is so full of errors. While collecting… Read more »

BarryWoods

perhaps readers should read the comments under the article at Retraction Watch, and of the abstract of the paper itself, to see the actual complaints and decide for themselves. this comment is eloquent: First, the senior author has an extraordinary conflict of interest. The behavior under study is precisely public criticism of the author’s professional competence. Psychology in particular has a deep concern with the distortions caused by even relatively trivial conflicts of interest. Second, it is probably safe to assume that Prof. Lewandowsky did not write his Psych. Sci. paper simply to create the experimental conditions for the Frontiers… Read more »

brianmacker

Elaine McKewon doesn’t even have the educational background to be a proper reviewer for the kind of paper she reviewed.

PapaLouie

The “Recursive Fury” paper didn’t compare or quantify levels of ideation in the different groups, so how could it find that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories? That is wishful thinking and is not a finding of the paper.

NikFromNYC

You didn’t get the memo? Jim Hansen’s right hand man at NASA’s little office above Tom’s Diner put the word out to stop comparing skeptics of the highly speculative amplified greenhouse effect of supercomputer models (that all alarm is based upon) to Holocaust deniers, because it renders you ridiculous:

http://tinypic.com/r/2lsehp2/5

Your rank dishonesty is pointed out now to thousands of people who have never heard of you before:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/lewandowskys-peer-reviewer-makes-things-up/

geoff Chambers

I’ve got a Pingback at

http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/

which suggests that this article links to my blog, though I can’t see the
link in the article above.

There are numerous lacunae and inaccuracies in McKewon’s article, just
as there were in Lewandowsky’s paper. I shall be addressing these here and at my blog as soon as possible.

48
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x