Hilary Ostrov at BH pointed out a comment by André van Delft at WUWT linking to a second article at Psychological Science commenting on the Lewandowsky article.
It contains many of the inexactitudes that we’ve got used to, plus some interesting material on two cases of harrassment of scientists that are not dealt with in Lewandowsky’s article (one wonders why). Then the author Scott Sleek says, among other things:
“The journal, and Lewandowsky’s university, stood behind the study. The critics were invited to submit a commentary for publication in Psychological Science, but never acted on that invitation.”
The second assertion is false. The only correspondence I have from Psychological Science is this acknowledgement from Editor in Chief Eric Eich last April:
“Dear Mr. Chambers
Your email to the Sage central office has been relayed to me, and in turn I have sent it to Dr. Lewandowsky and asked that he respond to your criticisms. I’ll write to you again once I receive his response, but please note that may be quite a while: my understanding is that Dr. Lewandowsky is in transit from Australia to England, and he will need time to settle into his new surroundings.
Now Lewandowsky has found the time to write two scientific papers and numerous articles on the story. Did he respond to Professor Eich’s request? In which case where is Professor Eich’s response to me and other complainants? Or has he still not found time to reply? In which case, why is the journal standing behind him?
3 November Update on “Update”:
Here’s my reply to Professor Eich’s letter of 2 April:
Dear Professor Eich,
Professor Lewandowsky has clearly settled into his new surroundings, since he has found time to give numerous interviews and write numerous press articles, plus two new papers on the subject of climate sceptics, including this one at Psychological Science
I note also that in a second article
Psychological Science’s news editor states:
“The journal, and Lewandowsky’s university, stood behind the study. The critics were invited to submit a commentary for publication in Psychological Science” , but never acted on that invitation.”
I certainly received no such invitation. Did other critics? Is the invitation still open? Does the statement: “The journal … stood behind the study” mean that your inquiry has been completed?
Has Lewandowsky replied to you about my criticisms? In particular, has he explained why his paper (LOG13) claimed to have obtained respondents to his survey from a post at the blog SkepticalScience, when this is clearly false, as is demonstrated by the email correspondence between Lewandowsky and Cook, the blogowner of SkepticalScience, obtained through a FOI request?
This is not a trivial affair. Without the participation of SkepticalScience in the survey, the supplemental material written by Cook claiming to have found a substantial proportion of sceptics among readers of SkepticalScience is shown to be fraudulent, and the involvement of Cook in the follow up paper “Recursive Fury” and his award of an associate professorship becomes inexplicable.
SkepticalScience is larger (in terms of traffic) than the blogs which did participate in the survey by magnitudes. Without its participation, it is inconceivable that the other blogs could have provided the claimed 1300+ responses. Only about thirty readers bothered to comment on the survey at the seven blogs where it was posted, some of them commenting that they wouldn’t, or couldn’t, participate in the survey. It is inconceivable that less than 3% of survey participants would comment about it. Commenting on a blog is easy and fun. Filling in a questionnaire is rather boring. (Blogging, and commenting on blogs, is largely a matter of self-aggrandissement, as I am sure you realise).
It seems likely that a large proportion of the responses to the survey were simply made up, though by whom and why are questions that can only be examined if Lewandowsky releases all the supplemental information, including the vital information as to which blogs provided which responses.
Excuse the length of this letter. A simple forwarding of Lewandowsky’s reply to you will suffice as a reply.