New Triple-Thickness Lew Paper

Lewandowsky has a new paper out with co-authors Cook and Marriott, called “Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial”. You can read it at
Lew has a blog article about it at
and some FAQs on the same blog at
It’s simply “Recursive Fury” with the names left out, and the quotes (which were already frequently mangled, truncated, censored and misattributed) now reworded to make identification difficult using a search engine. To this Lew has added two “behavioral studies involving naive participants”. In other words, he showed some poor unsuspecting students some quotes which Cook and Marriott had identified as being conspiratorial (because they had the word “conspiracy” in them, or something) and some other quotes which Cook and Marriott didn’t think were conspiratorial, and, would you believe it, the students agreed with them!

Lew has falsely claimed in the past that the sole objection to “Recursive Fury” was that the subjects were identifiable. By hiding the names of the commenters and the blogs they were commenting on, and rewording the quotes to make them untraceable, he can triumphantly announce that his “new” paper demonstrates that some people once said something somewhere on the internet which some other people thought sounded conspiratorial. Or he would be able to, except that whereas the data for parts two and three of the study have been, or will be, made available, the data for part one, which is simply the data for “Recursive Fury”, won’t. So all we have is the false, defamatory Recursive Fury paper with the evidence for its falsity and the names of the people defamed left out.

But at least it no longer names his subjects, so it can be published without danger of threats, harassment, or bullying. Except that he then rather spoils the effect in his blog article by giving a detailed account of the story of the retraction of Recursive Fury, and linking to an article by Graham Redfearn at
which mentions Steve McIntyre as one of the writers of a letter of complaint to UWA; links to my blog article in which I reproduce my letter of complaint to Frontiers; and also manages to mention Anthony Watts and JoNova as well. So, lew and behold, the names of the four people defamed in table 3 of “Recursive Fury” and so carefully expunged by Lewandowsky from “Recurrent Fury” are back in circulation, named and shamed all over again.

Lew also links to the site at the University of Western Australia that used to harbour “Recursive Fury” after it was retracted for ethical reasons, but which now links to the new Lew paper, with added blind-tested strength.
So if you’re not one of the lucky 65,000 to have seen “Recursive” at Frontiers in Psychology, or one of the 13,000 to have downloaded it from the site of the University of Western Australia, at least you can have a good guess from Lew’s accompanying blog post at the names of the people identified in it as paranoid mental defectives.
Hey ho. Now I’ll have to dust off my complaint letter to Frontiers, add a couple of paragraphs, and send it to Journal of Social and Political Psychology. It’s no fun living with a persecution complex.

About Geoff Chambers

Retired illustrator (children's magazines, religious education textbooks, an Encyclopaedia of Christianity, gay contact and female fitness magazines, pornographic strip cartoons etc.) Retired lecturer in English and History of Art in a French University; ardent blogger on climate hysteria, banned five times from the Guardian and twice from the Conversation. Now blogging at
This entry was posted in Stephan Lewandowsky. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to New Triple-Thickness Lew Paper

  1. It might also be worth mentioning that Lew’s latest choice of journal is a relatively new kid on the “peer reviewed” journal block (established in 2013).

    In addition to serving as the new, improved academic home for Lew’s Leaps ‘n Lapses of the Laughable kind™, JSPP just happens to include in its list of 263 illustrious reviewers for 2014 … wait for it … one Stephan Lewandowsky. (FWIW, I spotted a few other familiar sounding names, as well). See:

    Setting aside the fact that Lew’s latest falls under the journal’s label of “Original Research”, at the very least one has to wonder whether it was coincidence or convergence of convenience on the part of a journal – and/or its published authors – which evidently charges “no author fees” for publication.

    But, on the bright side … I suppose that of all the maxims and memes of the dedicated climateers, Lew has provided us with yet another example which indicates that he certainly seems to have demonstrated his mastery of the task/art of …well …”recycling”;-)

    Not only that but Lew’s latest recycling makes one wonder if he even blushed when he (presumably but quite possibly not) affirmed to the journal that – in accordance with their “Preprint Policy” – he was in compliance with their requirement that:

    As part of JSPP’s submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted (or will be submitted while under consideration at JSPP).

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

  2. Pingback: Oxford University Press on Climate Conspiracy Theories | Climate Scepticism

  3. Pingback: Letter to Oxford University Press | Climate Scepticism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s