Mister <1%: Lew Screws Up Again

I’m browsing through the new Lewandowsky paper, and after just three pages have found some interesting anomalies. He says in his blog article at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf2015.html

“… the corpus of text underlying the analysis is no longer publically [sic] available. These step was [I’m going to be sic again] undertaken to guard against intimidation of the journal…”

But in the “Recurrent” paper (p147) he says: “Credentialed scholars can obtain further information about the corpus by contacting the first author.”

At his blog he says: “Recurrent Fury reports an anonymized and greatly extended set of studies that builds on Recursive Fury. Specifically, Study 1 is an improved version of the study reported in Recursive Fury”.

“Greatly extended” might be a reference to the daft conspiracist identity parades known as Study Two and Study Three, but “improved version” suggests that some new analysis has been done. Yet in the article (p147) he says: “Items [i.e. of mentions of recursive theories] in the corpus of 172 recorded instances are referred to… below.”

Now the Supplemental Material to “Recursive” contained precisely 172 quotes, which is odd, given that the new study is an “improved” and “greatly extended” version of the old one.

There’s a change at Table 3. The list of first mentions of each theory has gone, together with the names of those accused ((almost always falsely) of being the first to put forward the theory.

If you’re not a credentialed scholar and a gentleman, you can still discover the names of the bullies and intimidators suffering from feelings of persecution by comparing Table 3 in “Recurrent” with Table 3 in “Recursive”, which is still available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600613/

Or alternatively, read Lewandowsky’s blog article, which links to the Redfearn article which names me and Steve McIntyre as complainants and mentions “blogs managed by Anthony Watts and Australian Joanne Nova”, thus neatly getting back in the public sphere precisely the four names that were removed from the text of “Recursive” in its reworked “anonymised” version. Jackpot. Only the mysterious ROM has had his anonymity preserved in the new paper.

And there’s a new column, of “total number of mentions in the corpus” for each theory. This number varies from two to 37, with only two conspiracy theories scoring more than five mentions. And the grand total of mentions of conspiracy theories “in the corpus” now stands at 62.

The incomplete list of blogs which I put up at https://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/lewandowsky-timeline/ has a total of 4,613 comments in the relevant time period. The relevant blog articles by authors Lewandowsky, Cook and Marriott in the same period have a total of 2,666 comments. That’s 7,279 comments in all, of which rather less than one percent were conspiratorial. By an amazing coincidence, that’s precisely the proportion of the sample of the LOG12 survey who believed the Moon Hoax conspiracy which gave Lew the catchy title to the epic paper which set off this whole ghastly saga.

Update 18th July 2015

The UWA website which linked to the “Recursive Fury” paper since its retraction in March last year


now links to the new paper and says this:

In July 2015, an article was published that reported the material from the original “Recursive Fury” together with two further studies that extended and confirmed the original findings…”

So the data for “Recurrent” is the same as the data for “Recursive”, only anonymised and altered to render it unrecognisable to a search engine.

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 Cliscep.com
This entry was posted in Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mister <1%: Lew Screws Up Again

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    What I want to know is – am I in it? I was very upset to have missed being in his other papers, although I did get an honourable mention in his stage show last summer. Apparently suggesting his work was so bad it must be paid for by Big Oil is an example of conspiracy ideation – and I just thought I was taking the wee wee.

  2. alexjc38 says:

    Recurrent/Recursive Fury is fundamentally a heap of (recurrent/recursive) doodoo. Dr. Lewandowsky knows that. We know that. He knows we know that, etc. and so forth.

    But the point is this. In last week’s Huffington Post, for example, there’s: “Climate Change Deniers Like Conspiracy Theories, Fresh Study Unsurprisingly Finds”:

    Now some HuffPo readers might have enough curiosity and native scepticism to investigate beyond the headline and end up reading this blog and Joe Duarte and Steve McIntyre, and suddenly arrive at the awful realisation that Lew’s offerings are nowhere to be found within several light-years of the “evidence-bound sphere of scientific arguments”.

    But I suspect that few will. They will read “climate change deniers… conspiracy theories… beefed up study… fresh behavioral studies… strong link… climate change denial… giant plot… conspiratorial thinking…” and look no further. Job done.

    Once again, Dr. Lew has absconded with the pee and cocked a snook at those he sees as his ideological enemies, science be damned.

    He is a very cheeky fellow, basically.

  3. TinyCO2 says:

    Yeah but he’s only impressing a very small swathe of people. The majority ignore the lot of us. The warmists scratch their heads and wonder why scepticism isn’t declining. Where Dr Lew should be honestly documenting and pontificating on genuine public responses, he’s making up tosh. He’s hindering their ability to understand their opposition. His work is like that scene in Black Adder Goes Forth where he and his men are asked to sketch no man’s land and when they present their faked map says something like “I mean there may have been a few more armament factories, and not quite as many elephants, but…”

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

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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