The SkS “Link” to the Lewandowsky Survey

Lewandowsky et al stated that “links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science stance but with a diverse audience”. Lewandowsky identified the eight blogs (in an email to Barry Woods) as: Skeptical Science, Tamino, Bickmore, the UU-UNO Clmate Change Task Force (trunity), Ill Considered, Mandia, Deltoid and Hot Topic.

The relevant posts at six of the blogs have been located, but the relevant post at SkS, either no longer exists or never existed. Today’s question: did John Cook destroy all evidence at the SkS site of the existence of his posting the Lewandowsky thread? if so, why? Or are the claims by Cook and Lewandowsky to have posted the link untrue?

This issue was originally raised by Barry Woods and Geoff Chambers, but have not been resolved by either Cook or Lewandowsky.

At the end of July, when Lewandowsky’s article was covered at the Guardian, Barry Woods sought further details on the SkS post from Lewandowsky, who replied as follows:

Hi Barry, the survey was done about 2 years ago, and I don’t have the link to SkS: I worked with John Cook directly at the time and he posted it (and I made a note of it), but I don’t have the actual URL to the survey dating back to the time when he posted it. I suspect he removed it when the survey was closed because then the link would have been dead.

Lewandowsky was indeed working directly with Cook at the time. Indeed, Lewandowsky even participated from time to time in the private SkS forum at the relevant time (Aug-Sep 2010). However, there is no reference in the SkS documents to the Lewandowsky survey (though there is a contemporary discussion of the Bray-von Storch survey.) See comment at BH here where Geoff Chambers observes:

there’s no mention of it at the site, and John Cook (who had developed quite a crush on Lew) can be seen in a private email ten months after the fieldwork mentioning to a colleague the research that his mate Lewandowsky had done, as if it was nothing to do with him.

Chambers unsuccessfully sought further clarification from Cook, who supported Lewandowky’s story about a link at SkS but was unable to locate any documents supporting or proving the existence of the link:

Cook: Hi Geoff, sorry for the delay in replying, very behind in my email correspondence at the moment plus for this email, had to fire up the old machine that I was using back in 2010 to find any email correspondence back then. All I can find is an email from Steve [Lewandowsky] on 28 August 2010 asking for me to link to his survey.

Chambers: Hi John Thanks for the reply. So did you in fact link to his survey? It looks to me that you just forgot and didn’t post the link. So Stephan just assumed you had posted, and put in his paper the reference to eight blogs he’d contacted, including yours and the dormant NZ one. A silly mistake easily corrected. All he has to do is correct the “eight blogs” in his paper to six. Can you confirm that his survey was not in fact linked from Skeptical Science?

Cook: I did provide a link to the survey.

Chambers: Hi John, Any chance of telling us when you put up the link? Sorry to keep pestering you but you are being a bit coy.

Cook: I’ve given you everything I’ve got – I have no records in the blog archives (I searched the database for kwiksurvey, came up empty) so I must’ve either deleted the text link or deleted the blog post once the survey had closed. The only forensic evidence I could find was the email from Stephan asking for me to post a link and my reply that I posted it on the same day.

The claim by Cook and Lewandowsky that SkS had destroyed the record of the survey being posted at SkS (and the related comments) is odd on a number of counts, not least of which is the ability to locate the relevant thread on the blogs less closely connected to Lewandowsky, but not from Lewandowky’s protege and close associate, John Cook (also the maintainer of the University of Western Australia blog.) Further, University of Western Australia research policies require that “data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference.” In the case of an online survey, the records of the survey actually being posted on the 8 blogs are essential data.

Lewandowsky postulated that Cook “removed it when the survey was closed because then the link would have been dead.” But why would Cook do this? It’s highly unusual for blogs to delete old threads. Nor was there any particular reason for Cook to delete this particular thread – none of the other blogs bothered to do so. Deletion would be especially odd given Cook’s association with the University of Western Australia, the policies of which required preservation of documents necessary to verify claims in a research article.

It is, of course, possible and, in my opinion, probable that the survey was never posted at SkS in the first place. As Geoff Chambers has already observed, there is substantial indirect evidence to this effect from the lack of mention in the private SkS forum in which Lewandowsky participated and the lack of mention in Wayback archives of the survey identification in connection with SkS.

In my opinion, the Wayback machine record is overwhelmingly against the Lewandowsky and Cook claims that a link was posted and later destroyed.

Lewandowsky said that he sent an email to Cook on August 28, 2010 (the date of emails to other anti-skeptic blogs) and Cook says that he posted up the same day, confirming this in an email to Lewandowsky. Wayback machine took a screenshot of the SkS home page on August 30, a screenshot which shows all posts for a period bracketing August 28 (from August 24 to August 30), but does not show a posting of the Lewandowsky survey. (Nor does it appear in the screenshot for the following week which shows posts starting on August 31.)

Further, the Wayback machine took at least snapshots of the two documented August 28 SkS posts on the following three days as shown here and here. If there was an SkS post on August 28 linking to the Lewandowsky survey, there is no plausible way that the Wayback machine would not have recorded it as well. Unless, of course, Lewandowsky and Cook believe that the “well-funded” and “well-organized” “denial machine” penetrated the Wayback machine archive to remove evidence of the SkS post. The SkS conspiracy theorists have fertile imaginations e.g. their postulated conspiracy between Mosher and the Heartland Institute to frame Gleick, but surely even the SkS conspiracy theorists don’t believe that the “denial machine” has penetrated the Wayback archive. We’ll see.)

In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that SkS never published a link to the Lewandowsky survey. In my opinion, both Cook’s claim to have published a link and Lewandowsky’s claim to have seen it are untrue. But even if Cook did post a link and then destroyed all documentary evidence of its existence, the situation is equally unpalatable.

Update 2: Commenters at Lucia’s have observed that it is possible that the blocking was caused by internet problems en route to Australia (both for her and for me), with Hide My Ass access occurring because it used a different route, not because of IP. Seems not only possible, but likely.

Update: Both Lewandowsky’s University of Western Australia blog shapingtomorrow and John Cook’s skepticalscience blog appear to have blocked me. Other readers report that they can access these sites, but here’s what I get.

Steve: Barry Woods located a tweet by Cook on August 27 (Note: August 27 Eastern – August 28 Australian) here

130 Comments

  1. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    If there was an SkS post on August 28 linking to the Lewandowsky survey, there is no plausible way that the Wayback machine would not have recorded it as well. Unless, of course, Lewandowsky and Cook believe that the “well-funded” and “well-organized” “denial machine” penetrated the Wayback machine archive to remove evidence of the SkS post. The SkS conspiracy theorists have fertile imaginations e.g. their postulated conspiracy between Mosher and the Heartland Institute to frame Gleick, but surely even the SkS conspiracy theorists don’t believe that the “denial machine” has penetrated the Wayback archive. We’ll see.

    The Wayback machine evidence seems conclusive. But the situation is genuinely strange. Would a first step be for Lewandowsky and Cook to admit that a research blunder has been committed – because the SkS posting is no longer available to anyone interested in the results of the survey. Once that’s be said it might engender a spirit of collegiality in trying to work out whether the link was ever posted.

    Or they may take refuge in further conspiracy theories. As you say, hard to know how they could but never to be ruled out.

  2. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    The “trunity” link refers to an old blog host for the UU-UNO Climate Change Task Force. This connection can be seen in the Wayback Machine e.g. here.

    Googling UU-UNO Climate Change Task Force takes one to here – which has the same banner as the dead trunity link.

    A search of this site for Hanich is a blank; for Lewandowsky yields nothing for the relevant period and for “survey” does not yield the Lewandowsky survey. The present site preserves blog posts back through 2010 and 2009.

    Lewandowsky may have sent a request to UU-UNO Climate Change Task Force to post the survey, but his claim that it was posted there appears to be untrue.

    • DGH
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

      It was posted on the Climate Change Task Force site on the October 26, 2010 blog page archived at wayback here…

      http://web.archive.org/web/20101026063929/http://climate.uu-uno.org/blogs/

      Steve: hard to see on this page. Good spotting.

    • DGH
      Posted Sep 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

      Was is my comment regarding John Cook’s tweets stuck in moderation?

      Steve: multiple links triggers moderation in the WordPress setting.

  4. Adam Gallon
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    If Cook was so embarrassed by the “survey”, that he wouldn’t post a link to it on SkS, it really shows what a turkey it was!

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

      But he doesn’t sound embarrassed in past communications about it and if he was he would have make that clear by now and said that was why he didn’t post it. It’s genuinely strange. Wayback machine makes it extremely unlikely that the post was ever made. Perhaps Cook’s strong regard for Lewandowsky means he is trying to cover for him in some way but I still don’t understand how this helps either of them.

      • Follow the Money
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

        “but I still don’t understand how this helps either of them”

        All these distractions are immensely helpful. It keeps them from thinking about their own, to put it politely, “issues.” E.g., that they themselves are the cogs in a “well-funded” and “well-organized” “machine” that is greatly funded by financial interests, various manufacturers, and indeed, including most large “fossil fuel” interests. When they realize that, they do not grow and evolve, they become scientific reactionaries and project. Follow the Money…and psychology.

  5. Skiphil
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    Great work, Steve! A logical addendum, given that Lewandowksy is on record requiring that bloggers must retain and easily access “records” of any two year old requests from his assistant Hanich, he certainly ought to agree that SkS/Cook and the UU-UNO Climate Change Task Force ought to be able to document actual posting of the link for the survey. He should not be following a lower standard of documentation for his “scientific” (sic) survey than he demanded of bloggers with no connection to him who received spammy emails of no interest to them. In any case, such documentation is required for competent data records, and is another reason Lewandowsky must provide detail on which surveys came from which websites. Where DID the 1,000+ survey responses come from?

    • Skiphil
      Posted Apr 3, 2013 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

      Since Lewandowsky is already on record (last Sept.) insisting that various bloggers should have perfect email records and instant recall for any unsolicited two-year old request(s) from his assistant Hanich, Lew has unwittingly set the performance bar very high for himself.

      While the skeptic bloggers had no reason in 2010 to know the name Hanich and recall it two years later (or even Lewandowsky), or to care about a spammy request from the obscure Univ. of Western Australia, Lewandowsky reviles and ridicules them for not instantly sorting out the long lost details two years later.

      Yet, Lewandowsky and Cook, still cannot now (after 7 months of opportunity and requests) provide a precise, accurate accounting of the details of their own studies and email correspondence pertaining to such work.

      Thus, by the standard Lewandowsky himself proclaimed for assessing the bloggers, he is himself incompetent (or worse). Same goes for John Cook and co-authors….

  6. Tom
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    Hmm and I thought it was so odd for Lewandowsky to fly off the handle at you when you used the term ‘fake data’ to describe survives that people obviously lied in. Perhaps he thought you were referring to something else.

  7. TerryS
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    It is a pity that kwiksurvey doesn’t provide referrer information for anybody filling in the survey. It should be available in their logs but from a quick look at their site they don’t seem to include it.

    This would have provided some extra detail about which blogs readership filled in which responses. It could have conclusively shown if SkS did link to the survey (it could not prove they didn’t).

  8. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    Well, how does it feel to be held to the same standards of behavior that you claim to enforce here?

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

      Where?

      • RayG
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

        DNFTT

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

      Re: Eli Rabett (Sep 14 13:02),

      Since my response to your attack was entirely removed, as Mr. Lewandowsky apparently can’t have the fact that his own side agrees with Steve McIntyre and the others who have shown the problems with his “research” see the light of day, perhaps you’d like to respond here:

      69 A.Scott at 19:44 PM on 14 September, 2012
      Since Mr. Rabett’s post consisted largely of denigrating and demeaning those making legitimate requests, perhaps the mods will allow a slight bit of slack in my response …

      No Mr. Halpern … people are asking for Mr. Lewandosky to address the seemingly serious shortcomings in his paper.

      A paper with a needlessly inflammatory title, presenting a conclusion that has been demonstrated is not supported by the data.

      A paper which has been released to the media, and is being used to attack, smear and denigrate those who do not see the science in the same way the authors do.

      There was the thinnest of threads to support the titular claim to begin with.

      And after review, by skeptics and strongly pro-AGW folks such as Tom Curtis both, it has been shown that thin thread is non-existent.

      Tom Curtis said in another early thread here:

      “Professor Lewandowsky, it is a bit rich to complain about the focus of comments on your paper given your title. If you wanted people to pay attention to the fact that among those who reject mainstream science, AGW “skeptics” have unusually low tendencies to accept conspiracy theories, perhaps that should have been the focus of your title, abstract and pre-publication interview(s).”

      And he is absolutely right. Especially considering that he and others have shown there is strong evidence there is no valid basis for the title claim.

      One of Tom’s first posts on the issue, before he had apparently looked at the data, said the same as his comment to Mr. Lewandowsky, and added that not only was the title inflammatory, but more importantly the title claim was a minor finding and not the big result:

      “the title of the paper is not justified by the results, and is needlessly sensationalizing and offensive. Lewandowski found a -.866 correlation between free market ideology and acceptance of climate science, but only a negative 0.197 correlation between acceptance of conspiracy theories and acceptance of climate science. Clearly the link to free market ideology is the big result, and the limited link to conspiracy theory ideation should only be a footnote in this study.

      How many papers ignore the big results, and title their papers based on a minor finding with only a handful of data points to support it?

      After Tom Curtis reviewed the data he had this to say (bolding his):

      For most conspiracy theory questions, “skeptics” only had two respondents that strongly agreed, the two scammed results. Given the low number of “skeptical” respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation.

      It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.

      These are the questions from an AGW supporter.

      And the skeptics, including Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Fuller and others have independently shown the same conclusions. There is bipartisan agreement – the data does not support the findings.

      The authors, including Mr. Lewandowsky have been informed of the lack of data to support the papers most visible finding. They have been shown exactly where the problem lies and asked to address it. Again, the questions come from both skeptic and pro-AGW sides.

      It is entirely legitimate to expect a timely response to serious questions about accuracy, fundamental questions about support for the paper’s conclusions, especially when the paper has been passed to the media, and is generating numerous negative story’s around it’s headline claim – despite that the headline claim by all appearances is not supported by the data.

      Its little surprise most of the authors supporters think that is just fine, see no reason to retract or correct regardless of the apparent demonstrated lack of accuracy – it conveniently fits their position – here the inference is they are looney conspiracy theorists. It would be no surprise either that the authors may well agree.

      After all, its doesn’t really matter if the paper is ever published at this point. Bell’s are difficult to un-ring, the damage of the seemingly inaccurate claims is already being done.

      If Mr. Curtis, Mr. McIntyre and the others are correct, which the data shows them to be, then Mr. Lewandowsky’s failure to respond and address is a significant issue.

      Allowing the paper’s conclusions to continue to be disseminated worldwide, after being given clear and bipartisan evidence of the errors, without timely addressing the legitimate criticism, is a serious ethical and professional issue.

      Mr. Rabett apparently see little necessity to timely address or correct demonstrably inaccurate information, despite it being disseminated as fact to the public.

      In the end, that attitude, as with the authors, only serves to further alienate the public. They have less and less trust in climate science from either side by the day – in very large part exactly becasue of issues as here.

      If scientists don’t take their work seriously, the public says ‘why should we’ …

      We all know what is going on here. The whole intent seems clear from the start. We’ve seen it time and again from the the pro-AGW side … create work branded as research, include inflammatory and sensationalistic headlines, disseminate to the media, who will dutifully lap it up. In my opinion – looking at Lewandowsky, Cook and like’s history, background and actions – its clear that the “science” is largely irrelevant to them.

      As long as its something the media will run with, its a win for them. They know that the public see’s those story’s … even if they are shamed into retraction those story’s rarely see the light of day, and never to the masses.

      You will never see the large numbers of rabid warmists who reported the original story, write a followup that says – “You know the story we wrote about Climate Skeptics being looney tune conspiracy theorists? We’ll – turns out it was based on fake data and has been forced to be retracted.”

      So how abouyt it Mr. Halpern – do you believe science should be accurate? Or are you one of those just fine with “fake but we’ll consider it accurate” as long as it achieves our goal?

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

        From A. Scott’s observations that Lewandowsky doesn’t want his readers to see:

        ittle necessity to timely address or correct demonstrably inaccurate information, despite it being disseminated as fact to the public.

        Strange, this is very similar to the IPCC’s “response” regarding the dissemination of demonstrably inaccurate information to the public (as noted in Steve’s recent post). Little wonder, though, that the IPCC chooses to preface its Press Releases with “For use of the media only”.

        This suggests that the IPCC – and Lewandowsky – are quite aware of the fact that the media will dutifully “churn” whatever is fed to them … regardless of what the facts may be.

        It’s all for the good of “the cause”.

  9. seanbrady
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps this question has already been addressed but can’t whoever hosted the survey on their server determine if people linked to it from SkS?

    If I post a link to Climate Audit on my blog, wouldn’t Steve be able to see how many visitors arrived at Climate Audit via that link?

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

      Yep, the referring url is in the http header and should ideally be held in the server logs. But kwiksurvey is said to have lost some more basic data more recently. It’s the kind of thing Lewandowsky and Cook should be asking for, if they don’t already know.

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

        Re: TerryS (Sep 14 12:59), Re: Richard Drake (Sep 14 13:18),

        Yes, Kwiksurveys was hacked and actually shut down in June 2012. It was bought and resurrected but they installed a whole new Web 2.0 software.

        Their prior service offered IP address collection, but the new one does not – only duplicate IP protection. All of the documentation and help currently at the site is regarding the old system, and referrer ID does not appear to have been available.

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

          Thanks Scott – and thanks by the way for your defence of your WUWT survey on Bishop Hill, which convinced me that this was well worth doing as a learning exercise, not as hard science.

          You know the kwiksurveys history better than I do but I think you’re confusing the IP address of a responder to the survey and the URL from which they originally came. The former will be known in all HTTP requests made by that user to kwiksurveys but the latter only in the HTTP header of the first one. And it’s the latter that would give you the blog or mailing list from which the responder learned about the survey – except in rare cases where they copied the survey url from the original web page and pasted it in (maybe later) to the address bar of their browser.

        • TerryS
          Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

          The new one does offer IP address collection. From here:

          Export options

          Export IP addresses.
          If you would like to keep the respondents IP address anonymous then uncheck this option to prevent the IP addresses from being exported.

  10. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    ” Lewandowsky and Cook believe that the “well-funded” and “well-organized” “denial machine” penetrated the Wayback machine archive to remove evidence of the SkS post. ”

    Sadly, there will be those that do believe what you suggested actually happened.

  11. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    You can take it to the bank — solar flares negatively impacted the SkS website during this time period.

  12. Green Sand
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:40 PM | Permalink

    Anybody else getting this?:-

    “The connection has timed out”

    “The server at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org is taking too long to respond.”

    Or is it just me?

    Steve: Me too.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

      Shaping tomorrow can be CPU intensive.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

      I cant access SkS either right now.

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

        I can get both from London, no problem.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

          I guess they’ve blocked my IP address. It’s happened before with the Team.

        • Green Sand
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

          Re: Richard Drake (Sep 14 14:21),

          I am in the UK cannot get SkS or StW

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

          Green Sand, I have may to concede that you and Steve are in the contrarian fighting elite with A.Scott and I merely footsoldiers. Almost the reverse of paranoid conspiracism – not even important enough for them to be out to get me. Sigh.

          Meanwhile I’ve set http://www.host-tracker.com going on the two sites and in the first three checks, ten minutes apart, both are up all the time, as tested from 20 different IP addresses.

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

          It’s still at 100% after two hours, so that’s 20 IPs x 6 per hr x 2 hrs x 2 sites = 560 tests all finding the two URLs up. I won’t give this report again but just in case Steve or anyone else has been having further problems. That’s tested from
          USA,TX,Waco
          USA,TX,Dallas
          USA ,PA,Scranton
          USA,FL,Winter Haven
          USA,FL,Orlando
          USA,CA,San Jose
          United Kingdom,Maidenhead
          United Kingdom,London
          Ukraine,Kyiv
          Turkey,Istanbul/2
          Russia,Moscow
          Netherlands,Amsterdam/3
          Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur
          India,Noida
          Hong Kong,Kwun Tong
          Croatia,Zagreb
          Australia,Victoria,Melbourne

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

          Richard–
          With access to all of those IPs, you should have answered the survey!! :)

      • AJ
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

        I can get both from here in Halifax.

      • Skiphil
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

        I get both in eastern USA

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

      Re: Green Sand (Sep 14 13:40),

      I can get both OK

    • Tom in St. johns
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

      If you continue to be blocked I would recommend a visit to the torproject.org site. They provide an anonymity service, often for individuals in repressive countries.

  13. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    The STW site is temporarily down in order to remove poppycock from the comment thread.

  14. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    Presumably a professor who writes the guidelines for final year undergraduate students would maintain immaculate records of his own research(?)

    http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/CogSci_Honours_Handbook_2011.pdf

    Failing to record data sources accurately (to insure no biasing of respondents, for example) seems highly unlikely.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

      From the questionnaire:

      Before you leave the lab at the end of the year, ensure that you leave all documents
      (such as consent forms), stimuli, questionnaires, and data files used in your project
      in a respectable order. Put your paperwork in folders, burn your data onto a CD,
      label everything, put it in a box and give it to Charles! It would also be helpful if you
      assist in the organization of your computer files so they can easily be accessed for future
      research.

      Note: It is an APA requirement that all data be kept for at least 5 years (i.e., basically
      forever). AGAIN: This means that you must give all relevant documents to Charles
      for safe-keeping towards the end of the year.

      Cook’s supposed destruction of documents is hard to explain.

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

        Perhaps ethics and research guidelines apply to students but not to professors?

  15. markbul
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

    So why would Cook remove the post/link?

  16. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    I did trust that the survey had been posted on the 8 bblogs, and took it on myself to find the actually article, and it took a bit of googling.
    and just thought it was just my own failing that I couln’t find 2 of them (one so low traffic, didn’t really matter to me)

    Yet Wayback case does now sound very convincing (as does the ‘chat’)…
    (I did look myself at wayback for it, but did not know enough about, or spend much time, to state whether it was conclusive or not)

    I had just thought that John Cook had deleted it, because perhaps the regulars had been very critical of the survey (like at Deltoid, Tamino) and he had perhaps just deleted it to spare Lewandowsky’s blushes!!, which would have been bad methodoloy by itself.

    And the fact it might have telegraphed in the intro of the blog post, the desired result, and the comments may have suggested people at SkS were having some ‘fun’ with it. Again like at Deltoid/Tamino

    Either way.
    If Lewandowsky cannot show numbers of respondents from referring blogs, and that the kwiksurvey did not even capture that information.
    The survey is again worse than useless, perhaps just capturing 80% or more from deltoid/tamino (ie extremely skewed)

    As it takes an especally masochistic sceptic (IF ANY) to hang around those 2 ‘cyber-ghettoes’ more people probably would have seen it at SkS.
    And it would have been talked about.

    I don’t see how the journal editor can publish this, with all this missing data, no means to check/verify, poor methodology, if there is no record of the how many respondent from each blog referring links.

    OR IF it was published at SkS no record of how it was introduced that may have telegraphed the ‘desired’ result like at Tamino/Deltoid
    Only Scott Mandia I think posted the survey neutrally (ie professionally)
    the lack of verifiabilty, lack of response from the authors is just not good

    Did you all see the Guardian article today, about problems with psychological science?

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: Barry Woods (Sep 14 14:25),

      Barry … as I worked thru setting up the re-creation of the Lewandowsky survey that question came up – whether to obtain and/or retain referring URL’s. In the end my thought process led me to decide no.

      To me – having access to that information – it seemed could lead to a strong potential for confirmation bias as one analyzed the data and responses. If you know the source of the response its too easy in my mind to pre-judge. Better not to have the temptation.

      At least that was my layman’s thought process.

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

        i think we are at crosspurpose.. (ie survey only held at WUWT, vs 8 blogs hosting, referring)

        Lewandowsky surveyed he says 8 blogs, with a diverse readership , ie to get a broad cross-section of opinion.

        if in fact the bulk of the answers came form 1,or 2 of thse blogs(ie 95% Deltoid/Tamino -based on iunternet ranking, this seems likely),
        then that prremise is false, and just a very skewed narrow sample of readers captured.

        so the relative % of where referalls came from is very important to show diversity.

        ie what % Deltoid /Tamino / Sks? / Mandia, etc

        it might also help in identifying which (if any ) blog contributed to any ‘gamed’,’fake’,’suspect’ responses, as comments were made on the blogs about how ‘fun’ the conspiracy theories were

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

          Re: Barry Woods (Sep 14 16:22),

          Nope – we’re on same page. I agree it would be beneficial to know the relative share from each blog, however, in my case at least, that benefit was overshadowed by a worry over possible confirmation bias.

          In the Lewandowsky case they DO know approximate sources becasue of the different survey distribution. They have not to my knowledge disclosed what blogs received what survey, nor how many responses came from each version. This would give at least some degree of insight to your question.

  17. Adam Gallon
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    Has Lewandowsky’s blog been merged with SkS? He’s even got Dana Nuccitelli posting items on it!

    • Skiphil
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

      STW is simply an offshoot of SkS for activist academics and assorted pals of Lewandowsky and John Cook. SkS mods and authors control its pages and police the comments with ruthless inefficiency.

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

      Thanks for pointing that out. I decided to check out Dana’s post, and I was so flabbergasted I had to respond. I don’t expect my comment to last long, but I kept a copy for posterity’s sake. I wish I knew how to embed images here, but for now, a link:

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

        Well it’s lasted 30 minutes at least. What an excellent comment Brandon. ‘The climate disinformation campaign’ – a phrase that has a crazy c. theory built in. And those that use it seem so blissfully aware. But excellently stated.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

          Thanks! I actually think the comment will stay up for good now as Arthur Smith responded to “rebut” it. His response is to basically say people fund things that go against global warming efforts. I have no idea how that is supposed to support the idea of a disinformation campaign, but he seems to have simply overlooked what was actually being discussed.

          I’ve responded to his comment, but if my response gets removed while his remains, it might be a more effective “strategy” than if they simply remove everything I’ve said. Or maybe I’m just being paranoid. Either way:

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

          Stranger and stranger, Dana responded (in part):

          I am claming there is a disinformation campaign which certain parties are enaged in. That’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a reality. Look at any number of fossil fuel-funded think tanks, for starters.

          I’m hoping Dana just doesn’t understand what “disinformation” means, despite him responding to a post where I explain it very clearly.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

          Okay, I’m starting to give up hope on Dana’s ability to be reasonable. This is his latest response to me:

          Brandon, ExxonMobil admitted to doing exactly what I describe.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

          I’m not really interested in trying to convince you that reality is reality. If you want to deny that there’s a climate disinformation campaign, that’s your choice.

          Dana claims ExxonMobil admitted to participating in a disinformation campaign. That’s an incredible claim. It’s also completely untrue. The only quote from ExxonMobil in that article says:

          In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.

        • Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 4:18 AM | Permalink

          Hi, Brandon. In a strict sense you are right – a disinformation campaign by fossil fuel interests is a “theory” about a “conspiracy.” But the phrase “conspiracy theory” generally means something different; i.e., a theory that is held by some while demonstrably untrue and/or lacking sufficient evidence in support of it. In short, the phrase “conspiracy theory” as commonly understood always describes something that is untrue. So someone who believes that a coordinated disinformation campaign by oil companies exists would rightly claim that this theory isn’t a conspiracy theory (“rightly,” that is, from their perspective).

        • Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

          Ted, what this would mean is that nobody in the world thinks that they believe in any conspiracy theory – think about it – though many others may think they do. Is this a sensible use of language? Doesn’t it undermine Lewandowsky’s survey?

      • Follow the Money
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

        Brandon, you have to read these tricky characters very closely.

        “Despite the overwhelming consensus amongst climate experts that humans are causing global warming, only 53% of Americans believe humans are the primary cause”
        There is nothing in that statement about “consensus” that would prohibit the idea that absolutely no climate experts believe human are the primary cause, or some other percentage.

        The climate talking points are contrived by slick PR firms and lawyers. What this really communicates is that they know a majority of “climate experts” do not believe humans are the “primary cause.” If they had publishable surveys otherwise, they wouldn’t be playing the word game here.

    • Tony Mach
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

      Lewandowsky was the first to sign here:

      “Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community”

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=806

      Posted on 14 June 2011 by John Cook


      Steve: Just as Peter Gleick was the first signatory on a similar letter in the US.

    • Tony Mach
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

      And don’t forget that “The Debunking Handbook” was published by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky.

      From the intro to said handbook:
      “Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, unfortunately there is no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of misinformation.”

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1139

      Yes, I can see that the good professor does an excellent job in reducing the influence of misinformation.
      /Sarcasm

  18. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    I give a selection of Cook’s references to Lewandowsky in a comment here:`

    http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

    Note that he seems to have met Lew in early August. The survey was posted in late August, but isn’t mentioned as far as I can see in internal mails, despite the fact that most interesting blogposts are discussed at length by authors. In October he’s talking about doing some research with Lew in the future. Then in June 2011 he refers to the research discussed here as if he had nothing to do with it. Add the reference to using “denierbots” (not quoted in the comment above) and to the fact that “Steve Lewandowsky .. loves poking ants nests with a stick…” and you have all the ingredients for a conspiracy theory.
    The email exchange quoted by Steve above was part of a longer one, instigated by Cook, in which he offered to answer all my questions. My questions were: when was the survey invitation posted? when was it deleted? were there any comments? and if so, were they still available? Cook claimed he was unable to answer the first two, and never addressed the last two.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

      gosh golly, think of how scathing Lewandowsky is toward the “record-keeping” of bloggers who cannot instantly locate spammy emails from Hanich, a name they had no reason to know or recognize…. by the Lewandowsky standards John Cook’s inability to answer to those four questions shows a scandalous failure to meet elementary standards of competence (a big problem of inconsistency for Lewandowsky, too).

  19. clivere
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    A word of caution about assuming that the web archive would definitely have trawled and captured the page in question.

    It is my experience of the web archive that only a sample of pages are captured for any site on any day and I have seen instances where some pages on a site are repeatedly captured over several days and other pages from the same period are not captured at all if ever.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

      You may have more experience of Wayback than I have but what convinces me most in Steve’s screenshots is that it captured the SkS top level page showing posts from 24th to 30th Aug 2010 and then again from 31st to 5th Sep. There’s no sign of a survey invitation in the first (and Cook said he’d done it on 28th) or second. The absence of the individual page on Wayback helps confirm the point but I’d say the top level makes the evidence conclusive.

      • clivere
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

        Richard – I agree that from the evidence it looks unlikely that it was posted on the main site. I am just warning against making the assumption that the page would have made it to the web archive if it had been posted.

    • MrPete
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

      Re: clivere (Sep 14 15:03),
      Not sure what you are even thinking here. The evidence is conclusive: Steve M provided a screen capture from the archive of the pertinent posting chronology page. That’s the page we need, and that’s the page that was archived.

      It is true that the linked-to postings from that overview page might be missing, but who cares? We have the page that lists all postings present on those days.

      • clivere
        Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

        MrPete – I am just pointing out that one assumption being made is dubious not that the overall conclusion is wrong.

        The screen captures quite clearly indicate that the survey was not made available via the main SkS front page during that period – so it was either not posted at SkS or possible alternatives it was posted somewhere else on the site or posted outside the period represented by the above captures.

        Steve: Cook said that he posted it when he got it (Aug 28). There are other title page screenshots for subsequent periods. I checked a few and it wasn’t there either.

  20. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    A rare Lewandowsky response comments:

    69. Stephan Lewandowsky at 22:04 PM on 14 September, 2012

    Questions continue to be raised for further information relating to this paper. My response is threefold:

    1. I see little merit in treading over ground that is already clearly stated in the paper (e.g., the elimination of duplicate IP numbers).

    2. Several questions concern material that is presently subject to an FOI request. I will let that process run to completion rather than pre-empt it.

    3. The supplementary online material for the article is being extended to contain additional information (e.g., the outlier analysis from the preceding post). The online supplement will be released when the typesetting of the article is complete.

    Time permitting, I may also write another post or two on topics relating to this paper that are of general interest.

    There you go. His answer – pretty much telling critics to pound sand. We don’t neeeed no steeenkin’ IP review ;-)

    And is going to hide behind the FOI request as an excuse not to respond.

    He is going to bunker up and try and stonewall to insure it goes to press.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

      1) The paper talks about duplicate removal not multiple responses from the same IP address
      2) The blogs to which the survey was sent are now known (along with SkS apparently lying on this topic)
      3) The paper’s authors need to contend with Steve’s analysis which shows that the paper’s conclusions are absolutely not supported by its data

      But if you want to keep your already trouser-ed $4.4m, create confusion, and avoid dealing with ‘difficulties’ with the paper, (essentially the opposite of ‘generate informed and constructive debate’) this is what you might say.

      (Also posted at Lewandowsky’s site)

    • Tony Mach
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

      What are “duplicate IP numbers” and how are they “eliminated”?

  21. mt
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Considering that Lewandowsky had a guest post and moderator privileges on Aug 18, and was likely working with Cook on the Debunking Handbook at the time, I would think that using SkS to promote the survey would put the anonymity of some responses at risk. It would likely be trivial to match SkS user/IP/access time to the survey responses. Lewandowsky may not have had access to that information, Cook certainly would have. I think it would be inappropriate for Lewandowski to use SkS to gather responses.

  22. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    A seminal question:

    Charliez at 01:26 AM on 15 September, 2012
    I am unclear of the significance of this survey. Even if the results are legitimate, why is there any value in determining that a minority of AGW skeptics are also conspiracy theorists? This seems to have no importance to the debate except as a means of marginalizing all skeptics via the extreme positions of a few.

    This pretty well cuts out all else. Of what value is the survey even if true that a tiny percentage of skeptics might also think the Moon Landing was faked

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

      It’s been propaganda, and I think vile propaganda, and that has always been obvious. But Steve taking it apart piece by piece is also fun. We can I think cope with the various levels of deception, in the blog format, and that to be honest is a pleasant surprise. Skeptic blogs improve one’s sanity. That’s the real finding here.

  23. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    There’s a possible innocent explanation of why Cook and Lewandowsky may have decided not to post an invitation to participate in the survey at SkS contained in these two internal emails from Cook to his co-authors:

    2010–10-6
    I’ve been having some intriguing conversations with Steve Lewandowsky who’s throwing cognitive experiment ideas at me to see what’s technically possible. Having a significantly sized group of people classified as skeptic or proAGW makes all sorts of interesting experiments possible.
    2010–10-8
    a while ago, I added a bias field to the user data base and a bit of code so as comments came in, I could specify whether the user was skeptics or warmest/proAGW/mainstream (still haven’t found a satisfactory term for our side). I only assign bias if its obvious from the comment. I haven’t done anything with that data yet, I’m not even sure why I’m doing it other than my obsessive compulsion to collect data. The other day, Steve Lewandowsky (cognitive scientist) asked if I had any numbers on the ratio of skeptics to warmists so I dove into the database and counted up around 100 assigned skeptics and around 400 assigned warmists.

    The advantage of this database is that it would be possible to interview people without asking about their warmism/scepticism, and therefore without revealing the purpose of the survey. Publicising the survey would compromise the possible future usefulness of this tool.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

      But it is no longer innocent when Cook has claimed emphatically that he did in fact post the survey link

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

        Cook is not an author of the paper.(not his problem)

        Lewandowsky (and his co-authors) are responsible(accountable) to UWA and the journal, for stating SkS hosted the survey

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

        It’s no longer innocent but it’s also weird. I still can’t find an explanation.

  24. DGH
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    Oddly enough, after registering at ShapingTomorrowsWorld I promptly lost my password. I used the “lost my password” link and received a reply from none other than “Skeptical Science .”

    Feel free to guess the XXXX. And feel free to replicate my study if you’ve registered. Too funny.

    That said, Mod (XXXX by chance?) kindly answered one of my questions and I have posted a follow-up.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM | Permalink

      isn’t John Cooks wife a web designer type person (I may be wrong) thus funds to run shaping the world tomorrow, go to which web designers…?

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

        oh – here we go…

        http://skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

        “John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John’s talented web designer wife.”

        presumably a sum of public money is required to pay for the web talents behind – ShapingTomorrowsWorld.org – whoever that maybe?

        http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/about.htm

        Funding
        Shapingtomorrowsworld was made possible by a grant from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Western Australia and by the support of the Institute of Sustainability and Technology Policy at Murdoch University.

        foi request for website expenditure?

    • DGH
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

      Yesterday was a bit manic and I didn’t take the time to review my comment before it was submitted.

      Skeptical Science was the originating address for the email which supplied my password to the ShapingTomorrowsWorld website.

  25. tlitb1
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    Steve, Lewandowsky refers to several specific techniques – structural-equation modeling (SEM) and some concepts such as “manifest variables” and “latent variables” –

    …isolating those concepts?

    • Brandon Shollenberger
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

      tlitb1, that isn’t really a case of “several specific techniques.” Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a technique, but the other two are just variable types. Manifest variables are variables that have actually been observed. Latent variables are variables that have been created. The idea behind latent variables is to take the shared information of several observed variables and combine that into a single, “latent variable.”

      Interestingly, SEM is highly related to PCA.

      Steve: SEM only seems to have been applied for exploratory analysis to the Consensus-Cause pairings. The other groups were analysed at an exploratory stage with factor analysis – a technique closely related to PCA. My reading is that they then created relatively simple composites for correlation analysis. Though the methodological description is not clear enough to preclude other readings.

      • Brandon Shollenberger
        Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

        Steve, SEM was said to be used to analyze the Consensus-Cause pairings, but it is my understanding it was also used to model the relationships between the latent variables listed in Table 1. As in, it was used in two different parts. And the factor analysis was used to create latent variables and generate a correlation matrix between them that could be plugged into an SEM analysis to generate models.

        But I could easily be wrong.

  26. Green Sand
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    Richard Drake (Sep 14 15:28),

    Hi Richard

    “Green Sand, I have may to concede that you and Steve are in the contrarian fighting elite with A.Scott and I merely footsoldiers.”

    Whilst your statement aptly describes Steve you are obviously not aware of my ability to be unknowingly creative with the technology that surrounds me. Earlier today my ISP “reset” my broadband connection in an attempt to get the speed somewhat above that of snail mail.

    The speed has improved and apart from 2 web sites all appears to be fine. I am more willing to accept that a combination of my lack of skill and my ISP have preoduced this form of selection than me being a member of “the contrarian fighting elite”.

    Still no access to the two sites, I am now assessing the extent of loss if any?

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Permalink

      I tried both sites via Hide My Ass and got through. So Lewandowsky (and Cook) are definitely blocking my IP address.

      Steve: Commenters at Lucia’s have observed that it is possible that the blocking was caused by internet blocks en route to AUstralia, with Hide My Ass access occurring because it used a different route. Seems not only possible, but likely.

      • Green Sand
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (Sep 14 17:36),

        If that is the game, then just what the hell did I do?

        I will now go and learn about “via Hide My Ass” and yes, if correct I may be tempted to think cowardly as well as unethical?

        Any help with “Hide My Ass” appreciated, not you Steve, need you on far better things.

        Steve: Lucia mentioned it recently. Just go to the site and use it. It was the first time that I’d used it.

        • Green Sand
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

          Re: Green Sand (Sep 14 17:44),

          Well forget the help, just got through to both sites via Hide My Ass! Live and learn every day! The plot sure thickens for this poor foot soldier!

        • TerryMN
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

          GreenSand, go check Lucia’s for a blog post including that in the title

        • TerryMN
          Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

          Oops, took me too long to read the thread, sorry!

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (Sep 14 17:36),

        If you use Google Chrome Browser opening an “Incognito” window might work as well

      • Skiphil
        Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

        It may be merely their juvenile behavior, but it may also be to give them another vicious talking point as in “oh that McIntyre is so bad he was banned at STW and SkS etc.” In any case, it is contemptible behavior on their part. Watch, they may unblock you just so they can say you are paranoid, hyper-sensitive, were never really blocked …. Lewandowsky and Cook and pals view it as a war not a discussion.

        Steve: I’m still blocked. As you say, I firmly expect them to do what you say: unblock me and then accuse me of paranoia.

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

          Yep, if your argument is that X is paranoid, bombard him with attacks that are deniable and leave no traces, then the moment he squeals say “Told you so.” Except Steve is most unforthcoming with the squealing. They really hate him for that.

          It always reminds of the torture technique of beating the poor unfortunate on the soles of his feet so that there’s agony at the time and no physical traces afterwards. I use that analogy advisedly. It may give you an idea of how highly I regard people who indulge in such ‘games’. Let’s hope it’s just straightforward spite.

      • Jeff Alberts
        Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM | Permalink

        Sorry, but does anyone else find it hilarious that THE Steve McIntyre is using a web service called “Hide My Ass”?? I just start giggling.

  27. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    This has been noted here before … but the last – that the grant is 2012-2014 and the work was 2010 – is something I just noticed and haven’t seen brought up before:

    Lewandowsky’s online UWA CV shows he has received over $1.5 million in CLIMATE related grants for the 2011-2014 period, and that these are his first ever climate related grants:

    Australian Research Council (Linkage Grant, with Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency).
    Creating a climate for change: From cognition to consensus.
    (Ben Newell, Brett Hayes, Marilyn Brewer, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andy Pitman, Matthew England, Chris Mitchell), A$216,000 (plus matching contribution from DCCEE), 2012-2014.

    National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
    What about me? Factors affecting individual adaptive coping capacity across different population groups.

    (Kerrie Unsworth, Stephan Lewandowsky, David Morrison, Carmen Lawrence, Sally Russell, Kelly Fielding, Chris Clegg), A$330,000, 2011-2013.

    And the paper acknowledges it is funded by the top grant above:

    Preparation of this paper was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian
    Research Council and an Australian Professorial Fellowship to the first author.

    However the truly interesting finding is that the grant is for the 2012-2014 period. Lewandowsky did this work in 2010.

    I suspect the grant documents might be illuminating.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

      Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:11),

      Very interesting … you think Lewandowsky’s junk science here is bad – looks like they’re ramping up for more:

      Post-Doctoral Research Associate
      Faculty of Science
      School of Psychology
      REF. 8957NET

      Salary Level: A$77K – A$82K plus 9% employer superannuation contributions and leave loading

      We are seeking applicants for the position of Post-Doctoral Research Associate in the UNSW School of Psychology. The successful applicant is expected to make a major contribution to a research program applying principles of cognitive and social psychology to determine effective methods for promoting an understanding of climate science and willingness to commit to low-carbon lifestyles. The project focusses primarily on the application of experimental methodology to address these issues.

      The position is funded by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The research team is led by Associate Professor Ben Newell, and includes Professor Brett Hayes, Professor Marilynn Brewer, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Western Australia) and Professor Chris Mitchell (University of Plymouth) as well as Professor Andy Pitman and Professor Matt England of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate Systems Science (UNSW).

      The School of Psychology is recognised nationally and internationally for its excellence in research and teaching. It leads Australian Psychology departments on quality measures such as research publications and competitive grant funding. The School has well equipped research and teaching facilities and attracts outstanding students from Australia and overseas. UNSW is located 5 km from the centre of Sydney and is close to other research centres, teaching hospitals, transport, shopping, and beaches.

      The start date is negotiable but the successful applicant would be expected to take up the position by January 31st, 2013.

      An applicant may be required to undergo pre-employment checks prior to appointment to this role.

      This is a full-time position for a fixed term of 12 months, with the possibility of extension.

      Applicants must have completed a PhD in a relevant discipline (e.g., Cognitive Psychology, Experimental Social Psychology, Decision Sciences, Cognitive Science) and have a record of successful publication in relevant journals and/or books. Prior experience in empirical research on the application of cognitive and social psychological principles to environmental issues is desirable.

      Applicants should address the selection criteria found within the position description, in their online application.

      For further information about the position, please contact Associate Professor Ben Newell on telephone (61 2) 9385 1606 or email ben.newell@unsw.edu.au

      Further information about the UNSW School of Psychology can be found at: http://www.psy.unsw.edu.au

      This would seem to be a separate grant?

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

        Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:19),

        ARC website

        ARC FOI info

        Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

        Australian Dept Climate Change Grants search

        2011 Grants

        2012 Grants not reported yet however:

        DCCEE Strategic Intent 2012-15

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

        Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:19),

        ARC Grant List

        It appears the grant Lewandowsky lists is actually not his – it is to UNSW – he is member of their “team” which is probably from the DCCEE match grant which is intended to foster cooperation between institutions

        LP120100224
        Approved

        Project Title
        Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus

        Newell, A/Prof Benjamin R; Hayes, A/Prof Brett K; Brewer, Prof Marilynn; Lewandowsky, Prof
        Stephan; Pitman, Prof Andrew J; England, Prof Matthew H; Mitchell, Prof Christopher J

        2012 $57,180.00
        2013 $73,825.00
        2014 $84,908.00
        Total $215,913.00

        Primary FoR 1702 COGNITIVE SCIENCE

        Partner Organisation(s)
        Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

        Administering Organisation The University of New South Wales

        Project Summary
        Climate change is a significant contemporary issue, and communicating the complexities of the terminology and the data is a major modern challenge. This project will apply principles of cognitive and social psychology to determine the most effective methods for promoting an understanding of the scientific dimensions of the issue. The research is significant because it provides a coherent theoretical framework for identifying the psychological mechanisms underlying cognition and commitment at both an individual and collective level. The outcome will be a body of evidence that will inform
        strategies and policies for communication of complex scientific questions.

        This is apparently the primary grant – the DCCEE matching grant is not in their database yet

        • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

          Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:50),

          Here is the PDF of the ARC Grant List – this is the only time Lewandowsky’s name is on it.

          Considering the timing of the new hire notice – Aug 31, 2012, the fact it is for a position with identical skills as Lewandowsky, and is for the actual recipient institution for the grant, it would seem all kinds of fun theories could come in to play ;-)

      • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

        Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:19),

        The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility
        Leading the research community in a national interdisciplinary effort to generate the information needed by decision-makers in government and in vulnerable sectors and communities to manage the risks of climate change impacts.

        On Adaptation Research Funding

        Summary of all NCCARF’s research projects (1.98mb pdf)

        I need to head to a meeting, but should be some research fodder there ;-)

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

      Re: A.Scott (Sep 14 18:11), Independent review of some of the Australian Research Council Grants

      http://ccs.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin//profiler_showlist?key=australian_research_council&pt=3&field=msmstories

  28. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Steve: SkepticalScience won’t open for me, either. Maybe I tweaked their sensibilities with my satire today titled “Climate Skeptics Forget the Obvious Intent of the Website SkepticalScience”:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/climate-skeptics-forget-the-obvious-intent-of-the-website-skepticalscience/

    I’ve tweaked them before, though, and I’ve never been unable to access their site.

    Anthony linked to my post in one of his Lew posts today, and he also linked today’s PopTech post about the SkepticalScience unseemly comments about the death of a political commentator:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-ding-dong-witch-is.html

    Maybe SkepticalScience is simply be inundated with visitors who have overloaded their capacities in one way or the other.

    Regards

  29. Green Sand
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    For a minute or so SkS appeared, thinks, somebody monitoring CA has seen the mistake and reinstated “the foot soldier”. Realising that this thought pattern could see me as a conspiracy theorist, I clicked “reload page” and I am back out again. Boy if they think I am in the “elite” theirs is not a conspiracy complex; it is an out and out inferiority complex.

  30. Steven Mosher
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    Jeez. dont those idiots know that I think heartland are a bunch of clowns?

    This study, associating skeptics with nutters, is right up their with the heartland billboards.

    Steve: you’re right. It’s an academic equivalent. For readers, the Heartland’s billboard said that Ted Bundy supported global warming to disparage legitimate warmists. Except that there’s a Gleickian twist with Lewandowsky: Lewandowsky relies on fake data for his lurid results.

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steven Mosher (Sep 14 18:39),

      If you aren’t for us, you are against us … seems to be how it works. As Tom Curtis perhaps recently learned ;-)

      For which, while we disagree on much, he DOES have my appreciation and respect.

    • Jeff Alberts
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

      Actually they used the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski (sp), not Ted Bundy. The latter was a serial killer with a VW.

  31. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    I am denied access using my own IP. But I can access using “HideMyAss”. Screenshots at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/steve-use-hide-my-ass-to-read-sks/

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM | Permalink

      My access has been restored now.

      Steve: Commenters at Lucia’s have observed that it is possible that the blocking was caused by internet blocks en route to AUstralia, with Hide My Ass access occurring because it used a different route. Seems not only possible, but likely.

  32. Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

    Blocked here too. Seems too widespread to be some kind of network malfunction.

  33. Andrew Barnham
    Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

    The similarity of IP addresses for these two services is remarkable. Suggests the two servers are in the same cool room. IP blocking that is occurring may even been configured on shared access point router.

    Traceroute logging to both sites shows they share same access points right upto ping’s are no longer acknowledged. Looks like servers themselves are setup to filter pings.

    6 119.225.23.201 (119.225.23.201) 101.042 ms 110.598 ms 111.690 ms
    7 * * *
    8 myobaustraliae1ptyltd.o3mlc76f05.optus.net.au (59.154.11.254) 44.474 ms 45.260 ms 46.250 ms
    9 n1-fw1-3.myobnet.com (117.104.162.247) 48.082 ms 48.998 ms 49.939 ms

    6 119.225.23.201 (119.225.23.201) 73.017 ms 42.518 ms 44.357 ms
    7 * * *
    8 119.225.15.162 (119.225.15.162) 46.032 ms 45.962 ms 47.363 ms
    9 n1-fw1-3.myobnet.com (117.104.162.247) 48.075 ms 49.186 ms 50.727 ms

    Reverse DNS lookup results are interesting too. Similar naming conventions.
    vip-web9-3.ilisys.com.au.
    vip-sac1-3.myobnet.com.

    Whois lookup on shapingtomorrowsworld.org is very interesting:
    ========
    Registrant ID:DIT-1986046
    Registrant Name:Stephan Lewandowsky
    Registrant Organization:UWA
    Registrant Street1:c/o School of Psychology, 35 Stirling Hwy

    Admin ID:DIT-1986048
    Admin Name:John Cook
    Admin Organization:Sevloid Art

    • Andrew Barnham
      Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

      To add a bit more detail and to editorialise/speculate.

      Both sites are hosted by hosting company MYOB Net. SKS at least is hosted on gear which serves content for dozens of other unrelated websites. STW host though has no obvious history. May be a recently provisioned server.

      John Cook almost certainly helped Lewandowsky provision the site at the start of the year. He probably picked MYOB Net for his own convenience; because he is familiar with their setup even though I think they are slightly pricey. By putting himself down as the technical and administrative contact of the site suggests he intends to actively administer the site; and probably still is.

      My first thought with all this Lewandowsky business and the arguments over counter balacing is why didn’t he approach UWA’s CS department instead of kwiksurvey and get something built fit for purpose that auto shuffled the survey? A capable CS undergrad could of pumped something out in a couple of days and freed up Lewandowsky from the bother of having to feed in multiple static surveys into kwicksurvey. Now : why is John Cook helping him setup websites? UWA’s CS dept lack helpful student/faculty willing to donate their time to aid the cause?

    • Posted Sep 14, 2012 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

      Re: Andrew Barnham (Sep 14 20:00),
      You can check the status of business etc in Australia through a free, online enquiry. Here’s Sevloid Art

      The business name has been removed; i.e. it is no longer valid. Cartoon Cookie should update his registrant data to avoid losing the several domain registrations.

  34. Alexander K
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM | Permalink

    I am merely a sceptical onlooker and am utterly amazed at the machinations of Lewendowsky and Cook as evidenced in their totally batty statements on-line.
    Many years ago, I worked in a tech role in a university Psychology Dept in NZ and, while some of the department members seemed a little odd in my (non-academic) view, I knew most of them very well after working and socialising with them for a few years and none would have countenanced anything even remotely approaching Lewendowsky’s totally bent version of ethics and morality.
    I continue to be awed by the patience, expertise and tenacity of Steve and the many like-minded individuals who contribute here.

    • Toby White
      Posted Sep 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

      @Alexander K: I have to agree. I vacillate a lot; but I’m inclined to think AGW exists and is likely (in the traditional sense of p > 50%) to cause serious problems at some point in the not-too-distant future. However, I’m now also convinced that the scientific warmer “community” (or “nest,” or “infestation”) has completely lost its collective mind. The really disturbing thought that preoccupies me, even as I become more confident of the reality and danger of AGW, is that the discounted harm caused by warmer corruption of science is becoming significantly greater than the discounted harm caused by AGW.

  35. Nathan Kurz
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:33 AM | Permalink

    While it’s possible that specific IP addresses are being blocked, claiming that they are reads a lot like a conspiracy theory. The irony is amazing. If it’s true they are selectively blocking, I have to begrudgingly respect the skill with which they are playing this audience: there is no way for anyone to complain without matching the stereotypical conspiracist of the study!

    Showing that one can get through via an Anonymizer doesn’t strike me as strong evidence. I think the likeliest innocent explanation is a misconfigured router somewhere, so access from a completely different network doesn’t imply much. Much stronger would be to show that you can access from a neighbor’s computer using the same ISP. If the neighbor get through (and is using the same browser and OS), you have firmer evidence. If the neighbor also can’t access, one could either conclude they are blocking wider swaths of the internet, or search harder for innocent explanations.

    • Nathan Kurz
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM | Permalink

      As an ironic addendum, while the post seems to have gone through, the submission of my last comment resulted in this error message:

      No data received
      Unable to load the webpage because the server sent no data.
      Here are some suggestions:
      Reload this webpage later.
      Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): The server closed the connection without sending any data.

      I demand that you unblock me this instant! :)

  36. Rick Bradford
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM | Permalink

    It is abundantly clear that most members of the Team have not a shred of morality and integrity among them.

    The null hypothesis about anything they write or say is that they are lying.

  37. Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    I was blocked and am now unblocked. If they’re blocking Ben Pile and Green Sand from both sites they must have a list – quite a long list I would imagine. Cook mentions his love of collecting data, Lew had a doubtful metaphor about triage – it all fits!
    Richard Drake is right in the first comment. It makes no sense. Why if they posted, delete the post and get so upset about it? If they didn’t post, why not? Why not discuss it, at least among themselves?
    My simple question on a dormant thread at

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html#comments

    sparked off 150 comments (not counting those deleted) and all this. One simple announcement from one SkS author saying yes, he remembers reading the post and commenting would have killed the speculation. It’s almost as if they want to pretend there’s a conspiracy …

    • Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

      I made a comment underneath dana’s post – ie the exact definition of ‘disinformation’ and why he should not use it..

      He was ‘discussing’ it in the comments

      My comment has disappeared as it it was never there ( a clue left behind, the blog says 15 comments, only 13 comments visible !)
      I do keep screen capture usually, presumably they think nobody will notice…

      of course, that is par for the course at Skeptical Science. BUT ShapingTomorrowsWorld is PUBLICALLY funded, so different principles are at stake.

      • Brandon Shollenberger
        Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

        Barry Woods, if you have a screenshot of your comment, could you share it or just retype the comment? I’m curious what you said that got your comment deleted when, so far, my comments have remained untouched.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

          I take that back. One of my comments was just edited to remove a sentence:

          And if you insist anyone who doesn’t agree with you is obtuse/delusional/whatever…

          The reason given?

          Moderator Response: Argumentative snipped.

          I’m not sure I understand that moderation decision, especially since the Comments Policy for the site says nothing about “argumentative” being unacceptable, but…

  38. Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    spotted at WUWT (maybe someone in Aus could verify it, h/t Alex Cull))

    there was a comment yesterday by Richard Allcock at WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/14/the-lewandowsky-participation-census-re-booted/#more-71055

    “I’m a uwa staff member who took the survey after receiving it off the uwa staff mailing list. Halfway through, I stopped, appalled at the leading nature of the questions and the total inability to state your actual position (ie. you could only agree or disagree, strongly or not with a given statement). The world is surely more grey than that. Having stopped, I emailed Charles Hanich and suggested his survey needs re-writing and even volunteered to help him make the questions more scientific. He repsonded that they were standard questions used previously in the scientific literature and described them as “validated instruments whose psychometric properties were well understood” (paraphrased).”

    If I’m correct, this would be him:

    http://www.uwa.edu.au/people/richard.allcock

    He’s an Associate Professor, School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UWA.

  39. Keith AB
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    This has turned into a quite unbelievable story. So much deceit just to ad hom those who oppose the AGW narrative. This is not how confident men behave.

    • Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

      The ‘missing’ Skeptical Science link/comments must be a little bit problematic for the authors?

      from UWA website code of conduct section: Data

      http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/staff/research-policy/guidelines#data

      2. Management of research data and primary materials

      2.1 Data (including electronic data) must be recorded in a durable and appropriately referenced form. Data management should comply with relevant privacy protocols, such as the Australian Standard on personal privacy protection.

      2.2 Data must be held for sufficient time to allow reference. For data that is published this may be for as long as interest and discussion persists following publication. It is recommended that the minimum period for retention is at least five years from the date of publication but for specific types of research, such as clinical research, 15 years may be more appropriate.

      2.3 Wherever possible, original data must be retained in the school or research centre in which they were generated. Individual researchers should be able to hold copies of the data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data. When the data are obtained from limited access databases, or via a contractual arrangement, the location of the original data must be identified, or key information regarding the database from which it was collected, and this must be retained by the researcher or research centre. In all cases, prior to the publication of research findings a Location of Data Form must be completed.

  40. Tony Mach
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    If you have access to Google Reader, you can check the (RSS/XML) feed for SkS:

    http://www.google.com/reader/view/#search/Lewandowsky//feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticalscience.com%2Ffeed.xml

    Usually, even deleted feed-items stay in the feed in Google Reader. (Please note that the search feature does not work so far back)

    I looked around the date (September 2010 and end of August 2010), but could not find a post with a fitting topic.

  41. Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    The moderators at Professor Lewandowsky’s weblog have now removed every comment I have made on each of his posts regarding this letter. My offense?

    “Much like Professor Lewandowsky’s definition of conspiracy theorists, your definition of inflammatory is very subjective. Both unfairly exclude Eli, for example. As for off topic, I’m surprised that so much discussion of Richard Lindzen is considered on topic but that discussion of unanswered questions on Professor Lewandowsky’s paper is considered off topic. The fact that he wrote circles around it without answering the questions is an answer, of course–but is it the answer he wishes to provide?

    What does n= for each of the cells used in his analysis? Methodology 101. It’s not really science unless he answers that question”

  42. DGH
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    John Cook @skepticscience did tweet,

    skepticscience Help UWA research attitudes about science – fill out this online survey http://bit.ly/aZ7Znv 6:17 AM Aug 28th, 2010 from web

    • DGH
      Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

      Actually 2 tweets…

      I haven’t been able to find the bitly elsewhere as of yet…http://bit.ly/aZ7Znv. I searched the skepticalscience at the wayback machine and turned up nothing. But it could be that he simply tweeted it and allowed it to appear on the site via a feed.

  43. Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    Since its buried above I’ll reiterate what I thought a couple potentially significant points.

    First, the grant was not to UAW and Lewandowsky, it was to Univ of New So Wales with Ben Newell as lead. Lewandowsky was however a named participant. Lewendowsky lists this grant in its entirety in his CV although it appears he is simply a participant.

    Second, UNSW is actively recruiting a “Post-Doctoral Research Associate” with by all appearances Lewandowsky’s same skillset who can apply “principles of cognitive and social psychology to determine effective methods for promoting an understanding of climate science.” At $77-82,000 per year this single position would eat up almost the entire base grant.

    Third, and perhaps most interesting, this grant – which appears to be the one listed in the paper as funding source – is for 2012-2014. However the current paper is for work completed in 2010. The appearance at least is Lewandowsky got some money and took an old dusty relic he couldn’t get published prior off the shelf and polished it up with new found wealth … ;-)

    No idea if there are ethics considerations to using new money on old projects.

    The more interesting question it seems is does this paper conform to the stated purpose of the grant?

    “Creating a climate for change: from cognition to consensus”
    Project Summary
    Climate change is a significant contemporary issue, and communicating the complexities of the terminology and the data is a major modern challenge. This project will apply principles of cognitive and social psychology to determine the most effective methods for promoting an understanding of the scientific dimensions of the issue.

    The research is significant because it provides a coherent theoretical framework for identifying the psychological mechanisms underlying cognition and commitment at both an individual and collective level.

    The outcome will be a body of evidence that will inform strategies and policies for communication of complex scientific questions.

    In breaking down the grant language it says:

    1. Climate Change is a significant issue

    2. Communicating the complexities [of climate change) is a “major modern challenge”

    3. This project will apply cognitive and social psychology to determine the most effective methods for promoting an understanding of the issue

    4. This research provides a framework for identifying the psychological mechanisms behind cognition and commitment at an individual level

    5. The results will be evidence that will identify the strategies and policies to communicate complex science issue

    I suspect Mr. Lewandowskys reply would be first we have to understand how they think, but is a paper whose entire goal is to associate skeptics with conspiracy theories and free market tendencies really of any value pursuant to the grant’s goal?

  44. Andrew Barnham
    Posted Sep 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    For those who cannot reach the sites, suggest try going to unrelated websites that are cohosted on the same servers. If you can reach the unrelated site suggests the administrator of SKS/STW is blocking your IP, if you can reach neither suggests routing problem.

    skepticalscience.com
    http://www.dirtbikeworld.net
    Shared IP: 117.104.160.130

    shapingtomorrowsworld.org
    http://www.pets-megastore.com.au
    Shared IP: 117.104.160.137

  45. Posted Mar 25, 2014 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    There’s more duplicity in the previous paper:

    http://skience.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/lewandowsky/

13 Trackbacks

  1. […] http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/ […]

  2. […] Steve McIntyre wrote: Update: Both Lewandowsky’s University of Western Australia blog shapingtomorrow and John Cook’s skepticalscience blog appear to have blocked me. Other readers report that they can access these sites, but here’s what I get. […]

  3. By psych-astrology pair … updates | pindanpost on Sep 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM

    […] The SkS “Link” to the Lewandowsky Survey […]

  4. […] “If it’s true they are selectively blocking, I have to begrudgingly respect the skill with which they are playing this audience: there is no way for anyone to complain without matching the stereotypical conspiracist of the study!” (http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/#comment-352753). […]

  5. By Lewandowsky Timeline | Geoffchambers's Blog on Mar 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    […] http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/ […]

  6. By Lewandowsky Doubles Down « Climate Audit on Mar 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    […] Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here. […]

  7. […] Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here. […]

  8. […] Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here. […]

  9. By Lew paper … flushed | pindanpost on Mar 29, 2013 at 3:46 AM

    […] Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here. […]

  10. By Lew’s Third Table | Geoffchambers's Blog on Aug 9, 2013 at 5:25 AM

    […] http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/ […]

  11. By Lewandowsky | skience on Mar 25, 2014 at 4:20 PM

    […] Steve McIntyre has been investigating the ethical application for the Lewandowky NASA conspiracy paper which was originally drawn up for another project. But this project is also dynamite. (also see WUWT) […]

  12. […] http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/14/the-sks-link-to-the-lewandowsky-survey/ […]

  13. […] Steve McIntyre has been investigating the ethical application for the Lewandowky NASA conspiracy paper which was originally drawn up for another project. But this project is also dynamite. (also see WUWT) […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,421 other followers

%d bloggers like this: