[quote]In a survey of more than 2,000 psychologists, Leslie John, a consumer psychologist from Harvard Business School in Boston, Massachusetts, showed that more than 50% had waited to decide whether to collect more data until they had checked the significance of their results, thereby allowing them to hold out until positive results materialize. More than 40% had selectively reported studies that “worked”8. On average, most respondents felt that these practices were defensible. “Many people continue to use these approaches because that is how they were taught,” says Brent Roberts, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. [/quote]

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf

http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535

Replication, say what?

“The most important issue is whether the Lewandowsky survey was contaminated by fraudulent responses by anti-skeptics. It was.”

Yeah, but you haven’t shown that. You’ve simply asserted it. You have yet to prove it.

snip

Steve: untrue personal accusations snipped.

There is convincing evidence of fraudulent responses, as I’ve asserted. As Lewandowsky observed in the case of Bray-von Storch, an author seeking to publish results from an online survey has to show data integrity. The onus is on Lewandowsky to demonstrate data integrity – he hasn’t done so. I made the very moderate suggestion that Lewandowsky request re-review of this article, asking the reviewers to pay attention to the possibility of fake responses. You should support that request.

Such a reviewer, if diligent, would need to examine IP addresses, the unreported duplicate responses, among other things. Even then, I don’t believe that an objective reviewer could arrive at the conclusion that Lewandowsky had assured that his results were not contaminated by fraudulent data and should therefore recommend rejection of the article.

The Lewandowsky analysis is nothing more than a transparent attempt to affect the political stage of the AGW debate. I would think that Tom Curtis realizes what Lewandowsky is attempting here and if he were truly objective in these matters would be discussing the essence of the analysis and not the peripheral issues of who is playing nice and who is not.

and from above:

“Lewandowsky could have easily mitigated the problem if he had followed my original suggestion that he ask the journal to re-review the article with a particular eye on the problem of fraudulent responses. You should have encouraged him to do so as well. Shame on both of you.”

I think those are unfair comments. Tom strongly critique the survey on those grounds when it came out. He did that on his home turf at SkepSci starting here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1540#84394 and was attacked by Michael Sweet and others. After that he disappeared (nb: I am not a conspiracy theorist and do not believe Tom’s disappearance is evidence of any kind of conspiracy).

I believe (or speculate) that given Tom’s demonstrated determination to understand and defend science from the fundamentals of physics to softer economic sciences that he is probably discussing the survey and analysis in one on one in emails with someone or some people and will come to a supportable conclusion in time.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rabett.blogspot.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/skepticalscience.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/realclimate.org

vs.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climateaudit.org

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com