Lewandowsky’s Backdating

In today’s post, I want to discuss Lewandowsky’s backdating of the blogpost in which he purported to “out” four skeptics, a claim that he re-iterated and embellished in a subsequent academic article, Lewandowsky et al (Fury). In response to a recent FOI request by Simon Turnill, the University of Western Australia stated that, based on their examination of records at Lewandowsky’s blog, it had been published on Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time (CLICK):


However, in my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence that the blogpost was not published until September 11, 2012 between 4:00 and 4:30 am Australian Western Time (6 – 6:30 Australian Eastern), about 15 hours later. Between these times, the three then unidentified skeptics had been identified at both Climate Audit (here) and updates at Jo Nova (here), with these identifications even being reported by Barry Woods on a thread at Lewandowsky’s STW blog.

However, because of the date shown on Lewandowsky’s Australian blog, Lewandowsky appears to have the priority that he claimed both in the blogpost and the academic article. In today’s post, I’ll summarize the evidence for backdating, new information on which has arisen both through recent FOI and analysis by Simon Turnill.

The Hanich Deception
The most obvious puzzle arising from Hoax was its attempt to survey skeptics by only polling the most stridently anti-skeptic blogs. On August 30, Lucia emailed Lewandowsky as follows:

I am writing to ask you which 5 skeptic blogs you invited to provide links to your survey. I believe the names are required to permit objective parties to gauge your level of objectivity in collecting data. Could you please provide a list?

Lewandowsky replied:

Sorry, no, they likely replied to my requests [my bold] under the presumption of privacy and I am therefore not releasing their names.

From this, I had inferred both that Lewandowsky himself had been party to the correspondence (“my requests”) and that the blogs had overtly declined (“had declined”) – as opposed to merely not responding to email from an unknown sender, a point that I mentioned in a comment in one of Lucia’s threads.

Lucia’s interest had been prompted by an email from Jo Nova, a longtime local adversary of Lewandowsky in Perth, Australia, who had sent an email to various bloggers, including myself, asking whether we had received a survey invitation from Lewandowsky. I searched my 2010 emails for “Lewandowsky” and had no returns, replying to Jo on August 30 as follows:

I have no record of being contacted. Nor do I recollect any inquiry. Have you asked him directly?

It subsequently turned out that I had been contacted by a Charles Hanich in connection with the survey, but that Lewandowsky had intentionally concealed his association with the survey; thus my search for “Lewandowsky” was unsuccessful, as were similar searches by other bloggers. Jo kept a running update of responses to her email, including me in her list as follows:

Update #5. Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit)… was not asked either…

This characterization is obviously more categorical than my actual email. My response was narrower for obvious reasons: I obviously could not exclude the possibility that the email had ended up in junk mail or that I had deleted an email from someone unknown to me. However, I wasn’t following Jo’s coverage and didn’t notice this at the time.

while Lewandowsky had refused to send the list to Lucia (and previously to Barry Woods), Lewandowsky had no qualms about releasing the list to a Planet 3.0 blogger (whose identity was redacted in FOI but perhaps John Cook), who chuckled at the idea of “deniers all over the world poring over 2 year old emails! ”

…slight error in your STW piece (which will no doubt become part of the conspiracy theory). You say that you contacted 5 denier blogs but [redacted] emailed 6:
Podblack; Steve McIntyre; Roger Pielke Jr; Marc Morano; Roy Spencer; Bob Ferguson

Note – all but Podblack have been reported to say they never received an email. On that note, I did smile at your coy “check your inbox (and outbox) advice. Now you’ll have deniers all over the world poring over 2 year old emails! 

Lewandowsky smugly replied that he hoped that the deniers would “spend hours looking :)”:

OK yes if necessary I’ll update. [Hanich] is digging out emails. At least I made the point that had to be made, hinting strongly that the deniers haven’t found emails… I hope they spend hours looking 🙂

On September 3, Lewandowsky blogged about the inability of the bloggers to locate an email from him as follows:

In the meantime, I understand that there is a list on the internet of individuals who have declared that they were never contacted. As we are awaiting the decision about release of the names, just a matter of general principle, there can be no harm if those folks were to again check their inboxes (and outboxes) very carefully for correspondence from my assistant at UWA [my bold] in August and September 2010. I know how difficult it is to locate individual emails among thousands received in a year, and a double check may therefore be quite prudent. (Who knows, it might even prevent some overly trigger-happy and creative people from floating a conspiracy theory about how I just made up the fact of having contacted those blogs, similar to the way NASA faked the moon landing.)

Being used to watching the pea with the Team, I noticed that Lewandowsky had slyly moved the pea relative to his correspondence with Lucia. Whereas his email to Lucia had used the personal possessive – “my requests”, his blog post instead used the term “correspondence from my assistant at UWA”.

I therefore re-did the search, this time looking for “uwa.edu” and within minutes of Lewandowsky’s blog post, had located a survey invitation from a Charles Hanich – a person nowhere mentioned in the article itself. Hanich’s invitation contained no reference to Lewandowsky, a deception that Lewandowsky had specifically requested from the UWA Ethics Committee (though a deception applied only to skeptic blogs.)

I promptly posted notices at Lucia’s, Bishop Hill and WUWT, where the story was being followed ( I hadn’t covered it at CA at the time.)

Lewandowsky had lots of fun with this, accusing me of having initially “denied” that I had received a survey invitation – a gross distortion of what I had actually said:

It has come to my attention that one of the individuals who initially denied—yes, folks, that’s the correct word, look it up in a dictionary—having received an invitation to post a link to my survey on the rejection of science on his blog, has now found that email.

I posted a detailed response at Lew’s blog explaining that I had not “denied” receiving such an email, only that I had been unable to locate an email containing the search term “Lewandowsky”:

In a post at Lucia’s blog, Lucia had said that she did not recollect receiving such an email from you, but did not preclude the possibility that one was in the tide of emails. …

My situation was identical to hers. I did not recollect receiving such an email from you (and hadn’t received such an email from “you”). However, I could not preclude receiving one in the tide of emails….Since Tim Lambert’s invitation to the survey at his blog referred to a survey being carried out by “Stephan Lewandowsky”, I had presumed that your name would appear in or be connected to the invitation and I had therefore searched my 2010 emails for correspondence referring to “Lewandowsky” and did not locate any.

It did not occur to me that the invitation would not be from you, but would not include any reference to you as a participant. When you provided the additional information that it had been sent by a research associate, I carried out a search for “uwa.edu.au” and located an email from a Charles Harnich – an email which made no mention of “Lewandowsky”.

Thus, if your post refers to me, it would be accurate to say that I did not recollect receiving the email, but it is not accurate to say that I “denied” receiving the invitation email, since, like Lucia, I did not preclude the possibility of overlooking something in the tide of email.

Lewandowsky ignored my explanation. He was then at a conference in Germany and nearly all of his blog posts were written in the German evenings, presumably after he had finished socializing with his conference associates. His blog posts over the next week got wilder and wilder. In his September 6 blogpost, Lewandowsky once again attacked me for not locating the Hanich email, this time by name

If I am not mistaken, I can indeed confirm that there were 4—not 3—versions of the survey (unless that was the number of my birth certificates, I am never quite sure, so many numbers to keep track of… Mr. McIntyre’s dog misplaced an email under a pastrami sandwich a mere 8.9253077595543363 days ago, and I have grown at least one tail and several new horns over the last few days, all of which are frightfully independent and hard to keep track of)…

Astute readers will have noted that if the Survey ID’s from above are vertically concatenated and then viewed backwards at 33 rpm, they read “Mitt Romney was born in North Korea.” To understand the relevance of Mr Romney’s place of birth requires a secret code word. This code word, provided below, ought to be committed to memory before burning this post.

It is very hard to reconcile Lewandowsky’s escalating rhetoric with his undertaking in his ethics application that his follow-up would merely be public observation. Responding to Lewandowsky’s attacks on me personally, I posted a lengthy article at CA on September 8, that mostly focused on the problem of fraudulent responses, but which also included a section describing the underlying survey, observing that I had been contacted by Hanich.

Pielke Jr read my post and noticed my reference to Hanich as the originator of the survey. On Sunday Sep 9 (10:11 Eastern), he emailed me, saying that a fresh search using “Hanich” had located emails. I posted this up at Climate Audit the next day (Sep 10 10:20 Eastern). Pielke also notified Jo Nova on Sunday; Jo promptly updated her post.

The next Australian day (Sep 10 13:36 AWT), Jo sent out an email blast to her list (mostly asleep in North America), asking them to search on “Hanich”. At 8:34 Eastern (20:34 AWT), Roy Spencer reported that he had located an email from Hanich; Jo recorded this at 21:46 AWT (9:46 Eastern). At 11:27 Eastern, commenter Barry Woods reported on my recent Third Skeptic post that Spencer had been identified at Jo Nova’s.

At 11:22 Eastern, Marc Morano, also in response to Jo’s email, reported to Jo that he had located the Hanich email. Morano forwarded this email to me a few minutes later and at 11:42 Eastern, I posted a comment in the Third Skeptic post, identifying Morano as the fifth skeptic. This time, I was slightly ahead of Jo, who posted an update on Morano at 12:10 Eastern (Sep 11 2:10 am AET). Jo also wrote a short summary reporting the identification of the five skeptics.

Thus by noon Eastern (6 p.m. Germany; Sep 11 2:00 AET), all five bloggers had been identified at both CA and Jo Nova. At 14:11 Eastern (Sep 11 4:11 AET), Barry Woods reported the identity of the five bloggers at Lewandowsky’s blog on the most recent thread (Sister Souljah).

There was a small loose end: we had counted Steve Milloy of Junk Science as one of the five skeptics. Though he posted a link, Lewandowsky did not claim him as an email recipient, instead claiming Bob Ferguson, not a prominent blogger, as the fifth skeptic.

Back to Lewandowsky
In Lewandowsky’s first post (Sept 3) on the matter, Lewandowsky stated that he had already sought guidance from the Australian Psychological Society and the UWA Human Ethics Research Committee on disclosure of the blog names. However, the first document in the FOI response was not until September 7, when Lewandowsky sent an inquiry to Kathryn Kirk of the UWA Ethics Committee. In his blog post of September 9, Lewandowsky reported that he had “several phone conversations” scheduled for the next day with the ethics committee.

In the Australian morning of Sep 10 (9:04 AWT), Kathryn Kirk wrote to Kim Heitman, general counsel to UWA, asking about the release of names:

Stephan lewandowsky is enquiring about the matter he raises in his email below and is phoning me from Germany at lunchtime. It seems to me that he could only release the names if he were given consent (probably via email) to do so. Any advice that you could give would be appreciated.

Heitman’s response (9:50 AWT) shows that he completely misunderstood the inquiry, presuming that the blog links were already searchable (true of the linking blogs, but not of the blogs in question). It is unclear whether his misunderstanding was corrected or not:

Yes by all means Stephan should seek consent to list the blog URLS or name them. However, since an astute enquirer could search them out via Google search, I don’t feel that this is a mattr of consent to research participation or significant confidentiality. To otherwise close the point, anonymised responses to enquiries as to the bona fides of the blog links would also be OK.

Kirk forwarded (9:55 AWT; 3:55 Germany) this botched response to Lewandowsky in Germany:

I hope the following correspondence from Kim Heitman clarifies the position for you. By all means ring me if you want but I’m not sure that I could provide further advice than that given below.

In the Australian afternoon (German morning), Lewandowsky was in touch with Australia. At 15:42 AWT (9:42 German), Lewandowsky sent an email to Robyn Owens, Deputy Vice Chancellor (the UWA equivalent to UEA’s Trevor Davies, I think), the contents of which were completely redacted. At 16:35 AWT (10:35 German), Owens replied to Lewandowsky (cc Heitman, Kirk) that she had talked to Heitman. At 16:52 AWT (10:52 German; 4:52 Eastern), Lewandowsky acknowledged to Owens that Heitman had advised Lewandowsky to release the names of the bloggers. (At this point, Pielke had been identified at Jo Nova’s, but not at CA.)

Hi, robyn, thanks, much appreciated. I am glad that Kim [Heitman] has advised me to release those names of the bloggers I contacted. This will hopefully create some embarrassment and will make this first conspiracy theory collapse into crumbles.

In subsequent correspondence (Sep 14) with Owens, Lewandowsky stated that he had “talked to Kim at length by phone” – presumably on the 10th – and that he had “written advice from him that release of names was ok”. One wonders whether this “written advice” was more substantial than Heitman’s misunderstanding of the situation in the morning.

It was now late morning in Germany and Lewandowsky appears to have returned to his conference and subsequent socializing for about 10 hours. At about 9 pm German time (3 pm Eastern), Lewandowsky sent emails to Spencer (15:01 Eastern) and Morano (15:02 Eastern), notifying them, presumably in accordance with the legal instructions received earlier that day, that Lewandowsky intended to “post the relevant information on [his] blog shortly”:

Please find enclosed correspondence from my research assistant dating back to 2010. He contacted you at the time to ask whether you would post a link to one of my research projects on your blog.

There appears to be considerable public interest in the identity of the bloggers whom I contacted for my project in 2010, and I am therefore pleased that my university has today affirmed that there are no ethical issues involved in releasing their identity.

I will post the relevant information on my blog shortly [my bold].

Given that both Spencer and Morano had already disclosed this information 4-6 hours earlier, Lewandowsky’s notice must have caused some mild surprise.

The precise publication time of Lewandowsky’s “outing” post, Hall of Amnesia, can be closely timed to between 6 and 6:28 Sep 11 AET (16:00-16:28 Sep 10 Eastern) through a number of factors.

First, various active commenters, including myself, had visited STW in the preceding hours and left comments on other threads. Had the Amnesia post been online, we would have noticed it. At 4:11 AET, as noted above, Woods left a comment on the Sister Souljah thread identifying the five bloggers. At 4:56 AET, I left a comment on the VersionGate thread. At 5:58 AET, Geoff Chambers left a comment on the Sister Souljah thread and at 6:00 AET (16:00 Eastern), Woods left a comment at the original CCC1 thread. Each of us would have noticed the publication of a new thread outing the five bloggers, supporting Lewandowsky’s statement to Morano and Spencer at 15:01 Eastern that the announcement had not yet been made.

Second, at 16:28 Eastern (15:28 Central; Sep 11 6:28 AET), Lewandowsky sent out a tweet announcing ”Amnesiagate: the four bloggers who didn’t post the survey outed”, linking to the new Hall of Amnesia post. Lewandowsky’s new post was quickly noticed by Anthony Watts at 16:35. [Update – Lewandowsky posted a link at Facebook at 16:26 Eastern (1:26 Pacific see link). The first comment on the new thread was at 7:15 AET (17:15 Eastern). I placed the second comment a minute later, also taking a screenshot which I saved at 17:16 Eastern. It was recorded by Google Reader/GRUML at 7:21 AET (17:21 Eastern). Michael Marriott, a coauthor of Fury, wrote a cover post at 17:13 AET. Lucia did a new post on the five blogs at 17:30 Eastern.

Third, Lewandowsky’s presence online is documented at 16:46 Eastern (22:46 German; Sep 11 06:46) through an email to Ethics Officer Kirk notifying her of his plan to write a follow-up paper (the subsequent Fury), setting out his view that he did not require ethics approval for it.

The web archive RSS feed here does not show a native time, but converts the time into local time zones, as pointed out by commenters below. For me, it presently shows a time of 12:50 pm Eastern, approximately four hours earlier than (what appears to be the actual publication time). This has the same exact minute (…:50) as the time reported by the UWA from blog records, but is 13 hours later. (Note: I’m seeking further details on webarchive timestamps.)

hall of amnesia RSS timestamp

Here is a summary of the timeline for Sep 10, with each of the relevant timezones color coded on the left. Attempts to impute an earlier time to Lewandowsky’s post are particularly constrained by the multiple documented visits to STW without encountering the post, his notice letter to Morano and Spencer, plus the timing of the tweet, the GRUML feed, the first comment and other responses once the post had been published. (CLICK TO ENLARGE)


Hall of Amnesia Gof4
Lewandowsky’s outing post contained the same sort of juvenile self-indulgence as his earlier posts written in the previous evenings. Lewandowsky identified the four bloggers as Pielke Jr, Morano, Spencer and Ferguson, alleging that all four had “publically stated” that they had not been contacted.

It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.

As noted above, this was a misrepresentation. Neither Pielke nor Morano, for example, had stated that they had not been “contacted” nor had either issued “public” statements. They had indeed sent emails responding to Jo Nova, but their statements in those emails did not say what Lewandowsky alleged. Lewandowsky then asked rhetorically:

1. When will an apology be forthcoming for the accusations launched against me? And how many individuals should now be issuing a public apology?

Lucia’s answer to this was appropriate derision:

Exactly one individual should be issuing public apologies. That is Stephan Lewandowsky for wasting everyone’s time with his trumped up claim that he could not release these names owing to privacy considerations. For myself I think I am owed an apology because Stephan Lewandowsky’s self indulgent refusal to reveal the blogs meant that I and other bloggers were forced to waste our time to discover information that was in his power to release and which was always in his power to release. I think he also owes apologies to the blogs he contacted by indulging himself with with holding this information and suggesting they waste their time hunting for information he should have released all along.

Lewandowsky continued with a second rhetorical question:

2. Why would the people who were contacted publically fail to acknowledge this fact?
Several hypotheses could be entertained but I prefer to settle for the simplest explanation. It’s called “human error.” It simply means the 4 bloggers couldn’t find the email, didn’t know what to search for, or their inboxes were corrupted by a move into another building, to name but a few possibilities. The only fly in the ointment in that hypothesis is that I provided search keys and exact dates and times of some correspondence.

Again Lucia was curt in her response to Lewandowsky:

Lewandowsky’s theory that they could somehow easily know and search is ridiculous. To perform an effective search one needs to identify a search term. It turns out that the correct search term to discover that Stephan Lewandowsky had contacted people inviting them to participate in a survey that ultimately lead to the publication of a paper authored by Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac was “Hanich”. Lewandowsky suggestion that he was somehow helpful because he mentioned providing search keys in in a post at DeSmogblog on September 5 after people announced they has searched and not found emails and after McIntyre did miraculous manage to guess a search term and find one of the email shows us only that Lewandowsky is delusional. And a whiner.

In Fury, his academic article on these events, Lewandowsky further embellished his story, now claiming that his Sep 10 blogpost was the first disclosure of the skeptic authors, now additionally concealing the fact that I had discovered the Hanich email on September 3 and that the Milloy blog linking had been located on September 5.

The names of the “skeptic” bloggers became publicly available on 10 September 2012, on a blog post by the first author of LOG12; http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyGof4.html.

Undiscussed at the time was the date of Lewandowsky’s post. Though Hall of Amnesia was published at approximately 6:00 and 6:28 AET on September 11, the post itself shows a date of September 10. Blog comments are timestamped in Australian Eastern Time and the blog is operated by the University of Western Australia. The implication is that the date and time of the article was Sep 10 in Australia, rather than (say) in California.

hall of amnesia heading

To clarify this point, earlier this year, Simon Turnill asked the UWA under Freedom of Information for the time and timezone of several Lewandowsky posts including the Amnesia post:


The UWA response stated that they extracted information from the STW blog database in providing their answer:


They then provided a summary table stating that the blogpost had been on Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time as follows:


On May 9, Turnill asked again for “a printout of the web server log or blog database” “or other evidence that shows the ACTUAL time at which the publish button was clicked on each of the posts previously requested”.

On May 22, the UWA responded on May 22 that the STW system had been “custom designed” and that the system did not “automatically generate timestamps”, which were instead manually entered by the authors:

As requested, please see below for the screengrabs of our author administration system (which in WordPress is called the “dashboard”). For your reference, The Shaping Tomorrow’s World system is a custom designed, hand coded system; it’s not a pre-existing system like WordPress. The system doesn’t automatically generate publish timestamps, the author has to manually enter the publish date and time.

They provided the following screengrab for Lewandowsky’s entry for the Amnesia post:

gof4 foi

Here is a blowup of how Lewandowsky entered the time:
gof4 blowup

Simon inquired:

You state: “the author has to manually enter the publish date and time”. Does this mean that the author can put any date and time on a post, irrespective of when the post actually went live on the server? This does not answer the question. The information I am seeking is the precise time the posts went live on the site. There will be a server log which shows the time at which the individual files were uploaded to the http server, and were therefore available to view on the site. That is the information which I require.

The UWA replied:

The Shaping Tomorrow’s World website is hosted by ilisys.com.au in a shared-host environment. Following your latest email, enquiries were conducted with the Ilisys’s Technical Support department and they confirmed that the database server does not log individual entries. There is no further information available apart from what has already been provided to you.

Simon reverted by pointing out the major discrepancies between the times provided and contemporary evidence and unsuccessfully requested an explanation of the discrepancy.

My curiosity in the precise time of Lewandowsky’s post arose in part from a similar dispute with Gergis and Karoly, who had claimed to have “independently” discovered an error pointed out at CA, but their claim to independence eroded when the times of their correspondence was examined.

In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming for the following:

(1) that Hall of Amnesia was published at approximately Sep 11 6-6:30 AET (Sep 10 – 16:00-16:30 Eastern; 22:00-22:30 German);
(2) the evidence supporting a publication time of Sep 11 8-6:30 AET precludes the time reported by the University of Western Australia (Sep 10 11:50:00 AWT);
(3) what if Lewandowsky intended only the lesser deception of entering German time on a blog otherwise denominated in Australian time? A posting time of 12:50 pm German time is also precluded by the evidence of a posting time of 22-22:30 German time.

For the record, I do not believe that Lewandowsky “conspired” with anyone to backdate his post; it is my belief that he backdated his post all by himself.

It is very hard to imagine a “good reason” for Lewandowsky entering an incorrectly early date and time for his blog post. I asked Lucia and she couldn’t think of one either.

Had Lewandowsky not claimed priority for “outing” the four bloggers quite so ostentatiously and/or repeated the false claim to priority in an academic article, the backdating would have been curious but not worth analyzing. However, Lewandowsky’s claim to priority (relative to CA and Jo Nova) rests on what seems to be a false date and time of his Amnesia post. Using the date and time which can be substantiated, priority of identification rests with CA and Jo Nova and Lewandowsky’s entire speculation on the failure of the bloggers to self-identify is shown as fabrication.


  1. John Norris
    Posted Aug 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    Them chuckling about the deniers searching their emails is incredible. It’s like their 12 years old and made a prank phone call. What is the academic benefit to them if they make skeptic bloggers look foolish? They themselves ended up looking like children rather then legitimate researchers.

  2. rogerknights
    Posted Aug 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    Any chance of a FOIA?

  3. John Norris
    Posted Aug 1, 2013 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    The other unfortunate part for them is it clearly was a very poorly done study, ignoring all this after the fact discussion. Backdating the post wasn’t going to salvage anything for them. If everyone bought their story, it’s not all of the sudden it’s a useful study.

    • Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

      I (Tony Thomas, retired journalist) happened to be sitting at the same table with WA University vice-chancellor Paul Johnson at a Rotary Club of Crawley breakfast on the morning of 8 August (the campus is at Crawley, WA). I had dropped in on the club’s meeting as a guest from Melbourne. Paul happened to be the speaker at the meeting.

      After the meeting ended, I asked Paul, “Has the university made any public statement on the Lewandowsky controversy?”

      Paul replied, “It is not clear there is controversy. We would not intend to make a public statement about people’s research. The university view is for academic freedom. We support and encourage members of academic staff to pursue their research and publish it, and comment on areas within their professional expertise.

      “Professor Lewandowsky is no longer at the (WA) university. His psychology work has been published in top journals in the US.” #

      • Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

        “The university view is for academic freedom. We support and encourage members of academic staff to pursue their research and publish it, and comment on areas within their professional expertise.”

        Which is the valueless position of typical taxpayer-funded universities, though often it ends up anti-human.

  4. JCM
    Posted Aug 1, 2013 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    He is a poseur.

  5. John R T
    Posted Aug 1, 2013 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

    Is it really possible: no precise posting time? the several layers of back-up are each inaccessible!

    O/T – somewhat: what part of North America uses ‘publically,’ instead of ‘publicly?’

    Steve: Thank you for teasing out threads of facts from this knot of distraction and deception.

  6. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    When he constructed his “revisionism” of convenience, insisting that the inability of skeptics to find an E-mail from him (or even including his name) meant that you folks owed him an “apology”, implying that you should somehow have divined that these “invitations” were from Lewandowsky (when they were actually sent by Hanich), I remember thinking to myself, “What utter chutzpah. Does he really think he can get away with this?”

    Surely, if he has any friends at least one of them will be kind enough to tip him off – and let him know that this is not doing much for his credibility! And that he needs to fix this PDQ. (Who knows, perhaps such advice was in the “all redacted” E-mail?!)

    Clearly Lewandowsky is not someone who will ever let the facts get in the way of his self-glorification (and/or dedication to “the cause”) Not unlike Mann, he seems to have taken some leaves out of the pages of notorious faux-historian, David <add a word here, change a date there> Irving’s books.

    As I was reading your account of Lewandowsky’s antics above, an anecdote from Andrew Neil’s eulogy for the late Sir Alistair Burnet came to mind:

    Working for Alastair was a master class in journalism – with fun thrown in.

    ‘If you can’t get the little things right,’ he once said gently chiding me for a relatively minor mistake ‘how can we trust you on the big ones.’

    A lesson Lewandowsky would do well to learn.

    I think first, though, Lewandowsky would need a remedial course on “How to take responsibility for your own actions and words”. But, I have a hunch he’s not about to do this, because the mounting evidence to date suggests that he may be far to afflicted with, well, “recursive fury”;-)

    • AJ
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

      “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” goes an old saying.

      I can’t imagine that Lewandowsky would genuinely acknowledge to himself that his behaviour is egregious and unethical as that would cause an existential crisis, so presumably he thinks that one or more of the following is true:

      a) Tweaking the date on a post is only a small fabrication and it enables him to maintain his righteousness in pushing “the cause”.
      b) Tweaking the date on a post is only a small fabrication and it enables him to publish a blistering attack on his detractors.
      c) He didn’t tweak the date.

      My money is on c). I suspect he has generated a narrative to himself that he actually DID “out the sceptics”. If that’s the case then it’ll be interesting to see how he deals with the cognitive dissonance that this article will generate. He will have to generate some sort of false memory or contrived explanation or conspiracy theory(!) to be able to maintain his belief that he’s right.

      The disappointing thing is that his apparently unethical and egregious behaviour has been rewarded by various academic institutions around the world. The people that run these institutions don’t seem to realise that trust is something that takes a long time to build, yet can be destroyed by a single action. I suspect the public’s trust in these institutions has been further eroded by issues such as this. In the long term it may impact the willingness of the public to maintain funding for them.

    • tomdesabla
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

      “(Who knows, perhaps such advice was in the “all redacted” E-mail?!)”

      No, the redacted email was from our intrepid pseudo-psychologist, so unless he was giving that advice to himself, which I think we can rule out…

  7. Txomin
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    Wow. Your determination and industriousness humbles.

  8. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:37 AM | Permalink

    Netcraft survey of STW says that the server is running Apache web server which, by default, logs an awful lot of detail; down to the millisecond. It’s not usually in the provider’s interest to reduce the level of logging. They’re in Australia so they ostensibly need to keep track of activity to avoid the ire of criminal investigators; especially when they’re hosting external customers.

    The log files are (typically) automatically “aged” when they grow beyond a certain level and a new one started. The old one is compressed so uses SFA disc space. A million web object hits generates a million lines of log; about 120 characters each; so 120 megabytes. Compressed, it’s usually less than 10 MB.

    Changes to web content (by “mere mortals”) are usually performed by HTTP POST; which’d reduce the volume of data for analysis by several orders of magnitude. If POST request data have been logged, then those data will help to identify when the initial page content was published; server time.

    Almost invariably, authors will browse to the page that they have just updated/created; so there’ll be corresponding GET requests logged.

    • Tony Mach
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

      The proper FOI request would be therefore be something like that:

      Find the earliest “GET http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyGof4.html” (or similar requests) in the server logs.

      (Maybe other requests might even be better – e.g. searching for POST coming from Lew in Germany)

  9. AntonyIndia
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:40 AM | Permalink

    This “cognitive” scientist was good at fabricating conspiracy theories for others; now we get to see from which fertile imagination these sprouted.

  10. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations on a fantastic job done with your usual patience and thoroughness.
    One minor typo 4th para from end:
    “(2) the evidence supporting a publication time of Sep 11 8-6:30 AET” – should be “6-6:30” ?
    Just the kind of thing Lew will leap on.

    Hilary Ostrov
    “Surely, if he has any friends at least one of them will be kind enough to tip him off”.
    Stephan has loads of friends, in Bristol, Washington, Vienna, the Royal Society, the AGU, New Yorker, Huffington Post, Scientific American etc. When his Recursive Fury paper went on-line, two professors and a university administrator turned up to comment within minutes of each other, giggling about how their comments were evidence of a conspiracy. Stephan is very popular.

  11. jorgekafkazar
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:34 AM | Permalink

    Claims of precedence based on a time stamp that was not generated automatically are utterly worthless. Just more of what Lysenko spawned: pseudoscience.

  12. AndyL
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:36 AM | Permalink

    The most innocent explanation I can think of is that he tried to do a calculation of Australian time while posting in Germany, and got it wrong. It is easy to get confused when adding / subtracting 10 hours to work out what time and day it is on the other side of the world, as I know when working out what time to phone my relatives over there.

    This would not excuse any claims of precedence, or allow him to cite the blog date as evidence. There’s no link to the academic article so it is not clear what he has said.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:24 AM | Permalink

      The Recursive Fury paper is not currently available. The relevant quote is on pp 16, 17:

      “The names of the ”skeptic” bloggers became publicly available on 10 September 2012, on a blog post by the first author of LOG12;
      Although this information invalidated the hypothesis, the blogosphere’s suspicion about LOG12 seemed undiminished (cf. criteria MbW, NS) and attention shifted to various other hypotheses.”

      This is false on a number of counts. Steve has dealt with the timing, but it should also be pointed out that:
      Attention didn’t “shift”. It took the new information into account, and we continued (and continue) to maintain that:
      – The invitations to sceptic blogs were an afterthought
      – Lewandowsky deliberately hid his involvement in his invitations to sceptic blogs, while revealing it to “pro-science” blogs
      – He was still sending out requests to sceptic blogs after he’d announced “provisional” results at Monash University based on the entire sample
      – His claim that he had to consult before revealing the names of sceptic blogs was false, designed to delay revelation in order to provoke speculation to feed the research he was already conducting into blog comments (“poking the ant nest”, as his coauthor John Cook calls it).
      – Lewandowsky’s deliberate witholding of information and goading of his critics on his almost daily posts, while secretly conducting “research” into the reactions of those critics, breaks every ethical rule in the book

      • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

        Lewandowsky’s deliberate witholding of information and goading of his critics on his almost daily posts, while secretly conducting “research” into the reactions of those critics, breaks every ethical rule in the book

        But which version of the book? I think you’ll find that the timestamps show that at the time of Lew’s actions … etc.

      • DGH
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:27 AM | Permalink


        The paper remains available here…

        Click to access Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

          Unfortunately, the paper at your link does not include the table of comments which form the basis for it. As one of those cited, I have been trying to get hold of a copy of that table to check its accuracy (especially after the debacle where they misclassified Richard Betts). But it seems to have disappeared. If anyone can provide a link to the original table, I would be grateful.

          Steve: I’ll post these up. they are presented in the most inconvenient way possible. I spent a few hours cutting and pasting from the pdf to Excel (which I confess to using from time to time for organizing data.) There’s an interesting dig-here as well: many of the comments do not support the supposed “conspiracy” meme that they are listed under.

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

          Thanks, Steve. It is indeed curious that the table has vanished (I spent a lot of time looking for it) but that the paper itself is still around.

          I hope that everyone who is mentioned does their own checking. I did a brief skim when it came out – never dreaming that it would disappear – and thought that it was pretty sloppy work. When I went back to check the references to me, it was gone.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

          johanna, given the complaints about Lewandowsky’s work extended to the supplementary data as well, it’s not surprising the file was taken down when the paper was. It’s a bit unfortunate though that nobody has uploaded a copy of it yet. I know a bunch of us have it.

          By the way, be careful when using the version linked here. The paper underwent several changes at various points, and the end result was three different versions were published. Two were even published on the same page, at the same time.

          The changes weren’t large (I think the biggest removed one sentence), but you’ll want to keep them in mind.

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

          The thing is, Brandon, that the copy of the paper at DGH’s link is from Lewandowsky’s own site. He is happy to post the paper, but for some reason has deleted the table which underpins it.

          I look forward to Steve posting the table and giving those who are mentioned in it the opportunity to comment. It’s something that Lewandowsky seems to be uncharacteristically shy about.

        • Brandon Shollenberger
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

          johanna, I don’t think Lewandowsky deleted it. As far as I know, only the journal ever hosted it. He never bothered to post it himself.

        • DGH
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

          Johanna –

          Are you referring to this file?

          http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?sup=1&articleId=40138&FileId=2676&FileName=Data Sheet 1.PDF&contentType=Data Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1

        • DGH
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

          Sorry about the broken link. I copied it from Barry’s comment at BH here…


        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM | Permalink

          I’ve uploaded the Fury SI to http://www.climateaudit.info/data/lewandowsky/fury.

          It’s there as both the original pdf and my transcription into a .csv file. I do not promise that the csv file is free of transcription errors as it was very manual and boring transcription. But I’m careful with this sort of thing and don’t usually make many mistakes. For anyone actually interested in examining the SI, I recommend using the csv transcription, checking back with the pdf if you’ve got questions.

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

          Steve, I’ve just downloaded and tried to open the .csv file and get an error message. “MS cannot find” and so on.

        • DGH
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

          It worked for me.

        • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

          many of the comments do not support the supposed “conspiracy” meme that they are listed under

          Some of them do not support the supposed author of the supposed conspiracy meme. The only text attributed to me – number 22 – was actually written by Foxgoose. I didn’t check any others, so impressed was I with the accuracy in my case.

        • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

          Steve says:
          “There’s an interesting dig-here as well: many of the comments do not support the supposed “conspiracy” meme that they are listed under”.

          I was so honoured to be accused of being the originator of a conpiracy meme in the company of Steve, Johanna, and Anthony, until a minute’s research revealed that Cook had got it wrong (again) and it was Steve who was the first on the thread to utter the meme in question; but I was the first to utter another meme, which was wrongly attributed to someone else. So I was proudly back there among the nefarious conspiracist nutters.
          Cook and Marriott, who did the spadework on this study, exhibit a level of incompetence that leaves one speechless. We’re often told: “If you think it’s wrong, write a peer-reviewed article”. How do you write a peer reviewed article saying that the the Three Stooges are like, well, the Three Stooges?

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 1:01 AM | Permalink

          Just to report that my computer must have had a wobbly moment when I couldn’t open it. It works fine now. Thanks again, Steve.

        • johanna
          Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM | Permalink

          And yes, I agree that my comments, in any event, were misclassified. Since the paper states that the methodology does not rely on whether the hypothesis of the commenter is accurate or not (!) in defining conspiracist ideation, in a way this is moot – except that it goes on to identify a few categories which he considers to be unquestionably false. Much to my delight, my comments have been moved from the “possibly true” category where they belong to an “unquestionably false” one. Being misrepresented in this paper is a badge of honour, IMO. 🙂

          If you or anyone else puts up a post about this table, I’ll happily elaborate.

      • manicbeancounter
        Posted Aug 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

        In this posting on 10 September 2012 , Lewandowsky stated

        1. When will an apology be forthcoming for the accusations launched against me? And how many individuals should now be issuing a public apology?

        To explore the magnitude of this question we must take stock of public statements that have been made about my research. For example, one blogger considered it “highly suspect” whether I had contacted any “skeptic” sites.

        That blogger was me. Based on an assessment of the evidence available up to 3 Sept, I was right in my suspicions. Prof. Lewandowsky did not contact any of the skeptic blogs. His research assistant did. As Steve McIntyre’s posting shows, Lewandowsky never made this clear. In the following paragraphs, Lewandowsky then attacks Steve McIntyre (for publicising the address to complain about Lewandowsky’s research), BishopHill (for suggesting academic fraud) and Lucia of the Blackboard (for reaching similar grounds to suspect Lewandowsky as I did). He concludes this section with

        In light of such massive, and massively false, allegations numerous apologies ought to be forthcoming.

        Given that the posting above, I believe that such a claim of “massively false allegations” is not substantiated by the evidence.

        • Pat Frank
          Posted Aug 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

          On the other hand, Dr. Lewandowsky knew exactly what he had done when he wrote those accusations. Given what’s come out from Steve M’s outstanding analysis (only what’s expected from him, given our experience), it appears that Dr. Lewandowsky made his demands for apology knowing full well that his accusers were factually correct.

          Therefore, it seems the facts show that Dr. Lewandowsky owes massive apologies to those whose character he, knowingly on fraudulent grounds, attempted to assassinate.

  13. knr
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    If we ignore the time line factor we still have to deal with the reality that made a series of claims not supported by the actual facts , because he did not get any feedback on this survey from this web sites becasue of the underhand way he tired to run it . And to cover this up he used further lies .

    Sadly we now got Lewandowsky over in the UK , and so Bristol University better hope he does not carry on with such poor acedmic pratice and outright lies. But if was a student there and had Lewandowsky as a tutor I would want it made clear to me if such ‘practices’ were acceptable from me or were such low standards only OK for staff members .

    • Martin A
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

      Making FOI requests to Australian public bodies is inconvenient – you have to send a check in AUS$ (or a AUS$ postal order) and you have to have an Aus address to receive mail.

      FOI requests to UK universities can be made via email (no payment is required) from anywhere.

  14. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    I can only admire your patience dealing with these tedious people. I do though have to sound a note of caution on the specific area of computer generated time stamps. They’re not forensically reliable. The wrong time may be set on a server/computer, cockups setting the time zone and of course logs can be manually edited to any date desired.

    The fact that the new blog wasn’t spotted by others commenting would be more solid.


    Steve: I did point out that the “new blog wasn’t spotted by others” in the time period leading up to Sep 11 6 am AET. The others included Woods, Chambers and myself, all of whom posted on other threads. In partcular, Woods posting the identification of the five skeptics on the Sister Souljah thread, as the outing thread wasn’t in existence. After Sep 11 6:30 am, there was immediate notice of the new blog post.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

      Hi Steve. I knew your piece referenced others not spotting a new blog but my last sloppy sentence gave a different impression. The Wayback Machine site may possibly be useful to you in this context.



      • Jeff Cagle
        Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

        Wayback’s archives of shapingtomorrowsworld.org are as follows:

        Jan 15, 19, 20, 21
        Mar 2,6
        May 5, 6, 12
        Jun 2, 18

        That’s it for 2013.

  15. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 6:55 AM | Permalink

    Since Lewandowsky’s slight of hand caused at least 5 people hours of work to find the email sent from his assistant, I would think a bill at say $100 /hour be sent both to him personally and to his university.

  16. Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

    With his childish displays, and rampant paranoia, it seems that Lewandowsky needs to partake of some psychiatric therapy. He appears to be acting more like a spoiled child than a learned professional, or even for that matter like an adult.

    • Tomas Andreesin
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

      Rampant paranoia? Here is the cure..

      • Greg Goodman
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

        OMG, he does the arrogant curled lip better than Elvis.

        • b4llzofsteel
          Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

          He even beats Billy Idol

      • D Lunday
        Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

        “One contributor to our Australian newspaper, also posted on a New Zealand web site”…

        Wow, so he’s absolutely sure that they are, in fact, the exact same person?

        He’s absolutely sure that neither account is a sock puppet account, created to make “the opposition” look bad?

        He goes on like one semi-anonymous poster somehow encompasses the beliefs of every skeptic in existence. Some “scientist”. He uses a survey sample of exactly one to base his assumptions..

        Only a person with an ego the size of Kansas could believe that this video is in any way persuasive.

  17. DGH
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:09 AM | Permalink

    Shaping Tomorrow’s World had a Facebook post concerning Amnesia at 4:26 pm eastern on the 10th.

    Steve: Can you give an exact link?

    • Levi
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

      That seems consistent with the time chart above and the discussion of the twitter timing.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

      Steve, see this screenshot.

      Steve: thanks. glad to have one in Eastern time zone.

      • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

        Actually, this screenshot might be better.

      • Jean Demesure
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

        @ A. Sinan Unur,
        I’m in France, same timezone as Germany where Lew published his pseudo-revelations and I read on the facebook link “Lundi 10 septembre 2012, 22:26”, precisely consistent with Steve’s time machine.

        • Jeff Cagle
          Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

          Right, so now the next question is whether his website auto-cross-posts with FB.

  18. Stacey
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

    What? This man is a Professor at a University?

    Well for sure he’s in the right place to seek advice.

  19. Paul_K
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    It doesn’t surprise me that an individual whose own ideation is evidently delusional resorts to revisionism. It does surprise me that he is rewarded for such behaviour with the Chair of Cognitive Psychology at Bristol University, and the Wolfson Research Merit Award. Maybe it is only me and thee who are sane…and I’m not too sure about thee.

    Professor Lewandowsky receives the award for his project entitled ‘The (mis)information revolution: information seeking and knowledge transmission’, which addresses how people navigate the blizzard of information with which we are faced on a daily basis, not all of which is accurate or truthful. The project emphasises how people update their memories and under what conditions they are able to discount information that turns out to be false. The project also examines how people interact with, and influence, each other to understand how information spreads through a society.

    The only explanation seems to be that Lewandowsky is very well qualified in how to update one’s memory with false information.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

      This is the kind of thing that would happen if, spanning Australia and the UK, at a pretty high level, there was a consp….. to suppress the truth. Oh dear.

      It’s not the only possible explanation of course. Noble cause corruption, blatant stupidity etc etc. But could the concentration of mockery of a parodic form of that kind of ideation ever be a smokescreen for the real thing?

      Quite understand if this comment is snipped by the way. The dishonesty in the case of the timestamps just required one man, as Steve rightly says.

      • tomdesabla
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

        Don’t you start Richard

  20. Jeff Condon
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    See, the good news is that he doesn’t have to apologize this way.

  21. Duke C.
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    Lewandowsky shared the Hall of Amnesia article with the Shaping Tomorrow’s World Facebook page on Sept 10, 2012 at 1:26PM:

    Adjusting for the fact that I live in the US Pacific time zone, we’ll 19 hours which puts the Facebook share time in the early morning hours of Sept 11.

    Steve: 1:26 pm Pacific is 4:26 pm Eastern and Sep 11 6:25 AET. Exactly consistent with other evidence.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

      6:25 AET?

      But that decrement aside, striking confirmation. Are we down to a 26 minute window, with likelihood of being after 6:20?

  22. EdeF
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    Just added “hanich” to my spam filter.

  23. artwest
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    It’s obvious to me that Lewandowsky really didn’t try hard to get any genuine skeptics to respond to his “survey”.
    So he sent out a handful of emails through his assistant and got no response…
    Why not try again using a different tack?
    Why not try other skeptical blogs? (WUWT and Bishop Hill are glaring omissions from the original list but there are many others).
    If emails were still no use why not post a link in an anonymous comment – even a single one on WUWT would surely have attracted many more unwary skeptics than he actually got.

    One would almost imagine that Lewandowsky merely did the minimum to be able to claim that he tried.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

      The answer to your questions is surely that the last thing on earth Lewandowsky wanted was feedback from the likes of Bishop Hill, JoNova, Climate Audit and WUWT. He simply wanted to make it look as if he had contacted them — which is essentially what you yourself suggest. Self delusion clearly knows no bounds. .

      Steve: Of this group, I was the only one contacted. However, as I’ve said before, even if it had been drawn firmly to my attention, I doubt that I would have covered it. I didn’t have a history of covering this sort of survey.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

      He needed a significant number of self-attested sceptics, and apparently got them – 250+ – from Tamino’s etc. Given his tenuous contact with what a British minister called “the actualité” on other questions, I just don’t believe that he got them from the sources he claims. The blogs that posted the survey recorded about 90 comments from about 30 commenters, almost all of them declared believers in AGW. And they produced 1300+ completed questionnaires, including 250 from self-proclaimed sceptics? On a questionnaire which threw you out if you tried to answer “don’t know” to – e.g. – a question on the Oklahoma bombing? Sceptics like to answer “don’t know”. That’s why they’re called sceptics. It passes belief that these seven pro-warmist blogs could have produced 1300+ completed questionnaires, of which 250+ came from acknowledged sceptics.
      There’s a test that could be conducted on the survey at WUWT. How many completed questionnaires are there compared with comments? Go to it, you statisticians.

      • manicbeancounter
        Posted Aug 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM | Permalink


        To get 250+ “skeptic” responses you need a fairly broad definition of “skeptic”. Based on responses to the four climate science questions, that definition would need to include the people who believe that recent changes in CO2 levels are having a strong influence on temperature, but with little discernible adverse impacts. At the extremes there were 498 out of 1145 responses who gave a 4 for every question, as against just 48 “sky dragons” who answered 1.

        • Posted Aug 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

          I have problems – linguistic or philosophical I suppose, not statistical – with some of the analysis you beancounters do. For example, totting up scores on the four climate questions to divide people into quintiles or whatever I find most unhelpful, since IMHO it adds obscurity to what is already an obscure subject.
          Take the most “extreme” position possible: Strong disagreement with:
          “I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree”. I don’t see that you have to be a Skydragon to tick that. It depends more on your interpretation of the words “measurable” and “to some degree”. These are expressions in everyday language before they’re scientific terms. I can imagine someone totally unscientific taking a look at some of the weather station photos collected by Watts for example and saying “that’s not measurable”. He’s not a skydragon – simply a doubter.
          For related reasons I have problems with any attempt to identify “scammers” from analysis of their responses. If someone says “I make a point of agreeing strongly with every conspiracy theory I come across” I don’t see on what grounds you can eliminate him from your sample. He may well screw up your findings, but that’s polling for you. The world is full of awkward cusses.

        • manicbeancounter
          Posted Aug 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM | Permalink


          You are right that my categorisation lacks precision. Steve McIntyre gave a more sophisticated analysis later. However, I would claim that it does highlight some points that the LOG12 paper did not reveal.
          1. A paper about skeptics beliefs had only a small minority of skeptic responses.
          2. That on the conspiracy theories unrelated to climate, the proportion of those who believed in them did not differ very much between “skeptics” and “believers”.
          3. That the number of believers in some conspiracy theories was very small. “NASA Faked the Moon Landings” has just 10 people in support.
          4. That there were quite a number of people who occupy a middle ground. This is quite at odds with the polarized views of Lewandowsky and others.
          Points 2 and 3 indicate why scam responses make a difference. The two “Skeptic” supporters of “NASA Faked the Moon Landings” are the superscammers that Steve discusses at https://climateaudit.org/2012/09/18/lewandowskys-fake-correlation/
          Although you may claim that some people could genuinely have strong support a number of conspiracy theories, rather than be scam responses, what is clear is that they are outliers. That is, statistically, they do not in any way represent the vast majority. LOG12 gave massively undue influence to those two responses. That is why, I argued, you need the low-level analysis to complement the higher level, to fully interpret numerical information from data.

  24. MikeN
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    So when he posted it was Sep 10 for you and in Germany.

  25. ztabc
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    Stephan Lewandowsky = Pants Eh, Lady Knew Sow (explaining parentage and ethics)

  26. Chris
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    No direct time stamp? Interesting. Reminds me of this exchange from the movie Strange Brew:

    Claude Elsinore: And I’d like to point out that these tapes have not been faked, or altered in any way. In fact they have time coding, which is very hard to fake.

    Judge: For the benefit of the court would you please explain “time coding.”

    Claude Elsinore: Well, uh… just because I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean I’m lying.

  27. Yancey Ward
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    What is striking about Lewandowsky and his cohort is how childish they all are. I can’t imagine a person beyond the age of 25 behaving they way they do, at least publicly, and under their real names. If I had done something like that, I would literally be red with shame.

    In any case, I am again nonplussed by McIntyre’s ability to marshal facts into a coherent and utterly convincing argument.

  28. MikeN
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

    Asking bloggers to check their inboxes, also meant check of inboxes among bloggers who were not contacted.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

      Mike, exactly. I am not going to go looking for something you may or may not have sent me. If you want me to read it, you need to bring it to my attention.

  29. DGH
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    Follow this link to the bitly stats for the url that Dr. Lewandowsky tweeted.


    According to bitly it was created between 4 and 5 pm on September 10. Based on some testing of Bitly’s clock I believe that’s Eastern Time.

    Steve: another nice piece of spotting. here’s a grab of the Sep 10 accesses. Again pinning it down to 4:30 Eastern; Sep 11 6:30 AET).

    bitly screenshot

    • DGH
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

      struggling with my links today


      • MikeN
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM | Permalink

        Who knew the Algerian and Saudis are so interested in his work?
        And Iceland?

      • Greg Goodman
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM | Permalink

        Viewed from here (Madrid=Paris=Bonn time) , first bitsy hit is 10-11pm on the 10th Sept. Two in the following hour.

  30. Greg Goodman
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    The UWA replied:

    The Shaping Tomorrow’s World website is hosted by ilisys.com.au in a shared-host environment. Following your latest email, enquiries were conducted with the Ilisys’s Technical Support department and they confirmed that the database server does not log individual entries. There is no further information available apart from what has already been provided to you.

    “database server does not log individual entries”.
    Watch the pea.

    Firstly I’d be very surprised if they do not have a legal obgligation to store the IP of the sender of any post entred into the system. Imagine it was some sort of illegal under age photo (without putting a too finer point on it) , I’m sure a suitable police enquiry would have the exact time of posting, IP and browser details within a matter of minutes.

    I believe this claim not to have a record is factually inaccurate.

    Second a new FOI request could be made, instead of asking for the time the post was added to the system, ask for the first access time to the URL of the new article.

    That will be Lewandowsky’s browser returning the newly created URL for the new page following the addition of the new post.

    • Greg Goodman
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

      Hmm, he may access a different URL when in author mode. Perhaps the request should include some time period prior the first delivery of the public URL.

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    under Australian research codes, deception requires approval and can be authorized only under conditions that IMO did not apply here. In any event, here’s how Lewandowsky applied for permission

    Hi, Kate – wow, thanks for the quick approval.
    One question: would it be possible to mention only my assistant’s name, Charles Hanich, on the online survey (with full contact details, plus the usual HREC address of course)? The reason for this is that I have been writing on the climate issue in public e.g. abc and my name alone routinely elicts frothing at the mouth by various people e.g. . not to mention the hate mail I receive. Because I am interested in soliciting opinions also from those folks, I would like to withhold my name from the survey as I fear it might contaminate responding.
    Thanks Steve

    Kirk immediately replied

    Hi Steve
    Yes, fine for you to leave your name off as long as the standard complaints paragraph and contact details are there. I look forward to receiving the hate mail. I’ll let you know if I get any.

    Given that no one at the major climate blogs, other than Jo Nova as a Perth resident, had ever heard of Lewandowsky, his self-importance is rather overweening, to say the least.

    Having obtained permission to withhold his name from the survey, Lewandowsky immediately sent the invitation to bloggers at the private Planet 3.0 chatgroup, fluffing their participation by asking for “pro-science” participation. The existence of such a letter had been surmised early on as the term “pro-science” occurred in the fluffing posts at the green faction blogs.

    • Greg Goodman
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

      Whatever the research subject, it would seem obvious that the same standards have to be applied across the board. If he believes himself to be such a significant player that the mere mention of his name will affect responses, this must be assumed to work in both directions. Exposing his true identity, even to sympathetic responders would equally ” contaminate responding”.

      Surely, by his own assessment, his research has been skewed by his asymmetric approach and his results are thus invalid.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

      On that “self importance” issue. When this guy first libeled me, I didn’t have any idea that he would be as much of a topic as he is. It isn’t mean to call his work weak or shoddy. It is simply reality that he provided nothing of scientific value.

      Why is it that Gleick, Mann and Lewandowsky are given such prominent status in papers and climate clubs. They are incredibly weak at science in general. If there were no blogs and no contact with media and anyone asked me whether they would be even noticed for their kind of work, I would have said no possible way.

      It is a really odd world we live in.

      Steve: it’s an interesting sociological phenomenon.

      • James Smyth
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

        Psychopathy Checklist

      • Jeff Condon
        Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

        A very unexpected symptom. Our media immune system has devloped aids.

      • Posted Aug 12, 2013 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

        Jeff, my guess is that their behaviour comes from several factors:
        – Gleick, Mann and Lewandowsky are good persuaders
        – Many academics are personally receptive to anti-human conclusions (steeped in Marxist views of humans, for example)
        – Whereas the majority of climate skeptics support individual freedom to a substantial extent (relatively pro-human) thus are ideological enemies of those academics.
        – Many academics accept tainted science, as in the “post-normal science” touted in http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/true-false-or-not-sure-philosophy-science-21st-century and the earlier nonsense critiqued by the book “Higher Superstition: the Academic Left’s Quarrel With Science”). Heavily based on emotions and collectivism (e.g. female “science” is different from male “science”, bizarre stuff but quite consistent with university teaching for many decades.
        – Because the beliefs of neo-Marxists and post-modernists are founded on irrationality their behaviour is often trashy as they know they cannot make a rational case thus get frustrated. (Not exclusive to them, but very common among them.)

    • Bebben
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

      Re “his name alone”:
      I did a site search at RealClimate and apart from a couple of comments and his Fury paper being mentioned in the comments, there is nothing to suggest that he would be recognised by his “name alone” in the climate debate, as he claims. Nor does it seem to be the case on other blogs:
      At CA, there is no mention of him before September 2012 as far as I can tell.
      At SkS, he is first mentioned in a post by John Cook on 4 April 2010.
      At WUWT his name first pops up on 7 September 2012.
      Lucia: First mentioned Aug 29 2012.
      The Air Vent: First mention September 10, 2012.
      And Pielke Jr. said at the time that he had “never heard of the guy”.
      Bishop Hill doesn’t appear to have a site search, but anyway he wasn’t contacted (nor was WUWT and the big question is why).
      I have read a lot of climate debate in the past few years but before the Moonlanding paper, Lewandowsky to me was a soccer player in the German Bundesliga.
      Dunno if the similarity is “remarkable”, but it does remind me of “high-profile climate scientists”, you know, “such as Gleick” …

      • OK S.
        Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

        Google advanced search for bishophill.squarespace.com finds only a couple of references to Lewandowsky before Aug 2013–this the earliest:

        Jan 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM Commenter Dreadnought on post “What the greens spend their money on”


        The Request Initiative blog also names John Abraham, Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes and Clive Hamilton. Professors maybe, but of other ‘ologies.

        • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

          I assume you mean before Aug 2012. To my recollection there have been more than two references before the Thursday just gone. 🙂

      • Mickey Reno
        Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

        Lewandowsky’s bizarre attitudes that Steve or Anthony or their readers know who he was and therefore he needed anonymity hints at delusions of grandeur. Lew didn’t want to survey skeptics, he only wanted cover to say he did.

        Lewandowsky’s University should be ashamed of their processes, and they should be embarrassed by his level of scholarship. This paper should be withdrawn and scorned by anyone who values even the admittedly lesser rigor of the soft sciences.

        But scientists and ethical people also should have been ashamed of Gleick’s delusions of grandeur and his thefts and forgergy. Instead they cheered and encouraged and praised him.

      • Duster
        Posted Aug 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

        It happens that his name is in fact now well-known among sceptics. Another interesting fact is that by attracting a large number of “enemies” he is now certain to have a coterie of followers who are sure that because he has such critics, his work must be important. Effectively, by loudly engaging in a controversy, and by publishing a couple purile bits of bad social science, he has boosted his name recognition and potentially his citation index immensely. Was he seeking tenure or a raise perchance? Possibly, it is UAW that should really be watching the pea.

    • knr
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

      Any sign at all of this ‘hate mail’ or is it the usual case of ‘someone told me ‘ and of proof there is none ?

      • Greg Goodman
        Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

        Sounds akin to the false claims of death threats that were also coming from Australian academics a little while ago.

        Seems like rather feeble, tame characters trying to make themselves into some kind heroic warriors battling against murderous, barbarian forces to save the planet.

        It’s not surprising he’s associated with Cook, these guys seem to be living in a comic-strip world of their own creation.

      • Posted Aug 10, 2013 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

        To many AGW supporters, it is considered “hate” if you just ask for details or proof or to just doubt their conclusions

    • Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

      Lewandowsky: “my name alone routinely elicits frothing at the mouth by various people..”
      = “I want to conduct research denigrating the intelligence of people who hate me. Is it OK if I hide my identity behind the name of an unknown assistant?”

      For the second paper, in which Lewandowsky’s helpers Cook and Marriott analysed the reactions of the frothers to being daily insulted by Lewandowsky on his government-funded site, no ethical request was made.

      Since Lewandowsky was revealed to be a liar by Barry Woods back in August 2012, he has advanced from the University of Western Australia to the University of Bristol, UK, via the AGU, Huffington Post, Chris Mooney, and a medal from the Royal Society worth several tens of thousands of $.
      You can’t keep a good man down.

    • HAS
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

      On the ethics question “NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
      An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science” was facilitated by a Discovery Grant from the Australian Research Council to L.

      As I have previously noted at Joanne Nova’s blog when discussing this paper, the conditions attached to that grant (http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP12/DP12_Funding_Agreement.pdf) offer rich pickings for those that feel L. et al lacks something.

      At that time I’d felt the management of conflicts of interest and the management of bias (Section 18) had been breached, and perhaps more germane to the matter in hand Section 18.6 incorporates the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf with clauses 4.4 and 4.12 dealing directly with the post production behaviour we’ve seen from the great man.

    • Posted Aug 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

      I believe you have discovered both Lewandowsky’s problem (obscurity) and his solution (a scam).

  32. Steven Mosher
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    Richard Tolls Poll


    • michael hart
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

      Lew’s not on it, though.

      Seems sensible. Would probably need a bigger scale.

    • bernie1815
      Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

      The last question seems to be multi-dimensional and, therefore, is problematic. I cannot imagine how Richard is going to interpret the responses he gets.

  33. tlitb1
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    The first comment on the new thread was at 7:15 AET (17:15 Eastern).

    Actually Thomas Fuller had the first comment up at 7:00. I was monitoring the Shaping site around that time (almost polling it every 5 minutes to my shame) looking for new thread’s appearing as I found Lewandowsky increasing eccentricity rather entertaining. I saw Thomas Fuller’s comment up on its own and saved the page to an htm straight away. FWIW my time stamp on the file is ‎10 ‎September ‎2012, ‏‎22:06:46 BST.
    I noticed the arbitrary removals and snipping so I saved the page over a few times as comments came in.

    I guess the information about him being in Germany at the time, and the self dating ability, explains the dating of the article? He must have entered the German date. I notice the 10 September date is used in the copy of LOG13 I have, without timezone details – which is obviously sloppy in itself – but where is the “reported by Lewandowsky (Sep 10 12:50 pm AWT)”?

    Steve: the timestamp 12.50 pm is in the RSS feed – link given in post. Also given by UWA in FOI response. Blog comments are in Australian Eastern time.

    • tlitb1
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 1:05 AM | Permalink

      Re: tlitb1 (Aug 2 17:55),

      Steve: the timestamp 12.50 pm is in the RSS feed – link given in post. Also given by UWA in FOI response. Blog comments are in Australian Eastern time.

      Weird. When I go to the RSS Feed link via Firefox I get a regular page with the date 10 September 2012 17:50 under the title Bloggers’ Hall of Amnesia, if I use Chrome it shows as raw xml with the date as Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:50:00 EST

      The ways of html are a mystery to me, but those results make it seem the result depends on the context of when, where and which browser you search from.

      Even then this whole deriving of the actual pub date is being done via automated systems isn’t it? So it all really boils down to what date Lewandowsky actual inputted onto his article, and I think the German dating is the answer to that. I agree the subsequent reference to the 10 September data in LOG13 is sloppy without reference to the timezone, and his use of accuracy to the nearest hour accentuates this E.g. “This “inconsistent delivery” sub-hypothesis lasted for 48 h (11–13 September)” but I still don’t see Lewandowsky explicitly himself making a claim that the time was 10 September Australian time.

      Steve: The UWA said in their FOI response that they had examined blog records, according to which it was posted on Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time.

    • Greg Goodman
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 1:09 AM | Permalink

      Steve: “the timestamp 12.50 pm is in the RSS feed – link given in post. ”

      I’m confused. The RSS feed link given at the top shows 18:50 (TZ=??)


      “Bloggers’ Hall of Amnesia09/10/12 18:50”

      For reference Australian Eastern Standard Time AEST is GMT+10

      Steve: I’ve added screnshots from the UWA FOI response to clearly show that STW records showed a timestamp of Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time.

      • Greg Goodman
        Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 AM | Permalink

        Yes, extreme caution is needed with the information being served up here. It clearly gets TZ info from the browser and then translates the displayed time/date to your own time-zone, so several people are getting different times from RSS archive.

        Also don’t forget Australia a big country. FOI reply was from UWA, but where was the server from which the date was pulled?

        Australian Western Standard Time is GMT+8

        It appears that he posted the article between 10pm and 11pm on the 10th in Germany according to bitly. Germany in the summer runs GMT+2

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

          I’ve updated the post to show the screengrab provided by the UWA showing that Lewandowsky timestamped the blog post at Sep 10 11:50:00, as reported by the University.

          gof4 blowup

          At the actual time of publication, 11:50:00 had come and gone even in North American Pacific Time.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

        I’ve slightly edited the post to provide further details on the University of Western Australia FOI response stating that internal records of the STW database showed that the posting time was Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time.

        Simon Turnill had asked the UWA under Freedom of Information for the time and timezone of several Lewandowsky posts including the Amnesia post:


        The UWA response stated that they extracted information from the STW blog database in providing their answer:


        They then provided a summary table stating that the blogpost had been on Sep 10 11:50:00 Australian Western Time as follows:


        • tlitb1
          Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

          Looking at the table now it seems that the UWA system of deriving dates is borked. When I follow the RSS feed link in Chrome I get raw xml and the dates show EST rather than AWST. I don’t know how the UWA managed it, they can’t have looked at the raw xml, but it looks like they have just mistaken EST for AWT when fulfilling their FOI response e.g. all these dates have pubDate tags around their wording:

          lewandowskyVersionGate – Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:00:00 EST
          lewandowskyGof4 – Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:50:00 EST
          lewandowskyScammers1 – Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:00:00 EST
          oberauerEFA – Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:36:00 EST

          Probably unlikely, but I would think anyone else who’s ever FOI requested a date of publication from UWA would need to back check their results too if this is their normal method! 😉

          11:50:00 EST still seems too early for the amnesia post, I think there was enough eyes on the page to narrow its appearance down to within the hour we saw it actually appeared.

          Steve: 11:50 Eastern is ruled out by other evidence. As set out in another comment, it seems to me that archive.org has incorrectly interpreted the blogfeed as being in North American Central Time and any archive.org information has to be accounted for accordingly.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

          I’m pretty sure that I’ve figured out the archive.org interpretation of the RSS feed. For some reason – perhaps merely a default – archive.org interprets STW RSS feed information as being in North American Central Time. archive.org is not recording an actual time of posting, but only the information (11:50:00) in the webpage. It then shows 11:50:00 North American Central to readers in their own time zone: 12:50 pm to me and Sep 11 4:50 am to a New Zealand reader. This placement in North American Central Time is true of other STW posts as well.

          The archive.org saving of RSS feed therefore doesn’t tell us anything other than the original webpage had a timestamp of “11:50:00” – which we know from the FOI. Its misinterpretation of the STW timezone offsets Lewandowsky’s false time by 11 hours.

          In other words, the question is why Lewandowsky entered Sep 10 11:50:00 when the blog is in Australia where it was actually Sep 11 4:30 a.m. in Western Australia and 6:30 am in eastern Australia (the time zone of blog comments).

        • Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

          Looks credible, given the mistakes made with dates every day by those who should know better.

  34. Doubting Rich
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    To be honest the actual details of timing and priority become rather moot when you read what Lewandowsky actually writes by his own open (and apparently proud) admission. I cannot believe that this man is an academic at a respectable institution. I work for various private companies in education and training on a course that may be used as part of a degree course. Not one of them would be willing to employ a man like this in anything but a janitorial capacity.

    Note that I am not even considering the absolutely appalling level of his research, which I would have been embarrassed to hand in at school, let alone university. I am not even talking about the lies.

    He is nasty, snide, condescending and devious in his writing. That character should render him unemployable in an educational capacity, regardless of his other deep flaws.

  35. Anthony Watts
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM | Permalink


    Just to add to the knowns, I should point out that most blogging platforms offer the ability to recast the date/time stamp for posts. In WordPress, when we normally publish, these are created automatically for us. However, we are able to go back and change the date/time in the wordpress editing of the post, in the box in the upper right portion of the editing page for any post.

    Here is what a WordPress solutions site says about it:


    This explains why it shows up in bitly as being created between 4-5PM and yet we see a different time on STW.

    STW looks to be based on a wordpress or similar blogging platform, so it should be no surprise that this backdating feature is possible.

    • Harold
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

      Even if the platform doesn’t support redating, if it’s MySQL-based, it’s not terribly difficult to go into the SQL tables and change dates. You just have to find a UNIX time converter. With sophomore-level computing skills, I think just about any platform can be redated, as long as you have admin rights to the database.

      Don’t ask me how I know this.

  36. tomdesabla
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but I do not believe in the honesty of UWA in this at all. I don’t like that an email had to be completely redacted, and can’t imagine a reason good enough, and I further don’t believe for a second that the exact timing of his post can’t be nailed down. They do not seem innocent in this at all to me.

    Bravo Steve, and fellow sleuth/commentators too. I’m going to need some more popcorn!

  37. geronimo
    Posted Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

    Steve, you are obviously dealing with an out and out lewnatic.

  38. Nosyam
    Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 3:14 AM | Permalink

    The RSS feed http://web.archive.org/web/20121019122902/http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/feed.xml
    now shows:

    Bloggers’ Hall of Amnesia
    Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:50 AM

    Steve: what date does the post itself show for you?

  39. John Ritson
    Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 4:46 AM | Permalink

    Pompous ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the production of non-scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse.

    The overall pattern of the ivory tower’s inhabitant’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of pompous ideation in the production of pseudo-science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

  40. Bob Koss
    Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

    Maybe nothing as I’m not familiar with how the RSS feed handles post times. Looks unusual tho’.

    Of the 22 RSS feed posts in the web.archive from July 16, 2012 thru October 19, 2012 all have a time stamp on the hour except for the two listed below. My timezone is EDT if it matters.

    Hall of Amnesia Monday, September 10, 2012 12:50:00 PM
    Doug Bostrom at 07:15 AM on 11 September, 2012

    A simple recipe for the manufacturing of doubt
    Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:36:00 AM

  41. Skiphil
    Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

    Is there anything that proves that Lewandowsky did not simply create a draft of the post at the earlier date/time and then forget/omit to change the date/time when the post went live?

    i.e., he may claim (whether or not it’s true) that this is simply an inadvertent error and not a conscious “backdating”…. I do not give credence or respect to anything that Lewandowsky may have to say, but as far as the forensic details go, isn’t that his “out”?? (“oh, I created a draft post at the earlier date/time but then waited for more info or to review it, proof it, etc. and simply forgot to change the date/time when I clicked to publish”)

    • Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

      The key thing is his claim of precedence in saying publicly which blogs had been invited to participate and mocking them for amnesia. I don’t see the ‘out’ on that.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

      Discussion has definitely clarified some points.

      I provided evidence that indicated to me that the post had been published at about 16:30 Eastern (Sep 11 4:30 AWT). Readers have pointed to other lines of evidence: Facebook, bitly,… that establishes this time beyond any resaonable doubt.

      Second, the University stated that blog records report that Lewandowsky’s stated posting time was Sep 10 11:50:00, about 15 hours earlier. The screengrab proves this. Interpreting the archive.org version of the RSS feed was a bit of a puzzle, but I’m now very confident that archive.org has misinterpreted the feed (11:50:00) as being in North American Central Time and that it does not provide contradictoy information.

      It is now established to0 my satisfaction that the UWA time is wrong by about 15 hours. This establishes that Lewandowsky’s claim to priority in the identification of the remaining three skeptics is untrue. This is a separate issue of whether Lewandowsky’s incorrectly early timestamp was entered intentionally or accidentally. It’s a relevant issue given Lewandowsky’s original diatribe and his re-iteration of his claim to priority in an academic article. Lewandowsky’s false date/timestamp concealed his non-priority even to careful readers.

      The next issue is whether Lewandowsky “accidentally” entered a time of Sep 10 11:50:00 when it was already Sep 11 4:30 AWT and Sep 22:30 in Germany. You suggest that Lewandowsky might have done a draft and accidentally failed to change the timestamp. Given the University’s evidence that the blog is in Australian Western Time, this means that the “draft” would have to have been done at 7:50 am German time. Given that Lewandowsky was still talking to UwA officials after that, this seems improbably to me.

      The next fallback is that Lewandowsky did a draft about 11:50 German time, intending the lesser deception of readers who would inevitably interpret the time as 11:50 AWT. And then “accidentally” left this timestamp in the later publication at 22:30 German time. While this would appear to be the most advantageous line of defence, at this point there’s no evidence that this is what happened. At 11:50 German time ( 17:50 AWT), Lewandowsky appears to have finished his discussions with Australia but there could have been later discussions.

      Lewandowsky sent his notice to Spencer and Morano at 15:00 Eastern (21:00 German.) His Amnesia post could easily be written in 90 minutes. As someone with considerable experience in writing blog posts, it looks to me like it was written fairly quickly and sent out in the heat of the moment. It doesn’t look to me like the sort of document on which he’d prepared an earlier draft, let it sit for 12 hours so that he could take a sober second look at it. It looks like a first draft to me i.e. Lewandowsky came back from dinner and socializing at about 21:00 German time, sent his notice emails to Spencer and Morano, then wrote his blog post, posting it at 22:30 German.

      It’s also necessary to explain Lewandowsky’s failure to cite or refer to the prior identification of the three skeptics at CA and Jo Nova and in comments at STW. If Lewandowsky had left a draft for 12 hours so he could think about it, then he surely would have checked the current STW thread where the skeptics had been identified.

      Showing intentionality is far more difficult than simply showing an error – that’s why I’ve generally stayed away from attribution of motives where I may think things that can’t be proved from the outside.

      Skip argues that Lewandowsky might have “accidentally” backdated the post. Establishing whether his false timestamp was “accidental” or intentional is something that can probably be done only by the UWA. However, we have established to my satisfaction that the timestamp was false and that Lewandowsky’s claim to priority was untrue.

      • Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

        Scummy people of course.

        re “And then “accidentally” left this timestamp in the later publication at 22:30 German time.”

        I’m skeptical of time stamps in general, and of a claim that the author could alter a time stamp in an organization’s logs.

        One problem is inaccurate time in a user’s computer – I’ve seen them an hour off and in the wrong time zone, on emails (aside from possible confusion between time stamps by user’s computer and by the mail host services computer.

        A forensic investigation is needed, I suppose that’s what you and helper’s are trying to to here, without deep access to the organization’s computer system.

        I commend you for your dedication in crawling through the mess – a distasteful task.

        • Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

          OK, credible people are saying it is not difficult to change a date.

          I’d hope the server has records – at least that a change was made even if not the details, though I am wary of the WordPress application.

      • Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

        Am I right in thinking that my shaping tomorrows world comment might have tipped Lewandowsky off?

        What puzzles me is so what he could have just written a post a day later. And said these are the names of the blogs and just ignored everybody and not made any claims about it.

        Steve: Barry, his post was about 2.5 hours after your comment. Lewandowsky would presumably deny knowing of your comment tohugh it was on his blog and the topic was live. If he was aware of your comment, then his post was very mendacious.

        • Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

          If he had “just ignored everybody and not made any claims about it”, that would have meant admitting that Steve and others had made an honest mistake. By claiming priority he could continue to treat Steve and others as non-persons, subjects to be experimented on, rather than fellow human beings.
          Cook and Marriott had already started their real-time content analysis which was to be the basis of “Recursive Fury” and Stephan had every reason to continue to “poke the ants’ nest” in order to provoke critics into providing interesting data.
          Remember, “Moon Hoax”, though ostensibly about the responses of sceptics who answered the survey published on anti-sceptic blogs (who are these people, who failed to comment at Deltoid and Tamino’s, even though several warmists pointed out that they were being lured into a trap? – There’s the subject of a blog article here:- “The Silence of the Trolls”) made it quite clear, by its references to MccIntyre and Watts (without actually naming them) that they were the real target of the operation.

    • Duke C.
      Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

      You can view the Hall of Amnesia Html source code With Firefox. Go to the link, right-click anywhere on the page and select “View Page source”.

      At line 301 there is a <div block with the ID "_mcePaste". this div is embedded in the page when text is copied from another location or application and pasted in to the Tiny MCE Editor used by the STW Blog Software:

      (Also, at line 302 there is a second instance of the Bishop Hill link that occurs earlier in the article, but is hidden from public view. Sloppy editing?)

      So it is very plausible that the article was drafted in another application then copied/pasted in to the Blog software and my exist elsewhere (Gof4.doc?). The date/time would still have to be entered manually, though.

      • Mooloo
        Posted Aug 3, 2013 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

        All the browsers allow you to view code like that.

        Interestingly, you can read the “snipped” portions of comments that way! They are put into html comment format — showing up in green in my copy of Chrome and also IE — right at the bottom of the page.

    • Duke C.
      Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

      After looking closer at line 301, there is loads of XML data that relate to Microsoft Office.

      And inspecting the source code for the articles immediately before and after the Amnesia post,(“Souljah” on 9 Sept and “Moon” on 12 Sept) show no signs of similiar code. Odd.

  42. kim
    Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    Isn’t there a Hot Line to call? How about Poison Control?

  43. Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

    The earliest record that I have in my web proxy server is

    1347329399.257 911 TCP_MISS/200 24561 GET http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyGof4.html – DIRECT/ text/html

    which corresponds to Tue Sep 11 10:09:59 2012; Western Australian standard time

    That was probably by following the link in a comment on this blog.

  44. Scott Basigner
    Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    More and more it seems when these ‘scientists’ are subjected to a normal audit, the results show that they lied.

    It’s pretty disappointing, but it shows that these publicly funded individuals have existed without accountability for far too long. It seems like a reasonable measure would be for tenured individuals be subject to random external audit of their research with penalties for deliberate deception being discipline up to and including termination.

  45. Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Steve, in UWA’s May 22 “response” to Simon, they say they attach “screengrabs” of their

    “author administration system (which in WordPress is called the “dashboard”).)

    Was there more than one “screengrab” included in that which they’d sent Simon on May 22? (Sorry, I’ve moused through your post and comments and can only find link to what appears to be pdf of UWA’s first response) If so, would you mind emailing to me.


  46. tlitb1
    Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    I think this all sinks LOG13 once and for all.

    I did actually have a side ideation that it was Marriott who cocked up and include Richard Betts under the “Espousing conspiracy theory” heading in the supplementary material and that was the cause of the lack of resubmission. I.e they had both me and a Met Office scientist under the same heading in their supplementary material – how to do you pick out the chaff from the wheat and resubmit claiming that they knew what they were doing?

    But now after this FOI date news from our host here, LOG13 has to die or go postal in denial of useful reality.

    There is no analysis where an author can cite dates and hours like this:

    This “inconsistent delivery” sub-hypothesis lasted for 48 h (11–13 September) and meshes well with criteria MbW, NoA, and NI.

    And then be found to have not been diligent enough to cite exact times and declare the German authorship and Aussie blog stampings.

    This “inconsistent delivery” sub-hypothesis lasted for 48 h (11–13 September) and meshes well with criteria MbW, NoA, and NI.

    If anyone was a fanboy of LOG13 I suggest that you notice the neat acronymic annotations peppered at the end of that sentence and then weep at the “inconsistent delivery” actuality.

    OMG you are FoS

  47. tlitb1
    Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    I have comment awaiting moderation that maybe prolix so will try sum up as:

    This all sinks LOG13 once and for all.

    There is no analysis where an author can cite dates and hours like this:

    — This “inconsistent delivery” sub-hypothesis lasted for 48 h (11–13 September) and meshes well with criteria MbW, NoA, and NI.

    And then be found to have not been diligent enough to cite exact times and declare the German authorship and Aussie blog stampings.

    Steve: in a world where no one requires a correction or retraction of Upside Down Mann, don’t assume anything. Also don’t forget that Lewandowsky already doubled down on his fake claim to have posted a link at SKS, a claim so fake that even Tom Curtis spoke out against it, but no one in the climate industry cares.

    • kim
      Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

      No one is answering the 2:00 AM call. Poison control is ODed on Kool-Aid. Where’s the Code Blue button?

  48. Posted Aug 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    DGH points out that the “Recursive Fury “ paper is still available on Lewandowsky’s blog.
    In letters to several complainants, Frontiers in Psychology stated that the “Fury” paper had been “removed”. This is not true. The paper is still available at the Frontiers in Psychology site
    Furthermore, there’s a link in the right hand column to the four peer-reviewed articles which have cited “Recursive Fury” in the last couple of months in which the article has been officially “removed”.
    I feel we complainants are being made fools of. There’s about a half dozen of us, to my knowledge. We have good grounds for taking legal proceedings for defamation. Two complainants who pointed this out have already got the paper temporarily removed and corrected.
    This is not about a difference of opinion on matters of science. Two outright lies have been identified in the paper. There are numerous factual errors in the form of misquotes and misattributions. Even witjhout the lies and errors, it would be obvious to the most casual observer that the paper is total rubbish on grounds of methodology and interpretation.
    “Frontiers in Science” told us several months ago that they were “removing” the article while investigations into our complaints were underway. This was untrue. I don’t believe they are conducting investigations. I don’t believe anything they, or their authors say.

    Steve: they have retained a lawyer, Michael Kenyon, who is reviewing matters.

    • Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM | Permalink


      It would be ironic if the lawyers end up explaining research ethics to psychologists. ! 😉

      I’ve heard nothing from Frontiers, since I spoke to a senior editor (in Zurcih) back in March about ethical conduct and conflicts of interest (they pulled it 30 mins later)

      Heard nothing since, and at least 4 people have cited Lew and co (Moon Hoax, & Fury) in their papers, including one paper at Frontiers!

      Goeff is right,I think. We are little people, unwilling research participants and the journals, nor UWA nor the authors seem to care about research ethics in psychology..

      By the way, finally sent off a letter to Erich Eich. ref survey not linked at Skeptical Science,thus requiring withdrawal of the ‘Moon’ paper.

      I will publish all my complaints to journals, UWA, eventually, regardless of outcome. I’m just trying to give them the chance to do the right thing. Failing that, every time the paper gets cited, I intend to send the author a copy of my complaint letter to the journal, for their reference about concerns with it. Maybe eventually somebody in psychology will care about psychology.

    • Posted Aug 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

      I think if Michael Kenyon is working for Frontiers he need to be aware that researchers are citing Recursive Fury, without probably being aware of any the of the ethical issues with it, or blatant error in the data (misquotes, etc) issues with it..

      Ie Researcher WILL and ARE finding it from a research tools, like PUBMED Central – searching ‘conspiracy theories’.. and you get the full paper!! without going near Frontiers.


      4 cites of Fury, reference at PubMed so far:

      Only IF they read the link to the supplementary material, will the link go to Frontiers,
      But we know how likely that is -the game is cite, and move on.. (not check whether the paper is any good)

      I perceive this as Frontiers playing games with those who made ethical complaints,or more just incompetence (not getting the pdf off PubMed) or what exactly?

      Thus the ‘Fury’ paper is still available, and is being cited.

      I imagine the authors that cite, Fury are oblivious, to the Frontiers ‘Statement’ at Frontiers, and completely oblivious of the TWO Retraction Watch article.. and totally oblivious of the ethical issues…

      If I were an author finding the paper, and citing it via PubMed.. I would be VERY annoyed with Frontiers, for a potential very awkward situation for their paper.

      at any time, anybody…… could ask these authors if they were aware of the 2 Retraction Watch articles when they cited it, or the Statement at Frontiers about it…………

  49. Robinson
    Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    Wow. This is all unbelievably juvenile. What is wrong with Lewandowsky?

  50. Posted Aug 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    My latest blog touches on what we might be dealing with here. Synchronicity …



  51. Lars P.
    Posted Aug 10, 2013 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

    “Lewandowsky replied:
    Sorry, no, they likely replied to my requests [my bold] under the presumption of privacy and I am therefore not releasing their names. ”

    Hm, did our Lew ever provide any support for this statement? Or is this just another lie? He justified withholding the names based on this affirmation.

    • None
      Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

      Actually that is a quite an interesting point. How many of the names he was “withholding” actually even replied to his colleagues email ?

  52. Posted Aug 10, 2013 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    Amazing that the veracity of AGW “research” is coming down to timestamps.

    Fantastic work Steve.

  53. TerryS
    Posted Aug 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    I notice his amnesia post has links to the following sites:


    If anybody followed those links then the log files at the above sites will have the referrer as Lews article’s URL. This will not give you the time the article was published but it might help narrow it down.

    The rankexploits.com log file might prove to be especially revealing since the link points to a specific comment by Steve. If Lew tested the link before publishing then this could have left a trace in Lucia’s log file with a timestamp.

    • TerryS
      Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

      His post also links to Bishop Hill.

      What some people do when composing a blogpost is test the links. Sometimes before posting and sometimes afterwards.
      If Lew clicked on the links he put in his amnesia post then traces of this might exist in the log files of The Blackboard, ManicBeancounter and Bishop Hill.
      If the owners of these sites look through their log files for the access logs for the following pages:




      they might be able to narrow down the time frame. In each case they need to look at the referrer field in the log entry.
      If the referrer is blank then it might be Lew testing the links before posting. If it isn’t blank then the content of it might show when he was drafting his post and when he posted it.

      Comparing IP addresses and time of access for the linked pages might also provide useful information as anybody accessing all 3 pages (in a short timeframe) prior to the Lew post will more than likely be Lew himself.

  54. Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  55. Man Bearpig
    Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Most blog systems use a version of SQL to store the information in a database. Each record in an SQL table will have an index that so that each entry can be identified. Typically this is comes up in the URL as http://www.site.com/index.php?file=12345 etc. It seems that the blog in question has code that renames this into a readable url.

    However, the structure of the database would mean that the post before and after this would have indices that follow a sequence.

    If you could get that information i.e. which posts were made just before and just after the relevant post would help in the determination of the true time.

    Another thing, in the posts that follow the article, if you hover over the link you can see the comment id … in the first one from Doug … has #647 appended to the url, then your post has #648. It will depend how the software is programmed but it is likely that #646 would have been posted before #647 and #648

    So if you can ask them to provide the previous post and the data/time of comment #646 (also note that it seems that comments have time stamps recorded).

    • Duke C.
      Posted Aug 12, 2013 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

      Some additional 10 digit unix timestamp information can be extracted from Facebook page Html source code associated with Lewandowsky:

      Conversion results – Epoch to date
      Epoch date Human readable date
      1347337609 2012-09-11 04:26:49
      1347308799 2012-09-10 20:26:39

      134737609 is from Lew’s personal Facebook page. This Date/time appears to be consistent with AWT.

      1347308799 is from the STW Facebook page, looks like German time, 10 seconds earlier.

      • TerryS
        Posted Aug 13, 2013 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

        The Epoch time is UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

        1347337609 represents
        Tue 11 Sep 06:26:49 CEST 2012 (Central European Summer Time)
        Tue 11 Sep 12:26:49 WST 2012 (Western Standard Time (Australia))

        1347308799 represents
        Mon 10 Sep 22:26:39 CEST 2012
        Tue 11 Sep 04:26:39 WST 2012

  56. Man Bearpig
    Posted Aug 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    btw .. if you want to read the ‘snipped’ comments. Make a note of the post number .. e.g. ‘648 then view the source code and search for the ref. The software only html-comments-out the snipped text.

    here is your snipped comment.

    As I’ve mentioned at Climate Audit, the substantive issue with your paper is the reliance on (-Snip-) data

  57. Posted Aug 12, 2013 at 2:26 AM | Permalink

    Simon Turnill has got hold of a whole lot of new internal UWA correespondence relating to the Moon Hoax paper and put it on line. See
    One extract from documents 1/015:

    “from: Stephan Lewandowsky, 15 October 2012
    to: Robyn Owens
    I am afraid those emails will keep coming. xxx has developed something of an obsession with my work, and his acolytes will thus continue to fling emails around the world. In today’s internet world, there is no cost associated for those indiviuals to generate noise that is disproportionate to their tiny number.
    The good news is that my work has provided some reprieve for the climate scientists whom xxx would otherwise be persecuting instead.”

    So apparently the purpose of Lewandowsky’s research into conspiracy ideation is to prevent sceptics from persecuting climate scientists.

  58. Posted Aug 12, 2013 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    In a later document xxx becomes xxx of ClimateAudit, so I think we can guess his identity. The above quote continues:

    “By the way, as far as reputation is concerned, I’ve been running various Google alerts, and thus far, the entire mainstream media response to my work – and there has been plenty of it – has been positive (for science) and damning for the (denialist) bloggers.
    “The noise you are currently experiencing is thus demonstrably limited to to the blogosphere and the real media are staying away from it. …
    “It also appears that it has not been a very smart strategy to respond to a paper on conspiracy theorizing by creating umpteen conspiracy theories. I suspect that xxx and his ilk have recognized this, at least tacitly, and it drives them crazy because they have no other tools at their disposal but to accuse scientists of a conspiracy – and all of a sudden this has stopped working because the media are not buying it.
    “By the way, I have enclosed a submission to Science which report a follow-up with a large representative U.S. sample… the bottom line is that the effect replicates with a representative sample collected by a professional survey firm, so all the frenetic criticisms of my earlier methodology are of little relevance.”

  59. JohnC
    Posted Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 AM | Permalink

    I believe Andy L (??) was on to something, although it requires an amazingly cavalier and careless attitude towards accuracy and precision. Assume that around 21:50 Mr. Lewandowsky fires up the ol’ computer after a few convivial nightcaps on top of a few litres of a famously German beverage at dinner. He notes that the time is 21:50 on Sept 10 and, knowing that Germany is 10 hours off from Australia, subtracts 10 from 21 and confidently records the post as originating at 11:50 Sept 10. It’s night in Germany, 11:50 is day in Australia, sanity check passed. He finishes his article, posts and tweets, all done in about half an hour.

    Of course, only some of the year is Australia 10 hrs ahead, and only AET, and you should add the time and advance the date. But if you aren’t habitually precise, a bit of social lubrication can induce a long series of errors.
    (correct calc 21:50+6-24=03:50 Sept 11+36min would be 04:26 AWT, 06:26 AET)

    I have no evidence of any sort that Mr. Lewandowsky imbibes in any consciousness altering substances, and simple fatigue could trigger the same cascade of errors. This is his best excuse for getting it wrong. Not sure if it’s correct, but I think it’s not implausible.

  60. Ed Barbar
    Posted Aug 14, 2013 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

    I’ve come to think of Steve McIntyre as being a person as having a very strong concern for the truth, not letting his ego get in the way of either clear thinking or making ad hominems etc. I’m interested in knowing whether there is a serious rejoinder to this note by Steve. I looked through the web, haven’t found anything.

    Essentially, I’m interested in Steve’s comments “Follow the pea,” and having read (and comprehended the details steve provides here) to see if I can understand any further pea type logic.

    So, anyone have a link to a rejoinder?

  61. PhilH
    Posted Aug 17, 2013 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

    If the professor should happen to drop by here at xxx’s site, he might be interested in, perhaps even thrilled by, the following quote I found on page 232 of Rupert Darwall’s comprehensive book, “The Age of Global Warming-A History:”

    “Nearly five decades after President Eisenhower had spoken of the baleful prospect of the domination of American scholars by federal employment, the investigatory criterion used by Penn State provides evidence of
    his prescience. There was another consequence of taxpayer-funded science. Since James Hansen’s 1988 testimony, the single individual who has had the most impact on the course of the debate on the science of global warming was not drawn from the legion of government scientists, but the solitary Stephen McIntyre.

    Dissenters such as Richard Lindzen, who disagree with the consensus about the physical processes and likely effect on atmospheric temperatures of rising levels of carbon dioxide, were sidelined. Unlike them, McIntyre’s disagreement was not about the physical mechanisms of global warming. His work focused on the methodological and procedural mistakes underpinning the findings adopted by the consensus. His demonstration that Mann’s one thousand-year temperature record was flawed forced the IPCC to change direction. Thus the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report retreated from the 2001 Third Assessment Report to a position closer to the 1995 Second Assessment Report-a shift from empirical evidence derived (by flawed means) from nature to justification based on theoretical computer modeling.

    The impact of McIntyre’s work in undermining public confidence in the scientific consensus was magnified by the reaction of the IPCC and the national scientific elites, particularly those in Britain and America. Rather than acknowledge there had been a problem, the IPCC embarked on a strategy of denial(!-mine). So the Fourth Assessment Report was stitched up to avoid undermining the credibility of the IPCC’s previous pronouncements, an exercise in which the British took the lead.

    It turned out to be a disastrous misjudgement. When the cover-up was blown open with the release of the Climategate emails, more than climate scientists’ credibility was called into question. Their integrity was, too.”


  62. jim2
    Posted Aug 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    Here’s a link to the ccc1 article from the Wayback machine dates Sept 5, 2012:


    • jim2
      Posted Aug 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

      From that post:
      ” Barry Woods at 03:57 AM on 4 September, 2012
      I notice that no link to the paper is made here, nor the rather contentious title is not spoken..

      “NASA faked the moon landing|
      Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”

      Click to access LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

      Given that this was the reason a number of people were concerned, perhaps just a tiny oversight, in attempts to clarify the concerns made by ‘sceptics’ to the readers here?

      As Steve Mcintyre – Climate Audit and Condon (The Air Vent are both named in the paper, I do think it appropriate, that the authors confirm thatthese 2 blogs were NOT approached – They both state that they were not.

      Secondly, Tom Curtis at the ‘consensus blog’ – Skeptical Science’ one of the so called ‘pro-science’ blogs surveyed’ had this to say about the paper and it’s data. Perhaps a response from the authors is due?

      • jim2
        Posted Aug 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

        It is interesting to compare the Wayback version to the current version where comments have been snipped.

  63. RCB
    Posted Aug 25, 2013 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    Steve, very much looking forward to your next article / topic – I thoroughly enjoy your website and the information / discussions you make available!

  64. A. Scott
    Posted Aug 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    “By the way, I have enclosed a submission to Science which report a follow-up with a large representative U.S. sample… the bottom line is that the effect replicates with a representative sample collected by a professional survey firm, so all the frenetic criticisms of my earlier methodology are of little relevance.”

    This is a relatively important note … Lewandowsky ordered what appears to be an attempt at replicating or at least reinforcing his Moon Hoax/LOG12 data .. however they would not have contacted bloggers but rather ordinary folks. Getting a copy of this paper and the data would be beneficial.

  65. MikeN
    Posted Sep 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    More appropriate for a Yamal post,

  66. Man Bearpig
    Posted Oct 26, 2013 at 3:02 AM | Permalink

    For jim2

    If you want to read the snipped comments. Just view the page source and search for either poster name or some of the text in the post. The original comments are still on the page but they are hidden behind HTML Comment blocks 🙂

    e.g. follows .. (I have removed part of the comment tag only leaving the -! so the full message can be seen. This is from Comment 14 TonyM (I have left the ‘snip’s in so you can see what was removed

    -! The oft quoted adage “there are lies, damned lies and statistics” has been levelled at your paper already so I won’t add to that other than to emphasise that — (snip)such a survey is wide open to be treated with contempt with some participants deliberately taking the “mickey” out of it depending on mood, predilection and sensing the survey inclination.

    -! Clearly that does mean that the type of site chosen for the survey does affect the results contrary to your bleating protestation by invoking Woolworths irrelevancy. (snip)

6 Trackbacks

  1. […] https://climateaudit.org/2013/08/01/lewandowskys-backdating/ […]

  2. […] Lewandowsky’s Backdating […]

  3. […] McIntyre has a post on the Lewandowsky affair. It is a key one and a summary might be […]

  4. […] his post, McIntyre also highlights the UWA’s (IMHO) considerably less than credible responses to FOI requests pertaining […]

  5. By Lew’s Third Table | Geoffchambers's Blog on Aug 9, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    […] https://climateaudit.org/2013/08/01/lewandowskys-backdating/ […]

  6. […] skeptics with a survey, but  just send it to mostly to websites friendly to your crusade? And then lied about it when pressed on the issue and backdated your response to make it look like you revealed the information before skeptics figured it […]

%d bloggers like this: