(for the pedantic, I just don’t care about typos, grammar, it’s Easter holiday, time I should be spending with my family, may sort out obvious howlers later)
So, I read an article in a national UK newspaper and was sufficiently interested in it to enquire further, I contacted the author to check data for myself – (it was available, ie had passed peer review, therefore presumably the supplementary data, will also have been finalized for the peer reviewers to ask for it (did they? I don’t think they can have looked very closely)
Yet, when I asked for the names of the 5 sceptic blogs, this was not made available to me, despite the paper being widely circulated – Wide press attention and headline, but only now 8 months later, was the supplementary data put online with the publication of the paper. And we find that the names of the 8 ‘pro’ (sic) and 5 sceptics blogs there all along in the data. If the paper can generate headlines around the world, why not include the supporting data
Climate Audit has published my email exchanges, very polite, in good faith, never having heard of the author, as far as I remember, so why withhold the 5 blog names, because perhaps it raises a few questions?
Were the peer reviewers asleep, where was the scepticism amongst journalists! A survey of sceptics, nice dramatic headline, not ONE, seemed to have thought ask, hang on no sceptic blogs posted the surveys!
I think the practice of new scientific papers being given press release and wide media attention, before the paper and supplementary data is available, or the paper actually available to read in the journal (or especially not possible to respond to) should stop.
(by all means chat amongst yourself if a paper is in press within your field, where no doubt you would send the data to a colleague if asked?)
Being in press does not cut it, no one can respond formally, yet a media headline has been grabbed, perhaps a new grant achieved them months later, who knows what the formal response might find wrong with it, buried away in a journal where no journalist or politician will ever see. it.. just the headline remains.. a soundbite to denigrate..
The example of LOG12 I think demonstrates what can go wrong with science by press release.
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
Lewandowsky et al
Wide media coverage, activist tweeting sceptics are as nutty as moon conspiracy theorists, all happened. (will add later)
Yet because the paper was still in press, NOBODY could put a formal response forward to the journal, because (whilst it was still in press, it was not published, no one could check
Log12 spawned the Recursive Fury Paper Lewandowsky et, which were looking at examples of conspiracy ideation amongst the blog critics of the paper (oops sorry, sceptics)…
Citing LOG12, still in press at the time of the published Recursive Fury paper!)
On reflection now, this gives the huge risk to this field of scientist being perceived as using academic papers, to attack their critics, before their critics of the former (in press paper) could respond formally to the peer-reviewed journals.. or even Punative Psychology
I do think the journals were blindsided here, science operates by the all actors operating in good faith
On August the 2nd 2012 I made this comment below, in response to the Guardian article (linked within) about sceptics, moon conspiracy theorists..
I think I was the first to find 6 surveyed links, out of the 8 anti-sceptic blogs:
( also posted these at Bishop Hill, in discussion threads about the same time)
I after reading the Guardian article,I thought to email Prof Lewandowsky, to ask for blog name (as the sceptic blog names are in the sup data, I bought the statement that because they did not run the survey he could not disclose them)
Steve has put this full email exchange into his comments at Climate Audit..
Reproduced from here:
(you might notice a number of sceptics names, that popped up in the Recursive Fury paper (not Richard Betts, that would have been really funny) Paul, Foxgoose, Geoff, myself and others)
Barry Woods August 2, 2012 at 10:51 am
How many ‘actual’ sceptics will have seen these survey, or answered them..
as this paper based its research only from 8 ‘anti-sceptic’ blogs.
They asked 5 skeptical blogs to post a link…
Who refused. [we now know some unaware, some spoke to Hanich](suspecting motives?, like those that commented below did)
The 8 blogs actually surveyed were so called ‘pro-science’ blogs ! (who are all very anti-sceptic, with a lot of very derogatory language & rhetoric about deniers.
The blogs who posted the links are claimed to be:
even the locals didn’t think the ‘deniers’ would fall for such a transparent survey…
“Yeah, those conspiracy theory questions were pretty funny, but does anyone think that hardcore deniers are going to be fooled by such a transparent attempt to paint them as paranoids?”
Actual links to the original articles.. these were the links I found:
I haven’t found the links yet to:
where even the locals thought it was a transparent and poor survey, an attempt to try to describe sceptics as paranoids or nut.. ie. very likely, by the comments that the ‘anti-sceptic’ locals had some fun with it..
As no data is available yet, it would be very interesting to see a breakdown based on referring URL’s as the blogs mentioned some are MUCH more high traffic than others, which begs the question. did most of the survey results come from just a few of these blogs (who detest sceptics) —
The percentage of actual sceptics taking this survey must be tiny…
making the Guardain article conclusions and claims rather laughable.
you would think Psychology as a field would be the first (and best equipped) to spot Lewandowky’s , Cook’s etc, conflicts.
I’, on the side of science, I asked for the data to check for myself, it was not forthcoming, despite we now find in the journals..
yet I find myself named in a psychological journal, in a perp, where researchers hostile to their research subjects – one who had written on a blog, that my writing was DISINFORMATION, I’m a DENIER, or tagged BULLSHIT. with an adulterated graphic of my Watts Up With That article, red rubber stamped ‘Verified Bullshit” somehow makes me a rejector of science, cherry picker, anti-science or a climate denialist.
And I found Skeptical Science (John Cook) endorsed this blog article, John Cook, M Marriott were the supposed uninvolved researcher for the Recursive Fury paper, Lewnadowsky the lead author. Yet Skeptical Science is in partnership with Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project – Realty Drops.. But as far as SkS and Climate Reality Project, a debunking by random blogger – Watching the Deniers – with a red ‘rubber stamped ‘Verified Bullshit’ across a graphic of my named article, is good enough for Skeptical Science, and presumably Al Gore.. I think not
There latest project is Reality Drop, cut and paste ‘science quotes’ to rebut sceptics, by dropping these into comments of media article.. How many people doing this even read the article or understand the soundbite they’ve been given.
I notice Reality Drop as a user ranked Lieutenant, called Watchingthedeniers (same guy, saw it on his twitter feed)
but he researches me!
I have a number of friends and acquaintances in the climate science community (not a single one, would call me a denier, denialist or spreading disinformation, etc,etc, they are always happy to talk,.discuss thinks robustly as rational professional adults.
The names of both the 8 ‘pro-science‘ (sic) and the 5 sceptic blogs were in the supplementary data, it had passed peer review.
Are not psychologists the people most able to protect people from labels like denier, crank, etc . political rhetoric to alienate people, shut people thought down. What happened here. Recursive Fury, had phrases like ‘climate denialists’ in it, what is a climate denialist, exactly!, pure (political? environmental?) activist rhetoric?
I asked for the data, I had other questions, how many referrals from each blog (key question for this online survey) just like every climate scientist I know would have done (if an article in a paper sufficiently aroused their curiosity.
Lets ask Skeptical Science,etc who is anti-science again exactly?
graphic ‘thanks’ to Mike Marriot (co-author Recursive Fury)
(is this article my ‘Reality Drop’ – a truly awful idea – by Al Gore, Skeptical Science,
unlike SkS, I suggest you read it all, make up your own mind and check everything for yourself)
I/we all asked for the data.