Lewandowsky to Remove All Blog Based References

Over the past few weeks I have had several communications with Dr. Lewandowsky regarding his wonderful contribution to science very appropriately titled:

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


Think about that.   Who could reject the truth of “science”?….  It must be one who has such powerful beliefs on something that scientific fact, real proof, even unequivocal evidence has no effect on their opinion.  How much more Orwellian a title could be written?  As we have learned at Climate Audit, from the content of the paper the irony is difficult to overstate.

As you unfortunate victims readers know, I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.   The very title of the Lewandowsky article attacks the open discussion on which science is necessarily based.  A more biased attack on reasoned skepticism is hard to fathom.

The Air Vent blog isn’t exactly a great life achievement in my point of view but it is one of the far too rare science-first blogs skeptical of <b>catastrophic</b> anthropogenic global warming.  I didn’t imagine that a conservative engineer who started a free blog under a pseudonym complaining about political and monetary pollution of climate science would extend to being banned by climate blogs, being outed by the British press, surprise phone calls on Sunday morning,  hacked email drops, being contacted by the anti-terror squads of the British government and then recently being libeled with accusations of being an anti-science denier and advocate of conspiratorial whatever in Psychological Science..

You have to love liberalism in all of its wonderful forms.  Does anyone wonder now why I published under “Jeff Id” ?

Here is what Lewandowsky wrote under the guise of science:

Thus, AIDS denial has been linked to the belief that the U.S. Government created HIV; the tobacco industry viewed lung cancer research as an \oligopolistic cartel,” and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

The article in the references is the lone Internet link of any kind in the references:https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/global-temperature-records-above-the-law/ (Accessed 6 May 2012).  Certainly the post is argumentative but it is about the collusion by Jones and UEA officials to ignore legal freedom of information requests.   Unlike Lewandowsky, it seems obvious that nobody really knew what data was used in CRU ground temperatures at that time.  Now we know even Phil Jones was a bit confused on the matter. Fortunately, after climategate, Dr. Phil became a lot more open to releasing the data and I believe tAV was the first blog to reproduce his results after code became available.

The accusations by Dr. Lewandowsky were allowed by the editorial review of the Journal of Psychology Psychological Science yet claims that I’m a climate change denier and that I believe temperatures were illegitimately adjusted are clearly false.  I wrote first to Lewandowsky regarding the error and received an automated reply about his travel so I wrote to his coauthor.  After some time, I was told that Lewandowsky didn’t believe he was in error using this rather cute bit of sophistry:

I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your  name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part.

So even after telling him of his error, Lewandowsky is still saying that I have accused someone of illegitimate temperature record adjustment for the explicit purpose of exaggerated warming but apparently I’m not a denier.  I have not made either claim of course, however, on a similar vein there are some UHI based embarrassments by the climate change extremist community that I could happily detail for him.  The funny bit is that Lewandowsky proposed to replace the Condon reference for climate change deniers with a “google search” that would include my blog amongst others:

I therefore suggest that I remove the citation “(e.g., Condon, 2009)” and replace it with “(see supplementary material for sources).” The supplementary material can then contain a set of links to 10 or so sites making claims about illegitimate adjustments, presented in an order based on Google-rankings, so that other than entering search terms, no human intervention is required in selecting citations. (Of course, that’s how I got to your post in the first place, so there is no guarantee that your link might not pop up again; I hope you can accept that because I don’t want to re-introduce human selection.)

I told him that listing my blog in any manner as supportive of his claim was clearly false at this point and it would not be acceptable.   I received no more replies from Lewandowsky after that point.

So I contacted the editor of Psychological Science….

Eric Eich didn’t respond at all at first.   So I threw a bit of a fit with him and got the reply that they were looking into the matter and ‘promised’ to get back to me when they had a decision.  I thanked him and provided these examples as to why the claims were false:

Not a denier of climate change:


No claim of illegitimate adjustments to temp records:


The links were sent with a few other details as well, so I waited another week without reply.   I wrote again asking what decision was made and received this a couple of days ago from Eric Eich:

Mr Id: Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

Eric refused to use my last name during any of our communications despite the journal’s reference being to “Condon” and despite me signing all of my correspondence “Condon”.  I even pointed out the discrepancy in name after his first reply to no avail. His repeated inability to use my name, made it quite obvious that that the Editor of the Psychological Science is in no way emotionally detached from this issue.

Now some of the sophistry of the reply is due to the fact that they cannot admit libel even by accident but I found this resolution to be rather humorous.    Lewandowsky is claiming his false claims are not “misleading” but Eric Eich believes that all references to blog post must be removed for some unexplained reason.

Below is a complete list of the references with ALL of the blog references bolded:

Abt, C. C. (1983, September). The anti-smoking industry (Philip Morris internal report).
Available from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vob81f00 (Accessed 6
May 2012)

Allison, I., Bindo , N. L., Bindschadler, R. A., Cox, P. M., Noblet, N. de, England, M. H.,
et al. (2009). The Copenhagen diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the latest
climate science. (University of New South Wales)

Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility
in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107 ,

Bale, J. M. (2007). Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between
bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics. Patterns of Prejudice,
41 , 45{60.

Bogart, L. M., & Thorburn, S. (2005). Are HIV/AIDS conspiracy beliefs a barrier to HIV
prevention among African Americans? Journal of Acquired Immune De ciency
Syndromes, 38 , 213{218.

Boyko , M. T. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic
climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area,
39 , 470{481.

Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate
change: an empirical assessment of factors in
uencing concern over climate change
in the U.S., 2002{2010. Climatic Change.

Condon, J. (2009, November). Global temperature records above the law. Available from
global-temperature-records-above-the-law/ (Accessed 6 May 2012)
Motivated rejection of science 18

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 , 71{75.

Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: what is it and how should scientists
respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19 , 2-4.

Ding, D., Maibach, E., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for
climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scienti c
agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1 , 462{466.

Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scienti c consensus on climate
change. Eos, 90 (3), 21{22.

Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2008). The hidden impact of conspiracy theories:
Perceived and actual in
uence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 148 , 210{221.

Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2011). Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of
conspiracy theories is in
uenced by personal willingness to conspire. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 50 , 544{552.

Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic
views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 50 (5), 26{35.

Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In
J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
climate change and society (pp. 144{160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fan, X. (2003). Two approaches for correcting correlation attenuation caused by
measurement error: Implications for research practice. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 63 , 915{930.

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justi cation, the denial of
global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and
Motivated rejection of science 19
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 , 326{338.

Freudenburg, W. R., & Muselli, V. (2010). Global warming estimates, media
expectations, and the asymmetry of scienti c challenge. Global Environmental
Change, 20 , 483{491.

Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15 , 731{742.

Goertzel, T. (2010). Conspiracy theories in science. EMBO reports, 11 , 493{499.

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based
studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires.
American Psychologist , 59 , 93{104.

Hamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence
for interaction e ects. Climatic Change, 104 , 231{242.

Hanson, F. (2009). Australia and the world: Public opinion and foreign policy (Tech.
Rep.). Sydney, NSW: Lowy Institute.

Heath, Y., & Gi ord, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation:
The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38 , 48{71.

Inhofe, J. (2012). The greatest hoax: How the global warming conspiracy threatens your
future. Washington, DC: WND Books.

Jacques, P. J. (2012). A general theory of climate denial. Global Environmental Politics,
12 , 9{17.

Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial:
Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17 ,

Kahan, D. M. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463 , 296{297.

Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scienti c
consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14 , 147{174.
Motivated rejection of science 20

Kalichman, S. C., Eaton, L., & Cherry, C. (2010). \there is no proof that HIV causes
AIDS”: AIDS denialism beliefs among people living with HIV/AIDS. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 33 , 432{440.

Lahsen, M. (1999). The detection and attribution of conspiracies: the controversy over
Chapter 8. In G. Marcus (Ed.), Paranoia within reason: a casebook on conspiracy as
explanation (pp. 111{136). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Farrell, S., & Brown, G. D. A. (in press). Models of
cognition and constraints from neuroscience: A case study involving consolidation.
Australian Journal of Psychology.

Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2012). Climate science is not alone: The
pivotal role of perceived scienti c consensus in acceptance of science. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2009). Misinformation and
the War on Terror: When memory turns ction into fact. In W. G. K. Stritzke,
S. Lewandowsky, D. Denemark, J. Clare, & F. Morgan (Eds.), Terrorism and
torture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 179{203:). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for
fact, ction, and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16 ,

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative
movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50 , 348{373.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-re
exivity: The American conservative

movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture &
Society, 27 , 100{133.

Motivated rejection of science 21
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011a). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change
among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental
Change, 21 , 1163{1172.

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011b). The politicization of climate change and
polarization in the American publics views of global warming, 2001{2010. The
Sociological Quarterly, 52 , 155{194.

McKee, M., & Diethelm, P. (2010). Christmas 2010: Reading between the lines how the
growth of denialism undermines public health. British Medical Journal, 341 ,

Michaels, D., & Monforton, C. (2005). Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and
the protection of the public’s health and environment. American Journal of Public
Health, 95 , S39{S48.

Mooney, C. (2007). An inconvenient assessment. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 63 (6),

Nattrass, N. (2010). Still crazy after all these years: The challenge of AIDS denialism for
science. AIDS and Behavior, 14 , 248{251.

Nattrass, N. (2011). Defending the boundaries of science: AIDS denialism, peer review
and the Medical Hypotheses saga. Sociology of Health & Illness, 33 , 507{521.

Nyhan, B. (2010). Why the \death panel” myth wouldn’t die: Misinformation in the
health care reform debate. The Forum, 8 (1).

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury

Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we
blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change, 22 , 505{515.

Somerville, R. C. J. (2011). How much should the public know about climate science?
Climatic Change, 104 , 509{514.
Motivated rejection of science 22

Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the
construction of ignorance in a scienti c controversy. Public Understanding of
Science, 18 , 23{42.

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal
of Political Philosophy, 17 , 202{227.

Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Unanswered questions: A
preliminary investigation of personality and individual di erence predictors of 9/11
conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24 , 749{761.

Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, A., J. Furnham, Rehim, S., & Voracek, M.
(2011). Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological
belief system and associations between individual psychological di erences and
real-world and ctitious conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 102 ,

At this point, one thing is clear.   The content of this study in the Psychological Science told us more about the Psychology of the Journal than anything purported to be studied.  😀

67 thoughts on “Lewandowsky to Remove All Blog Based References

  1. Eich has got this 100% wrong. The problem with the Lewandowsky assertion was that it was false – like much else in his article, not that it was published on a blog post,

    I’ve had some unsatisfactory correspondence with Eich as well.

  2. AGW dogma “has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Earth’s changing climate and absolutely everything to do with establishing a one-world form of the tyrannical government” George Orwell described in 1948:


    Does Dr. Lewandowsky have a PhD degree in psychology?

    Successful propaganda depends on manipulating emotions and perceptions of reality, i.e., hiding information. That field of study is called psychology.

    The USSR successfully hid information about Japan’s “genzai bakuden**” (Atomic bomb) facility in Konan, N. Korea so guilt-ridden Allied scientists [1] and leaders would support forming the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 over the 1776 US Declaration of Independence, the 1788 US Constitution, and the 1791* US Bill of Rights

    ** http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf
    * http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

    The whole story: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

    [1] Robert Jungk, Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists, Translated by James Cleugh (A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc., 21 Oct 1970) 369 pages [Originally published as Heller als Tausend Sonnen by Alfred Scherz Verlag, Bern]

    The whole story: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    1. Psychologists and other well-trained propaganda artists skillfully avoid addressing or discussing experimental observations like these:

      1. Data from Apollo lunar samples show solar mass fractionation

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

      2. Data from meteorite analysis show fresh, heterogeneous supernova debris formed the solar system

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1960Data.htm

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1993Data.htm

      3. Data from meteorites, lunar samples, and planets reveal the SN (supernova) explosion that occurred here and gave birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago)

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1994Data.htm

      4. Rest mass data from all known types of atoms show neutron-repulsion generates mass (m) as stored energy (E) in neutron-rich cores of heavy atoms, stars and galaxies

      _ http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

      5. NASA’s Voyager spacecraft reports the edge of the Solar System is now 18 billion kilometers (18 x 10^9 km) from the Sun’s pulsar core


      6. Earth is <1% of that distance from the Sun's stormy surface


      7. Earth's climate is immune, according to Al Gore, et al.

      I was able to share the above information with you because the UN does not yet have control of the internet:


  3. Lewandowsky appears to view any questioning of AGW science as ‘denialism’ and “conspiracy ideation”. In many ways, he embodies many commenters who have dropped by tAV from time to time. Hey, maybe you should survey the warmists who read skeptic blogs on their pre disposition toward dismissing any probing of AGW science.

  4. I can’t get worked up about Lewandosky and Eich. They are just a couple of clowns in the CAGW circus.

    However, I do realise that their kind of nonsense has to be challenged although just like Michael Mann they will never admit error in even one tiny detail. Thank you, Steve and Anthony for calling these guys out.

    Real scientists know they make mistakes and the great ones are big eneough to admit it in public.

  5. I told him that listing my blog in any manner as supportive of his claim was clearly false at this point and it would not be acceptable. I received no more replies from Lewandowsky after that point.

    I suspect this goes for many of Lewandowsky’s references, whether pro or anti his view (whatever that is) i.e. they are not closely thought out and specific but rather are just sprinkled around like cake decorations around his paper with some half remembered reason in his head why they seemed appropriate at the time.

    I think this because one reference I followed through and checked was to a Kahan paper that struck me as not ringing true since I had seen some Kahan presentations elsewhere and felt I knew his attitude wasn’t so simple minded:

    Those historical analyses mesh well with empirical results which show that people’s rejection of climate science is associated with the embrace of laissez-faire free-market economics (Heath & Gifford, 2006; Kahan, 2010)

    When you actually read the rather short, informal, and actually conciliatory and less divisive paper of Kahan’s (who strikes me as a far better and cleverer practitioner) then you see nothing that comes close to the description in the Lewandowsky reference.


    Lewandowsky, apparently, is just plain sloppy and needs checking at all levels before taking his word for anything. How he got that way may be explained by your further insight into the attitude of the representative from the Journal itself. It doesn’t bode well for their standards.

  6. Really sounds like the “group” is trying to lay a psychological foundation for defining “deniers” as legitimately disturbed and dangerous individuals. I wonder where the American Siberia is going to be?

  7. Mr Id: Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post. Any other blog post cited in the manuscript is also being replaced, for the same reason. … Eric Eich

    Wow…. So you can prove with verifiable evidence that he’s wrong, yet he still clings to the evidence because he “believes” he’s right???? This is not the way I was taught that science works, that beliefs over rule verifiable data…

    Oh…. Climate Science. I forgot.

    Mike aka Sonicfrog

  8. If a climate skeptic published a paper in Journal of Psychology the climate science community would be apoplectic. They would claim it is not a publication worthy of commenting on the sacred subject of warming. As we know the high priests of climate science are the only qualified interpreters of climate data and would never publish in anything but a qualified venue. So along comes an anti climate skeptic study in the Journal of Psychology and I hear crickets chirping from rc.

  9. Surprising that Eric Eich (pronounced ERICH EICH) repeatedly gets your name wrong , it seems important to him that others get his right. Another rude accademic with an over-inflated ego.

    1. I perfectly juvenile response would be to start calling him Eich-Mann. No doubt you will take the high road.

      Just goes to show that a large portion of psychologists need a psychologist. At least that was my observation at university. Maybe we could do a survey to prove this? Should be easy now that we have a roadmap.

  10. Actually, blog entries all almost universally not acceptable as references. How did this get through the review stage without that being noticed?

    1. A blog entry can be used academically as a point about the author’s beliefs. For example, you could not do an article on the surprising success of Watts Up With That without numerous references to its blog posts. Nor could you do an article on Michael Mann without references to his Real Climate publications.

      It is Lewandowsky’s “google search” reference that is particularly foolish. References are supposed to be specific and detailed, not encyclopedic, and certainly not a shotgun-blast of things that might or might not be relevant.

  11. “I have a naturally acerbic personality which is even more poorly contained in blogland.”
    I would not have described you like that.
    I think you suffer fools far too well and show great restraint.

    Keep up the great work.

  12. Jan:

    Might also be an idea to pronounce open on-line surveys as unacceptable references

    No I think that’s actually OK if administered competently, and if you understand what you are measuring.

    1. I was being a bit tongue in cheek but I do think that open on-line polls are problematic for the purposes of serious research, especially when developed around a contentious social/political/economic issue. I’ve seen too many instances whereby a popular blog host directs readers to a poll that they would like to see ‘go wrong’. In other words, skew the results through an avalanche of like-minded people responding to the poll. It works very effectively if the blog is well read. A referring link may be a tip off to pollsters that their poll is being gamed but many people know enough to copy or enter the link in another tab or browser window to erase their steps.

      1. Agreed Jan. I think an experienced pollster can dance around these problems though. Lewandowsky’s background is wrong to be conducting these sorts of polls, and IMO his noobishness is showing (in addition to his extreme level of confirmation bias).

  13. Steven Goddard has an interesting report on a highly successful movie that is being ignored by the news industry, “2016: Obama’s America”


    The sad fact is just this, and nothing less.

    1. Obama is the one selected to bring to completion a project started on 24 Oct 1945.

    2. We are living in the “1984” that George Orwell warned about in 1948, http://www.george-orwell.org/1984 , almost immediately after being warned by someone, probably fellow science fiction writer, Fred Hoyle, that information about

    a.) Japan’s Atomic bomb project was hidden from the public to promote the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 [1]

    b.) Energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores atoms was falsified [2]

    c.) Energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores stars was falsified [3]

    Here’s the rest of the story:


    [1] David Snell, “Japan developed A-bomb; Russia grabbed scientists,” Atlanta Constitution (3 Oct 1946) http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild/Atlanta_Constitution.htm
    Preserved by Bill Streifer, et al. of the Flight of the Hog Wild Project

    [2] Hideki Yukawa, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (1946); Introduction to the Theory of Elementary Particles (1948) http://www.nndb.com/people/759/000099462.

    [3] Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-259 (1946); “The synthesis of elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-383 (1946).

  14. The aims of peer review are surely to check that an article is an addition to knowledge, that it is defensible and that it contains no obvious flaws – in short that it is academically respectable. So we have lax, possibly inappropriate, use of references (not academically respectable), a methodology that is questionable (not defensible) and a summary that is not supported by the data – perhaps not an addition to knowledge. You can miss on one point but have a defensible paper. To miss on everything suggests that reviewing standards are relaxed on this journal. this is the place to publish!

    1. Dear Diogenes,

      The reference to Jeff’s blog has been removed from the list at his urgent – one might say, desperate – request to Psychology Today. That is all, however.

      It has not been shown that this reference was erroneous in any way. Also, it has no bearing at all on the research in this paper, which is concerned with the survey results. Actually I would think Jeff ought to be happy to have his blog promoted – in particular his earlier remarks about Phil Jones and CRU, if he indeed still stands behind them.

      Again: the reference to Jeff’s blog has only been removed at Jeff’s personal, urgent and repeated requests, not because they are somehow inappropriate.

      Best Regards, Eline van O.

      REPLY:Left-wing libel law demands that these people CANNOT ever admit error. If they do, they automatically must pay big money to someone who might sue. Lewandowsky admitted too much for any lawyer in the first quote, Eich cleaned it up perfectly within the bounds of US law.

      Here is a subtle hint for those less experienced in the ways of the law: THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE!
      I put up only the relevant parts here because, as an employer, these facts stand out like big red thumbs to me.

      Their lawyers absolutely spent time finding the right answer which removed culpability and allowed retraction. Thus, Eich made no statement about the quality of the false statement in the paper yet removed the reference – and all of the other non-existent ones.

      1. It has not been shown that this reference was erroneous in any way.

        Then why did he remove it? Methinks you should re-assess your position regarding the meaning of the removal. Lewandowsky was saving face – very possible that Psych. Today’s lawyers made it clear there was something actionable.

        not because they are somehow inappropriate.

        They were indeed inappropriate, possibly libelous. Otherwise, they would not have been removed. Lewandowsky does not otherwise care one bit what Jeff’s personal feelings were regarding the references.

        Boy, the trolls sure do come out of the woodwork when they realize one of their own screwed up. Gotta defend ’em and all that.


        1. Dear Mark,

          That reference has been removed because Jeff has insisted on it, as you can read in his blogpost. Granted, it is quite obvious Jeff had to plead, write, and insist repeatedly that the reference to his 2009 post had to be removed from the list at the end of the publication.

          Psychological Science has granted that request, not because the reference was erroneous but apparently because Jeff was so dead set against it.

          We haven’t read all the mails or listened in on the conversations, so we can’t know if Jeff has threatened them with legal action – one might think so. We only hear Jeff’s side of the story.

          What still amazes me – if Jeff is so proud and satisfied about his “global-temperature-records-above-the-law” post in 2009, why does he actually object to it being referenced? If he thinks his remarks have been vindicated, he ought to be proud to have readers of Psychological Science directed there!

          Best Regards,
          Eline van O.

          @Jan: Thanks! You’re right, had my psychology journals mixed up there.

          1. Dear Eline,

            I find only one reference to Eline – climate change which results in this person on google. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5IWv-A8u4

            If you are this person, you are currently listed as Political advisor on foreign affairs to MEP Reinhard Buetikofer at European Parliament.

            Certainly, with a person of that intellectual achievement, you can recognize the fact that I have never denied anthropogenic climate change right?

            Certainly with the types of responsibilities you hold, you can understand the difference between wanting to see data and accusations of illegitimate temperature adjustment for the specific purpose of increasing trends?

            I’m sure that when you recognize that I took the same data and published an even HIGHER trend than CRU right in the links at the top of the page, you can admit that I did NOT make the claims to which I was accused ..no ???

            Do you realize that the IPCC AR5 will cite work I was involved in?

            Beyond that, I’m sure that you would agree that even the all-powerful European Parliament should release temperature data when requested…. right..

            I wonder if when outed you will have the inner strength to reply to any of this?

          2. That reference has been removed because Jeff has insisted on it, as you can read in his blogpost.

            Oh, heaven forbid, he insisted! No wonder Lewandowsky backed down. Basically, you’re an idiot. Sigh… there is only one reason Lewandowsky would oblige Jeff, and his insistence was not it – Lewandowsky left himself, and the journal, open to lawsuit.


          3. Jeff,

            Dutch newspaper Trouw had a piece about Lewandowski’s article.

            Three days ago I reacted there: “Lewandowski’s article is flawed, and will be retracted sooner or later. (…)”. The next day you made this blog post, so yesterday I added at Trouw: “Things go faster than I had expected (…)”.

            Then Eline came in, stating that a reference change as done by Lewandowski is very usual. I replied twice that this matter was about a serious error, and linked again to here. Finally she took a look, apparently. I am afraid she did not spend enough time on the many criticisms of Lewandowski’s work before reacting here.

            I found out that she must be Eline van Oldenborg; climate researcher. She has left only few sentences on the web; she appears to be quite well informed, but I find her too skeptical about the skeptics. She wrote for instance that Steve McIntyre, ‘the self-appointed auditor’, would have had for 10 years a speciality to “put salt on snails”, i.e. to look for small statistical errors; and this would not have had any effect on the conclusions. I myself would not judge Steve’s work on its acceptance, but on its inherent merits, and it is not about finding small statistical errors.


      2. @Jeff ID

        Speaking of errors – you’ve got the name of The Journal wrong . “Journal of Psychology” should be ‘”Psychological Science.” Suggest you correct the post.

        Particularly since the Journal of Psychology doesn’t do climate stuff, nor does it do Lesqndowsky stuff.

        See my reply on this same point above.

  15. Also posted at WUWT

    Very Bizarre!

    As I read it, Lewpy indirectly admits he did not verify his statements about Jeff Id. Then he further proposes to use a Google search listing instead. In his statement about the Google search listing, he admits that the listing may (and will) change.

    Delving into the whys of the Google listing is too much trouble for the Lewpy, so unverified wild results are therefore listed as fact. That the search list itself is more likely to refer to CAGW religion sites falsely disparaging Condon, is not proof of CAGW conspirists is a bizarre twist of the facts. I expect Lewpy believes the inability to reproduce search results exactly will protect him from adverse claims, like sheer unmitigated fraud and gall. Not to overlook Lewpy’s condescending tone towards Condon.

    Book Lewpy and his fellow shrinkers for the next Galactic Hitchhiker’s ship for all of the hairdressers and similar ilk.

  16. You have a minor victory, but no acknowledgement that, as a skeptic, that you have anything valid to say.This is the same with Lewandowsky as well for anyone who questions the mainstream.

  17. Request for assistance deciphering Climategate

    1. Many see evidence of capitalistic international bankers in the background:

    _ http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28485.0

    2. Others see evidence of communistic USSR deception in hiding Japan’s A-bomb facilities to increase guilt in Allied leaders and scientists

    _ http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild/Atlanta_Constitution.htm

    _ http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

    Question: Is there some hidden connection between capitalistic international bankers and communistic totalitarianism ?

  18. How does one spot a “climate scientist” – or a very green-striped environmental activist pretending to be a psychologist (or a journal editor, or an EU political advisor)?! Easy: Even when they’re demonstrably wrong, they’ll always insist that they’re right!

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

  19. “I can’t get worked up about Lewandosky and Eich. They are just a couple of clowns in the CAGW circus.”

    Eventually, the clown car will swerve into the crowd and kill a bunch of children (in the figurative sense).

  20. Thank you, Jeff, for allowing us to explore the implications of Climategate emails and documents that surfaced in late Nov 2009.

    Those are the result of an ill-informed decision to establish the United Nations sixty-four years earlier on 24 Oct 1945 and three nuclear explosions in Aug 1945, two well-known and one that remained hidden from the public and Allied leaders when they agreed to abandon national boundaries and constitutions:

    6 Aug 1945 Hiroshima was vaporized by releasing energy from cores of U-235 atoms

    9 Aug 1945 Nagasaki was destroyed by releasing energy from cores of Pu-239 atoms

    12 Aug 1945 An atomic blast occurred east of the North Korean coastal city of Konan by releasing energy from cores of U-235 atoms


    I will be working on this and a follow-up report on the remarkable similarity between the explosion that birthed the Solar System 5 Gyr ago and the three atomic explosions in Japan and Korea in Aug 1945


    1. Japan’s A-bomb facility was moved to Konan, N. Korea to avoid Allied bombing of Japan. This reduced the expense of shipping uranium from Korea to Japan, which had no natural deposits of uranium.

      International intrigue in Aug, Sept, Oct 1945, included the USSR’s declaration of war on Japan on 8 Aug 1945, the USSR’s invasion of Japan-occupied Manchuria on 9 Aug 1945, Russian troops marching south toward Korea as Japanese engineers and scientists prepared to test their first atomic bomb off the eastern coast of Korea on 12 Aug 1945, the USSR’s landing on eastern coast of Korea on 18 Aug 1945, the US plane shot down by Russian aircraft near Konan, Japan on 29 Aug 1945, sixteen days of intense negotiations between the US and the USSR, from 29 Aug 1945 until 14 Sept 1945, when US crew members were finally released, and finally the agreement to establish the UNited Nations on 24 Oct 1945.

      Most of this information, except the USSR’s landing on the eastern coast of Korea on 18 Aug 1945, has been added to


  21. ‘… and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).’

    The article referred to is: Condon, J. (2009, November). Global temperature records above the law. Available from https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/

    On careful reading through this article by Jeff Condon I can find no indication that he ‘…believe(s) that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming’. If I’m right, Lewandowsky’s assertion is untrue. The assertion could have been made in error, through Lewandowsky not having understood (or not having read) Jeff’s article. However, once the untruthful nature of the assertion had been pointed out to the author Lewandowsky and to the journal editor Eich, for them to retain the assertion in Lewandowsky’s article would amount to fabrication, which is scientific misconduct.

    They have now wisely deleted reference to Jeff’s blog article. That is a minor victory for truth.

  22. OOps, ‘blog based references’ are back (different journal, different paper)

    Now Lew purports to study blog responses to his ‘moon landing’ paper. Blog post and paper’s abstract at this link (h/t Tom Nelson):

    More bilgewater from Lewandowsky et al.
    New paper says:

    “Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as
    when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of
    systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009)….”

    Condon, J. (2009, November). Global temperature records above the law. Retrieved from https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/\\global-temperature-records-above-the-law/ (Accessed 6 May 2012)

    1. Jeff, after the previous go-round, with a journal editor removing Lewandowsky’s previous mis-statement about you (even if for a spurious reason from the editor), the fact that he strikes again in a new journal article may give grounds for a complaint of academic misconduct to his university.

      You informed him in such specificity why he was misrepresenting your views and words, a previous academic journal editor removed the content, and now Lewandowsky has revived the misrepresentation in a new article. Plain misconduct.

  23. Jeff, Lewandowsky is one of hundreds who failed to comprehend Martin Luther King’s message: “Success, recognition, and conformity are the bywords of the modern world where everyone seems to crave the anesthetizing security of being identified with the majority.”

    The Climategate scandal is the result of sixty-four years of anesthetizing mental sloth, (2009 – 1945 = 64 years):


    “Nuclear fires” in the Sun’s pulsar core made our elements, birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, sustained the origin and evolution of life from three-four billion years (~3.5 Gyr) ago, and endowed endowed mankind with special talents and inalienable rights to establish governments to protect his Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    “Nuclear fires” that destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945 convinced world leaders to:

    _ a.) Establish the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945, and
    _ b.) Insert a tyrannical UN between mankind and his Creator

    Sixty-four years later – in Nov 2009 – Climategate emails documented the damage to democratic governments and government-financed science.

  24. You are so interesting! I don’t think I have read something like that before.

    So nice to discover another person with some genuine thoughts on this subject.
    Seriously.. thanks for starting this up. This website is something
    that is needed on the web, someone with some originality!

  25. Greetings I am so grateful I found your web site,
    I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Askjeeve for
    something else, Anyways I am here now and would just
    like to say cheers for a remarkable post and a all round exciting blog (I also love
    the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it all at the moment but I
    have saved it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I
    will be back to read more, Please do keep up
    the excellent work.

  26. This website is just awesome. I’ve search these details a
    great deal and I view it that is good written, fast to comprehend.
    I congratulate you because of this research that I am going to recommend to
    prospects friends. I ask you to visit the gpa-calculator.co page where each university
    student or pupil can find results gpa marks. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s