Climate Science Denialists as Bullies: The Recursive Fury Paper and Frontiers in Psychology

...that the legal context is insufficiently clear

This is the scariest effing part of the entire statement. They found no problem with the academic or ethical portions, but ``legal'' issues caused their decision? How long will it be before similar pressure is brought against other journals on the same way?

Dean, I'm assuming that this is a floodgate tossed wide open.

When I read about this earlier I was encouraged to read that the University of Western Australia was telling the bullies to bring it on as it were. I really doubt there is any case (solid or otherwise) for defamation of any kind. This was a cowardly act by the journal - of course given how financially fragile most publications say they are these days perhaps they feared any kind of litigation would end up destroying them, regardless of whether they won or not.

Wow. I just had time to read the comments at Stephan's site. The clowns who are posting the most virulent attacks aren't helping their argument that the paper was crap and shouldn't have been published in the first place.
I wonder how financially stable Frontiers is. If they are living on the edge I'm sure that would weigh heavy on their minds, but still.... (echoing STTAB above).

What's a "Climate Science Denialist"?

You know, you Warmists do your cause no favours bandying insults like that about.

No wonder you're hemorrhaging public support like a gut-shot haemophiliac when you use hysterical epithets like that to describe your detractors.

In fact, one and another what with the "pause" and all, I suspect it's you lot that can be more realistically described as "Climate Science Denialists" these days.

In effectively censoring legitimate science the denialists have breached a barrier that will more often work against them than for them. If papers and journals are going to give in to peer pressures it will most likely be the legitimate scientists who come out on the winning end. I see this as a trend towards the eventual censorship of denialist speech.

"Climate Science Denialist”?
Someone (like you, I'm guessing) who denies the thousands of reviewed and published items of science demonstrating climate change is occurring.

"what with the pause and all ..."
There is no pause, only a common lie that one exists from the deniers. Thanks for verifying what you are.

catweazle666: What’s a “Climate Science Denialist”?

I'll give you an exact definition. It's someone who, for short-term gain, promotes the public misunderstanding of climate science.

Note this is a different category from "climate science denier." The denier might simply be ignorant of science. Or, he might be trusting the wrong people. It's neither illegal or immoral to misunderstand something. But it is wrong to cling to your misunderstanding when presented with the facts.

Pot, meet kettle. The authors of the paper named people skeptical of their views and accused them of having a personality disorder where they see conspiracies at every turn. Then when those individuals object, the authors call them the bullies.

Bob Clark

I'd like to try to ask for clarification on a couple points. On Twitter, I saw Greg Laden say the journal was "pushed into retraction by ... well ... a conspiracy, actually." Do people stand behind this comment? Similarly, this post seems to suggest that supposed conspiracy was by "climate science denialists."

I ask partially out of curiosity, but primarily because I was one of the individuals who filed a complaint with the journal. I'd like to know just what I am being accused of. It seems people think I am a climate science denialist who engaged in a conspiracy to bully a journal into retracting a paper.

Is that correct?

Brandon, you have manufactured a specific complaint against you and are now playing the victim. So you tell us. Did you do that? Personally I think you are making this up. Do you have any evidence of what you claim you did?

Greg Laden, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking if I did/what you think I'm making up. To be clear, are you asking if I really did file a complaint with the journal?

Brandon, the current denialist dogma related to this matter and other matters is to play the victim. You are playing the victim here. I personally don't believe you have anything whatsoever to do with this, and I'm asking you to prove that you do.

I have no idea why you think I'd lie about having filed a complaint. I've publicly discussed having done so on multiple occasions. I can't imagine why I'd lie about this for nearly a year now.

Anyway, if you give me an e-mail address, I can forward you a number of e-mails I sent regarding the complaint I filed with the journal. I can also send you e-mails with the complaint I filed with the university. I can even send you a copy of a document I prepared for such a complaint. Some of these e-mails, and that document, can be seen in the material released via FOI as provided by this DeSmogBlog post: http://desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing…

I assume that should suffice?

laden.greg@gmail.com

I sent an e-mail to that address copying the first contacts I had with Frontiers and the UWA. Unfortunately, neither was included in the package released by DeSmogBlog. I think they should be enough to convince you I filed a complaint as I said though.

If not, I can go ahead and send you more of the e-mails.

Brandon, I stand corrected! You really do seem to have been part of the effort to shut down this particular group of researcher's work! The question that remains of course is this: were your efforts to silence academics over the short term successful because you are so good at it, or because the journal acted inappropriately?

Longer term I see this backfiring on you.

Now that we've clarified I was one of the complainants, can I ask if that means you think I am a "climate science denialist" who was part of a conspiracy to silence academics?

I'd just like to be clear on what I'm being accused of/called.

Sorry, Brandon, I was not aware that you accept the climate change science and understand that AGW is real and also important. Thanks for clearing that up.

For some reason this comes to mind:

http://metronews.ca/news/london/981339/western-university-professor-mik…

Western U professor learns the web trolls’ language

"Western University’s Mike Arntfield has gained federal funding to study the language of the trolls. He has two research assistants collecting text samples from social media posts, with the eventual aim of drawing up a “lexicon” of the way online bullies talk.

And, just like criminal profiling allows experts to predict the behaviour of killers and other violent offenders, that lexicon could provide signposts that show when trolls are about to do something more sinister.

“I’m surprised to some extent that I’m the first scholar to study this using these reports (social media posts),” said Arntfield, who is also studying the relationship between online bullies and their victims. The reaction from victims, who get upset to different degrees, can be a variable in how a bully behaves."

Let's get this guy's research pulled from any publications he puts it in! Arrrr!

Greg Laden, I'm afraid your response makes no sense to me. I didn't say anything like what you suggest. Imstead of answering my simple yes/no question, you seem to be responding to something nobody has said.

I don't get that. All I asked is for you to clarify whether or not you stand by the insults you have made. It's a simple question.

Brandon, you asked "can I ask if that means you think I am a “climate science denialist” who was part of a conspiracy to silence academics?" which I take to be an objection. Are you now saying that you ARE a climate science denialist who does not "believe in" global warming?

I haven't made any insults of any kind.

Well at this point, I don't know what to think about you, Brandon. I had guessed you were a climate change denialists but you now seem to indicate such a thing would be shameful. But you don't agree that you are not. You seem to be claiming that you single handedly got an academic paper withdrawn which I find remarkable. What else can I say?

It appears that the septics' attempt to stifle the paper has, in fact, backfired. Lewandowsky writes today that so many have been interested in downloading the paper that it now has been moved "to a more focal server within the University of Western Australia, and the UWA web manager has kindly created a special link to the paper that identifies its host more clearly: uwa.edu.au/recursivefury."
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf2.html

Shortly after seeing Lewandowsky's post, I read this delighted comment by Victor Venema on And Then There's Physics:

"I think the retraction is the best thing since sliced bread.

It is an open access journal, so the article is still available. The journal performed the peer review and the retraction was not for academic reasons, so that review is still valid. In other words, the paper is still fully intact.

On the other hand, the retraction has produced much publicity and therewith helped spread the ideas of the authors. And it showed the kind of people the climate dissenters are and that does not look good."
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/energy-budget-esti…

I may be wrong, but I think this belongs with the ongoing Mann case as an example of hubristic overreach. The outcomes of the retraction and lawsuit will not be what the septics had hoped for, but instead of knowledge (Erkenntnis), I think the results will lead to a reinforcement of their climate conspiracy nuttiness, paradoxically underlining the point Lewandowsky has made.

Greg Laden, I'm getting the impression you are either incapable or unwilling to read simple sentences. I have done nothing to suggest I "single handedly got an academic paper withdrawn." I find this delusion of yours remarkable, but I suspect for a different reason.

Regardless, I don't see the point in describing myself. You made certain derogatory remarks. All I want is for you to either stand by them or retract them.

It's not difficult. Do you stand by what you said?

Philip... You're so exactly right. Brandon and his ilk became so emotionally inflamed about the RF paper that their efforts to attack it have catapulted the paper from obscurity and into the limelight.

What's very clear is that Lewandowsky struck a nerve with this paper.

Brandon: " I have done nothing to suggest I “single handedly got an academic paper withdrawn.” I find this delusion of yours remarkable, but I suspect for a different reason."

So you were working with others?

"You made certain derogatory remarks. All I want is for you to either stand by them or retract them."

I have not made any derogatory remarks.

Greg Laden, your interpretation of my last comment is nonsensical. It's difficult to see how you could so consistently fail to understand simple sentences. I hope you're trolling me. Any other explanation would be depressing.

For the record, you have made derogatory remarks, and you should be man enough to admit it and stand by (or retract) them.

What remarks?

(Pro tip: Saying "for the record" doesn't actually do anything.)

Greg Laden, I'm not inclined to give a detailed listing to rebut such a silly position of yours. At a minimum, every time you call someone a denialist, you are making a derogatory remark.

Now then, will you please acknowledge I have not claimed to have worked with others?

Also, you might want to note Frontiers itself claims it did not retract the paper due to outside pressure.

" every time you call someone a denialist, you are making a derogatory remark."

If you think being called a denialist is derogatory than you should stop being one and you'll feel better about yourself! (Assuming you are one, I'm going only on what you've said in comments here).

"Now then, will you please acknowledge I have not claimed to have worked with others?"

You seemed to indicate that you've worked with others. Are you now asserting that you've not? Can you prove that?

"Also, you might want to note Frontiers itself claims it did not retract the paper due to outside pressure."

That would be a lie. Here's what the journal said, emphasis added.

"In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. "

It is pretty clear that the journal reacted to outside pressure, and was worried about SLAPP or other legal issues brought on by denialists who complained about the paper. You claim to be one of the denialists who complained about the paper. You've gone back and forth between claiming to be the main reason the paper was taken down, if I understand you correctly, and claiming that it was an organized group of you, again, if I understand you correctly. Please clarify if I've got that wrong.

Greg Laden, whether or not I am a denialist has nothing to do with whether or not it's a derogatory term. You claimed not to have made derogatory remarks, but given it is derogatory, that claim was false. Quit being a coward and just admit you insulted people.

As for whether or not I've worked with others, I didn't say one way or another. You falsely claimed I seemed to be suggesting I single-handedly got the paper retracted. I pointed out I had said nothing of the sort. That says nothing about whether or not I worked with other people.

As for my supposed lie, you're just throwing out baseless accusations at this point. You quote Frontiers as though it has only said one thing about this issue. It hasn't. It's been giving out a boilerplate response to people who ask. One person posted it here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/21/the-paper-they-dont-w…

"This decision had nothing to do with caving in to pressure and was driven by our own analysis of various factors and advice received."

They'll tell you the same thing if you contact them. The fact is you haven't communicated with them, yet you're accusing me of lying about what they say when I have communicated with them.

As for your last paragraph, everything you say I've said or done is wrong. I'm not going to bother going into more detail than that though since you apparently feel you can call people a liar without having the slightest idea why they say what they say.

"As for whether or not I’ve worked with others, I didn’t say one way or another. You falsely claimed I seemed to be suggesting I single-handedly got the paper retracted. I pointed out I had said nothing of the sort. That says nothing about whether or not I worked with other people."

Quit being a coward and come clean. Did you or did you not?

"As for my supposed lie,"

I was not suggesting you lied. You were demanding that I say something that I would have regarded as a lie.

" You quote Frontiers as though it has only said one thing about this issue. It hasn’t. It’s been giving out a boilerplate response to people who ask. One person posted it here:"

That's interesting. Thanks for the link. Do forgive me if I don't spend a lot of time reading the innumerable comments on PZ's blog!

I was going on what they said publicly. What they say publicly appears to be at odds with what is claimed in this comment. So, according to this comment (assuming it is legit for the moment) Frontiers retracted a paper based on "... analysis of various factors and advice received." What the heck does that mean? I'm not sure if it is a good idea to retract a paper and say only that about it.

I'm sticking with the assumption that what they said on their website is their reasoning. If the second reason, the one at the comment at PZ's blog, is legit, then they have some explaining to do. Again, thanks for pointing it out.

They are taking a lot of heat for apparently caving into denialists to remove a paper about denialists. I suppose that could explain, but not excuse, this second mealy-mouthed verbiage.

"bother going into more detail than that though since you apparently feel you can call people a liar without having the slightest idea why they say what they say."

Except you''ve got that wrong. An apology is in order.

Greg Laden, according to Frontiers, my complaint wasn't a or the reason for the paper being retracted. Therefore, I could not have gotten the paper retracted, single-handedly or otherwise. To answer your question though, I did not work with others. However, other people did file complaints of their own.

You were certainly suggesting I lied. I pointed out Frontiers did something, saying you should note it. You said saying Frontiers did it would be telling a lie. Based on that, I'd have to be lying to say it did it.

As for what Frontiers said in that quote, it does not remotely contradict what it said in public. What it said in public is it had legal concerns regarding the paper. It never said those legal concerns were related to the contents of the complaints it received. You've simply over-interpreted its public statement and are now presenting a false dilemma.

but given it is derogatory,

But being called a denier (or denialist) when you are one isn't derogatory, it is a statement of fact. Saying that the thrust of the science behind climate change is false is denying science.
I don't see how you can say it is a derogatory term when it simply describes
a) a person's actions (active, denier)
b) their inclusion in a larger group (membership, denialist)

I butchered that blockquote. Hope I didn't splatter anyone.

I may be wrong, but I think this belongs with the ongoing Mann case as an example of hubristic overreach.

I'm not so sure. I think if you surveyed people about the first issue and asked what they remembered it would be the original hullabaloo but not the resolution.

In this case I can easily see the memory being "Oh yeah, that was the paper the journal retracted because there was something wrong with it."

" However, other people did file complaints of their own."

I'm not aware of those complaints.

"You were certainly suggesting I lied. I pointed out Frontiers did something, saying you should note it. You said saying Frontiers did it would be telling a lie. Based on that, I’d have to be lying to say it did it."

No, as I said, I refused to make a statement that I would have regarded as a lie. You are now ether lying yourself or being as dumb as a brick. So, apologize.

"As for what Frontiers said in that quote, it does not remotely contradict what it said in public. "

You can make up whatever interpretation you like of events and of Fronteir's waffling and behavior.

"In this case I can easily see the memory being “Oh yeah, that was the paper the journal retracted because there was something wrong with it.”"

Good point. I suppose this might even be grounds for a law suit!

I suppose if people who respect the peer reviewed literature, you know, like actual scientists and such, went after Frontiers they's have to unretract the paper and make up some more mumbly crap about what they were up to.

In the mean time, if I was in that field looking for a place to publish I'd avoid the journal. They can't be trusted at this point to back up their own decisions. You either publish a paper or you don't, and unless it is retracted for scientific reasons you leave it there and let it stand as part of the record.

Greg Laden, given you've repeatedly interpreted my comments in unjustifiable ways, I don't think you have much room to claim I'm "either lying... or being as dumb as a brick." Heck, you've apparently stood by your ridiculous claim to have never made a derogatory remark, and you now claim Frontiers is contradicting itself based upon nothing. This is only after you said you believed I was lying about having filed a complaint with the journal and that it'd be a lie to say Frontiers said what it really did say.

As though getting basically every point wrong during this exchange isn't bad enough, you've refused to answer the simple question I've been asking all along. Only the most biased of individuals would take you seriously at this point.

You've basically admitted to not knowing basic details about this issue, and yet you've boldly claimed this paper was retracted due to a conspiracy in direct contradiction to what Frontiers says. I think you've managed to meet all six of Lewandowsky's criteria for conspiratorial ideation.

"his is only after you said you believed I was lying about having filed a complaint with the journal and that it’d be a lie to say Frontiers said what it really did say."

Now you've very clearly demonstrated your lack of interest in having a real conversation.

", you’ve refused to answer the simple question I’ve been asking all along"

I'm pretty sure I've answered any outstanding questions. If I did not, in what manner to you intend to force me to answer some question you've got? Freedom of information act request? Law suit? Constant harassment on the internet? What's your plan?

"yet you’ve boldly claimed this paper was retracted due to a conspiracy"

Are you referring to the off the cuff remark I made on Twitter? You make me laugh.

Yes it may well be that the harassment of these authors is a matter of conspiracy. Maybe you're even involved in it, I don't know. You've had opportunities here to present evidence clearing your name but you've failed to do so. What does that mean? I'll leave it to my readers to decide that.

I'm still waiting for an apology. Your next comment will have that apology in it.

Also, this: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/03/25/climate-science-deniers-ar…

In the mean time, if I was in that field looking for a place to publish I’d avoid the journal. They can’t be trusted at this point to back up their own decisions.

I agree. My point was simply that (in my experience) most people remember the saucier bits of the initial outcry but do not remember the resolution or comments about the resolution, unless they are equally saucy.

Desperation is rearing its ugly head, I see.

AGW = It's All Gone Wrong!

LOL © soosoos

Deniers object to the term because it's a categorization. That their bundle of rhetorical practices can be so easily identified and shown to be intellectually bankrupt, and that their inadequate scientific poses are so transparent, is disturbing to them.

So true to type, they protect their egos and obfuscate their deficiencies by pretending that somehow THEY are really the victims. Sad, desperate little fig leaf.

"I’m not so sure. I think if you surveyed people about the first issue and asked what they remembered it would be the original hullabaloo but not the resolution.

In this case I can easily see the memory being “Oh yeah, that was the paper the journal retracted because there was something wrong with it.”"

If you surveyed people about the Recursive Fury retraction the overwhelming reaction would be: What are you talking about? There will be no general memory of this because very few are aware of it. The coverage has basically been limited to the predictable internet blogs. It's also been covered on Salon:

" Academic journal bows to pressure from climate deniers
A study linking deniers to conspiracy theorists was retracted -- despite being academically sound."
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/21/academic_journal_bows_to_pressure_from_…

Of mainstream publications, I'm only aware of The Guardian's post by Dana Nuccitelli with the headline "Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper," and the standfirst,
"After threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits, a journal will retract an academically sound paper"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…

Neither the Salon nor The Guardian posts would lead to your conclusion.