I tried it, so presumably you can too. Jaime Jessop April 20, at 7: These elaborate resuscitation measures indicate matters reached a head. The problem is with the fact that, regardless of a lack of problems with the paper, the journal could still end up in court for an expensive and protracted legal battle. This caused Wood to withdraw as reviewer and request his name be removed. Stephan Lewandowsky has climbed back into the news again.

The results ought to be eye-opening: The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process. Recursive Fury also documents Freedom of Information requests made of the University of Western Australia by some of the bloggers mentioned who were seeking material to justify their suspicions. When commenters for Sept are analysed, there are 36 skeptical voices of a total I think you are spending too much time and effort parsing their exact wording, when their exact wording is and has been an attempt to tiptoe around the storm of detractors who support Lewandowsky. Every code of ethics for psychological research spells this out.

I guess you must be an expert in those departments. For Fruy, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper.

It has these questions:. See the graphs of PDF p. Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

News und Termine

The problem is with the fact that, regardless of a lack of problems with the paper, the journal could still end up in court for an expensive fry protracted legal battle. You bring up two of them, and neither is very indicative of a skeptical perspective.

The double standard at work is that scientists attach their name to their claims, as do published rebuttals, replication attempts, etc; …but non-scientists get to talk dirty about scientific work anonymously. The circumstances surrounding the ethics application for Fury are much worse and will be discussed separately.


Is that genuine scepticism in action?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Both names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers. How can that be okay, and how can anyone think that a journal ought to allow it to happen?

Why even debate this with contrarians?

Frontiers retraction controversy | Understanding Climate Risk

Is that not what scientists do? Once someone has published something, no-one needs any further permission in order to read it, quote it, criticize it and interpret it — within the law.

That of course does not mean that the contentions at retracction site are wrong, but it indicates one should have an increased level of skepticism about information at the site. Of those… five were by individuals who [in fact had been] invited to post links to the study… Two of these bloggers had engaged in correspondence with the research assistant for further clarification.

None of them has any link with reality. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed. In LOG12 the authors refer watcu conspiracist ideation as a personality trait or cognitive style. My own personal opinion: There is an ever growing body of literature now which suggests viable mechanisms for solar climate forcing which the IPCC ignores or dismisses and you appear to be doing the same.

If you are saying that conspiracists are insane, that is your interpretation, but it is simply not there in the text. I would speculate that part of the reason for this is that the nature of the material used was not just public domain, but promulgated far and wide with the obvious intent of having it seen by as many people as possible. As a release describing the new partnership notes:.

Udik April 19, at 8: My own personal opinion: The Illuminati may not be behind it all, rdtraction people do retdaction behave pretty poorly, and when those with real power and authority behave poorly and try to cover it up, it is often thanks to a small group of campaigning outsiders that the truth is eventually revealed.


By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website per the terms of our privacy policy: After nearly a year of discussions between the journal, the paper authors, and lawyers on both sides, Frontiers made it clear that they were unwilling to take the risk of publishing the paper and being open to potential frivolous lawsuits. Economics is a far worse servant to science than is precaution. You mean recurzive say, in this situation, two of the above Marriott and Cook, are qualified to perform psychologic analysis on others?

Such watchh have not appeared on his blog ever since. Our decision on the retraction of this article was taken on the basis of a number of factors.

Matthews and Woods are happy to quote the convenient statement from Frontiers regarding this paper, but do so in a vacuum that ignores the other available information about this retraction. If there was no other empirical source of information on the issue, I would be inclined to consider it as retracfion much larger possibility.

Have you looked at the actions of Michael Mann against Dr. The journal has made this very clear. The idea that scientists have overstated the risk of global warming has wide currency in industry and government.