Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is how the grownups now respond to McIntyre's ongoing harassment campaigns. And yes, that response did cause McIntyre and his acolytes to spin up into even crazier conspiracies, thus proving further the point of the paper. Thanks to all the noise McIntyre made, ten times as many people saw the paper, and hence the conspiracy kookiness of the denialists has become even more well-known to the world at large.
---
Dear Mr McIntyre,
I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowskys data.
I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog Climate Audit under the heading Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into Hoax including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowskys research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
---
Dear Sirs,
Last year, the editor of Psychological Science suggested that I submit a comment to the journal regarding statistical errors in Lewandowsky et al (Moon Hoax).
Since then, I have unsuccessfully been trying for over a year to obtain comprehensive data from the University of Western Australia pertaining to the Lewandowsky Hoax study. In the last year, I have received no acknowledgement whatever.
Let me recap the request.
1. After my initial failure, Roman Mureika has received a subset of the original data, from which several hundred responses had been removed. I request a copy of the dataset including the removed responses, with a denotation of the removed responses.
2. I request that each response (row) show the version of the questionnaire. There are two reasons for this: first, Lewandowsky said that the versions had different question orders for counterbalancing. Second, the questionnaire version provides some information on the originating blog. This information would be retained in any competent design.
3. I request that each response (row) show the date of each response. This is important because the responses are not homogeneous to order number. In addition, Lewandowsky made a preliminary presentation of results while the survey was still open and I wish to check if this had any effect. Again this information would be retained in any competent design.
4. The survey was also filled out by respondents at the UWA using a different questionnaire number. Although this form of distribution was listed in Lewandowskys ethics amendment, Lewandowsky excluded this data from the original analysis. Lewandowsky has said that this exclusion didnt matter, but I wish to verify this.
Previous requests that were not acknowledged include a request to Lewandowsky on February 6, 2013, to Caixia Li on April 4, 2013.
For your information, the former employee of the University of Western Australia, who has thus far withheld the data, also criticized me in articles, published insulting commentary on a blog then sponsored by the University and purported to diagnose that I have psychological disorders in an article now retracted by a journal but defiantly re-published on a UWA website.
Regards
Stephen McIntyre
Now Vice Chancellor Johnson of the University of Western Australia has joined the ranks of data obstructionists. I believe that this was an unwise decision on Johnsons part, one that I hope that he promptly reconsiders.
Appendix
University data policies say that research data must be available for discussion with other researchers a policy that I referred to in my initial request. Here are other relevant clauses:
3.2 Research Data must be held along with other records associated with the research project and retained in accordance with the Western Australian University Sector Disposal Authority and the UWA Records Management Policy.
3.3 Wherever possible, original research data must be retained in the school or research centre in which they were generated and retained in accordance with clause 3.2 of this policy
3.4 Individual researchers are able to hold copies of their research data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data.
3.7 In all cases, prior to the publication of research findings a Location of Data Form must be completed.
3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.
A long list of scientists and surveyors have measured the level of scientific consensus behind AGW and ALL have found it overwhelming. That you can rummage up some character assassination on a few individuals does not refute the finding of them all. AGW is accepted science. Period.
This is how the grownups now respond to McIntyre's ongoing harassment campaigns. And yes, that response did cause McIntyre and his acolytes to spin up into even crazier conspiracies, thus proving further the point of the paper. Thanks to all the noise McIntyre made, ten times as many people saw the paper, and hence the conspiracy kookiness of the denialists has become even more well-known to the world at large.
---
Dear Mr McIntyre,
I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowskys data.
I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog Climate Audit under the heading Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into Hoax including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowskys research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
---
You forgot to post the letter to which the vice-chancellor was responding to-
Dear Sirs,
Last year, the editor of Psychological Science suggested that I submit a comment to the journal regarding statistical errors in Lewandowsky et al (Moon Hoax).
Since then, I have unsuccessfully been trying for over a year to obtain comprehensive data from the University of Western Australia pertaining to the Lewandowsky Hoax study. In the last year, I have received no acknowledgement whatever.
Let me recap the request.
1. After my initial failure, Roman Mureika has received a subset of the original data, from which several hundred responses had been removed. I request a copy of the dataset including the removed responses, with a denotation of the removed responses.
2. I request that each response (row) show the version of the questionnaire. There are two reasons for this: first, Lewandowsky said that the versions had different question orders for counterbalancing. Second, the questionnaire version provides some information on the originating blog. This information would be retained in any competent design.
3. I request that each response (row) show the date of each response. This is important because the responses are not homogeneous to order number. In addition, Lewandowsky made a preliminary presentation of results while the survey was still open and I wish to check if this had any effect. Again this information would be retained in any competent design.
4. The survey was also filled out by respondents at the UWA using a different questionnaire number. Although this form of distribution was listed in Lewandowskys ethics amendment, Lewandowsky excluded this data from the original analysis. Lewandowsky has said that this exclusion didnt matter, but I wish to verify this.
Previous requests that were not acknowledged include a request to Lewandowsky on February 6, 2013, to Caixia Li on April 4, 2013.
For your information, the former employee of the University of Western Australia, who has thus far withheld the data, also criticized me in articles, published insulting commentary on a blog then sponsored by the University and purported to diagnose that I have psychological disorders in an article now retracted by a journal but defiantly re-published on a UWA website.
Regards
Stephen McIntyre
or the university policy for data availability-
Now Vice Chancellor Johnson of the University of Western Australia has joined the ranks of data obstructionists. I believe that this was an unwise decision on Johnsons part, one that I hope that he promptly reconsiders.
Appendix
University data policies say that research data must be available for discussion with other researchers a policy that I referred to in my initial request. Here are other relevant clauses:
3.2 Research Data must be held along with other records associated with the research project and retained in accordance with the Western Australian University Sector Disposal Authority and the UWA Records Management Policy.
3.3 Wherever possible, original research data must be retained in the school or research centre in which they were generated and retained in accordance with clause 3.2 of this policy
3.4 Individual researchers are able to hold copies of their research data for their own use. However, retention solely by the individual researcher provides little protection to the researcher or the University in the event of an allegation of falsification of data.
3.7 In all cases, prior to the publication of research findings a Location of Data Form must be completed.
3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.
so let me get this straight mamooth- you are saying that there is a catch 22 whereby anyone who asks for data is annoying therefore they can be refused access to the data because they are being annoying?
I noticed the deniers used legal threats to attempt to censor some of the scientific method they didn't like, and you endorse the tactic.
And again, only WUWT and ClimateAudit groupies use the term "CAGW". It instantly marks the speaker as a cultist, so people should avoid using it if they want to be taken seriously. Remember, you're not on those boards now, so you don't need to prove your loyalty to the cult by using the term.
Steyn and Ball published papers that Mann tried to censor? Oh wait, you're just moving the goalposts, pretending that libel is the same as science. All so you can justify that censorship and intimidation thing your thug pals do so well.
The University of Western Australia isn't as timid as that journal. Here's what their barrister has to say.
---
Im entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and Id be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.
Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
---
Here's a thought, deniers. Next time you don't like a paper, instead of making threats ... ask the journal to publish a rebuttal paper. That's how the legitimate scientists settle such disputes.
Steyn and Ball published papers that Mann tried to censor? Oh wait, you're just moving the goalposts, pretending that libel is the same as science. All so you can justify that censorship and intimidation thing your thug pals do so well.
The University of Western Australia isn't as timid as that journal. Here's what their barrister has to say.
---
“I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.”
— Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
---
Here's a thought, deniers. Next time you don't like a paper, instead of making threats ... ask the journal to publish a rebuttal paper. That's how the legitimate scientists settle such disputes.
Dear Sirs,
Last year, the editor of Psychological Science suggested that I submit a comment to the journal regarding statistical errors in Lewandowsky et al (Moon Hoax).
Since then, I have unsuccessfully been trying for over a year to obtain comprehensive data from the University of Western Australia pertaining to the Lewandowsky “Hoax” study. In the last year, I have received no acknowledgement whatever.
Let me recap the request.
1. After my initial failure, Roman Mureika has received a subset of the original data, from which several hundred responses had been removed. I request a copy of the dataset including the removed responses, with a denotation of the removed responses.
2. I request that each response (row) show the version of the questionnaire. There are two reasons for this: first, Lewandowsky said that the versions had different question orders for “counterbalancing”. Second, the questionnaire version provides some information on the originating blog. This information would be retained in any competent design.
3. I request that each response (row) show the date of each response. This is important because the responses are not homogeneous to order number. In addition, Lewandowsky made a preliminary presentation of results while the survey was still open and I wish to check if this had any effect. Again this information would be retained in any competent design.
4. The survey was also filled out by respondents at the UWA using a different questionnaire number. Although this form of distribution was listed in Lewandowsky’s ethics amendment, Lewandowsky excluded this data from the original analysis. Lewandowsky has said that this exclusion didn’t matter, but I wish to verify this.
Previous requests that were not acknowledged include a request to Lewandowsky on February 6, 2013, to Caixia Li on April 4, 2013.
For your information, the former employee of the University of Western Australia, who has thus far withheld the data, also criticized me in articles, published insulting commentary on a blog then sponsored by the University and purported to diagnose that I have psychological disorders in an article now retracted by a journal but defiantly re-published on a UWA website.
Regards
Stephen McIntyre
McIntyre is the biggest whiner in the entire field. He does nothing but whine, from early morning till late at night. And on numerous occasions his whining has been shown to be completely manufactured: his requests have been satisfied or it has been explained to him very politely why they cannot be or why his demands are ridiculous and impossible to satisfy - yet still he whines. Review his site. Objectively sort his content into whining and not whining and see what sort of ratio you come up with.
I reference you yet again, Mr. denier to the Steig fiasco.
When they play unethically there is no alternative.
McIntyre is the biggest whiner in the entire field. He does nothing but whine, from early morning till late at night. And on numerous occasions his whining has been shown to be completely manufactured: his requests have been satisfied or it has been explained to him very politely why they cannot be or why his demands are ridiculous and impossible to satisfy - yet still he whines. Review his site. Objectively sort his content into whining and not whining and see what sort of ratio you come up with.
whine (hwīn, wīn)
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
v.intr.
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
Dear Mr McIntyre,
I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowskys data.
I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog Climate Audit under the heading Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into Hoax including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowskys research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
Wasteful? You think that pursuing the scientific method "wasteful". Lets ignore the fact that McIntyre has destroyed every claim that the clueless have made, we'll just ignore that fact...but here we have someone who claims to be a "ocean engineer" stating that checking on other peoples work, THE FOUNDATION of the scientific method is "wasteful".
I think we know who the real science deniers are here.
I think McIntyre and the massive work he's done in the climate field have been nothing more than a waste of good air. I believe people defending him equally wasteful.
Wasteful? You think that pursuing the scientific method "wasteful". Lets ignore the fact that McIntyre has destroyed every claim that the clueless have made, we'll just ignore that fact...but here we have someone who claims to be a "ocean engineer" stating that checking on other peoples work, THE FOUNDATION of the scientific method is "wasteful".
I think we know who the real science deniers are here.
I think pursuing the scientific method a wonderful thing. I simply wonder where in heaven's name you get the idea that Stephen McIntyre has provided any such service to the field. McIntyre sole accomplishments as the Head, Denier, Statistics Checker (and one wonders why you fellows can't find a PhD with some real standing to do the work (well, actually I don't wonder about it at all)) of the League of Extraordinary Deniers has been to discover a weakness in some applications of principal component analysis - a finding that had NO effect on the results of MBH 99 - and to catch a glitch in some domestic US GISS data that GISS thanked him for but that "made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies". The idea of checking the work of others is certainly a major component of the scientific method. That is neither what McIntyre has attempted to do nor managed to accomplish. His intent, as is more than obvious from reading his site, is to harass climate scientists, to demean their work and to attempt to build his ego. His value to the progress of climate science has been absolutely nil. The value to humanity of his work - casting doubt and aspersions on the science that could save us all - has been extremely negative. So, yes, he's a waste of good air.
I still find it hard to believe that people like you cannot separate ideas from the people who espouse them.
is it really better to have mistakes in climate science papers rather than acknowledge that McIntyre found them?
I am honestly curious as to why you have such a poor opinion of McIntyre. do you have any actual examples of poor behaviour from him? or is it just a 'people I trust hate him, so I hate him too' type of thing?
