Lew Paper: Dana’s catalogue of excuses

Dana's denial!

Dana’s denial!

LOL moment ahead! Dana is far more of a denier than any of those to whom he liberally applies that moniker. He denies reality itself.

An embargoed post on Un-Sk Ps-Sc, inadvertently published and captured by Google’s cache, lists all the reasons why Dana thinks the Lewandowsky paper ‘Recursive Fury‘ has allegedly been retracted (all links removed):

Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case.  Thus in order to advance their agenda of delaying climate solutions and maintaining the status quo in the face of a 97 percent expert consensus suggesting that this is a high-risk path, contrarians have engaged in a variety of unconventional tactics.

  • Funding a campaign to deny the expert climate consensus.
  • Harassing climate scientists and universities with frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests.
  • Engaging in personal, defamatory public attacks on climate scientists.
  • Flooding climate scientists with abusive emails.
  • Illegally hacking university servers and stealing their emails.
  • Harassing journals to retract inconvenient research.

That final tactic has evolved, from merely sending the journal a petition signed by a bunch of contrarians, to sending journals letters threatening libel lawsuits.  Unfortunately, this strategy has now succeeded.

Even after repeating (yet again) the oft-discredited 97% lie, Dana has unfortunately ignored [‘denied’ perhaps? – Ed] the real reason, staring everyone in the face:


The Moon-landing paper was the original lump of ordure, and Recursive Fury was that lump multiplied by itself.

On a tip from The Bish, who has more here.

A PDF of the page is here in case the cache is ‘disappeared’.


  1. Unconventional? More like familiar. Alarmists are:

    Funding a campaign to create an illusion of expert climate consensus (not to mention an illusion of there being a significant problem, or the potential for one).
    Denying other climate scientists and universities access they have every right to under the Freedom of Information Act.
    Engaging in personal, defamatory public attacks on climate scientists.
    Flooding climate scientists with abusive emails. (Most likely)
    Harassing journals to retract inconvenient research.

    If the last 3 look familiar, its because there was no need to change them. Irony, much?

    As for “illegally hacking”, there’s been no arrests, nor any apparent laws being broken.

  2. Why is there a need for FOIA requests to climate scientists if their side is all about the truth, and the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming? Surely they would want everything out in the open if the movement is so pure and honest?

  3. manicbeancounter says:

    It is no victory that the “Recursive Fury” paper has been taken down.
    It was based on the reaction to the “Hoax” paper. The first part of that paper’s title was “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax”. That statement was deliberate misinformation. Out of 1145 respondents, just 2 strongly rejected “climate science” and strongly supported that faxed moon landing theory. Both of these respondents supported 12 other conspiracy theories, so were likely scam responses. The question was not asked of those two people if they followed that path of reasoning.
    The fury that people like myself felt was from being smeared with beliefs that we do not hold.
    The survey was biased in its questions, biased in the placement of the survey, and biased its choice of statistical techniques. At no point did the authors entertain the possibility that alternative views on climate, public policy or politics might have a scrap of credibility about them. But neither did they present any other evidence in support of their dogmas than the claim that a lot of other people hold similar beliefs. Yet even that hearsay evidence is basically false. The surveys of that show a 97% consensus do not distinguish between the trivial (CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increased greenhouse gases caused warming) and the prophecies of a future climate apocalypse.
    The whole episode does not show the need for Lewandowsky, Cook and Dana to be locked up. Instead it shows the need for what they argue against – pluralism and toleration. Plus it shows the need to encourage people to evaluate competing views on climate based upon established methods in other areas, and upon historical experiences.

  4. Thanks to Simon and manicbeancounter who both played key roles in revealing the charlatanism which – lets not forget – got major positive coverage in media like the New York Times, New Yorker Scientific American, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and the British Guardian and Telegraph.
    I expect Lew’s groupies like Dana to mount a counter-offensive in the mainstream media on the lines of “sceptics try to muzzle scientists”. However trivial and pathetic Lewandowsky’s work is, it just might be the fuse that lights something bigger and more important.


  1. […] BishopHill (here and here), Geoff Chambers, Steve McIntyre, Australian Climate Madness (here and here), and the […]

%d bloggers like this: