NASA Landed on the Moon say Friends of Science Therefore Psychological Science Should Retract Global Warming Climate Change Paper that Mocks Dissenting Scientists

Friends of Science Society has sent a letter to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) asking them to review the ethics of the Stephan Lewandowsky paper “NASA Faked the Moon Landing…” published in Psychological Science journal, stating that paper violates ethical and empirical standards. Friends of Science also note that the journal is “the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology” but the data base in the Lewandowsky et al (2013) paper did not include a single blog that rejects Anthropogenic Global Warming aka climate change.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
Data set: Remote Sensing Systems satellite lower troposphere global temperatures.

Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago Billboard

Individuals will publicly accept the majority view while privately retaining their initial view, motivated by a desire not to appear deviant or to risk possible negative sanctions from the majority, such as ostracism or ridicule

Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) August 18, 2014

Friends of Science Society is asking the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) to review the ethics of a widely-cited paper by Lewkandowsky et al (2013), published in Psychological Science March 26, 2013, which claims to provide evidence that all scientists or citizens who question Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or climate change are also conspiracy theorists who, for example, don’t believe NASA landed on the moon.

Ironically, as reported by Peter Foster in the National Post Aug. 8, 2013, "Perhaps the most effective instant rebuttal of the paper’s outrageous thesis was that two prominent skeptics — Harrison Schmidt and Buzz Aldrin — had in fact been to the moon!"

Friends of Science agree that NASA successfully landed on the moon July 20, 1969, but dissent on climate change – saying the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change, more so than humans or carbon dioxide (CO2).

Earlier this year on May 1, 2014, Friends of Science issued a public statement about their request and sent a detailed commentary to COPE in the UK. COPE requested a commentary that specified which guidelines had been violated, in the opinion of Friends of Science. Friends of Science provided a 25 page document to the parties. COPE then requested a 500 word summary. Friends of Science provided this and awaited response.

On May 1, 2014 Aime Ballard-Wood, Director of Publications for the Association for Psychological Science (APS), had sent an email to Friends of Science stating that they consider the matter closed due to a previous review. As reported in the Australian Herald Sun on Sept. 11, 2012, that review had involved the University of Western Australia and issues related to the survey design and data.

Friends of Science request of COPE addresses issues related to the COPE publishing guidelines. As of Aug. 14, 2014, have asked COPE to proceed with a publishing ethics review.

Regarding the May response by the APS, Friends of Science director Warren Blair said: “This perfunctory response is not in keeping with an organization mandated to uphold scientific integrity and empirical research.”

A critique of Lewandowsky’s paper entitled: “Throw Mud-It Will Stick: (Climate Science Blogophobia in the Psychological Sciences) The Motivated Denigration of Rational Dissent on Climate Change” has been posted on Academia.edu. This paper questions how can it be ethical for persons with expert knowledge of the damaging effects of exclusionary psychological tactics, like ostracizing, to publish a paper that will clearly lead to such exclusion, bullying, mocking and ostracizing.

According to research by Kipling D. Williams in “Ostracism – The Power of Silence” (2001) “Individuals will publicly accept the majority view while privately retaining their initial view, motivated by a desire not to appear deviant or to risk possible negative sanctions from the majority, such as ostracism or ridicule.”

Related work by Schacter (1951) and that of Robert Cialdini on social proof and compliance demonstrate how damaging this kind of verbal bullying and public humiliation can be.

In a May 24, 2012 opening ceremony video APS Executive Director Alan G. Kraut said: ‘…huge numbers of the general public are consuming our work…” and spoke of the exceptional public interest and influence of psychological science reports.

Friends of Science state in their letter to COPE that the factual elements on climate change in the Lewandowsky et al (2013) work are not supported by current empirical evidence either.

About

Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists.

Contact:
Friends of Science Society
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597
Web: friendsofscience.org
E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org


Contact

Attachments

Ethical issues in the psychological sciences Letter sent to COPE June 4, 2014

Detailed review of Lewandowsky paper vis a vis ethical issues