I requested data from the University of Western Australia……..

Posted: April 5, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Replicability lies at the heart of the scientific method, but not in the heart of the vice chancellor of the University of Wetsern Australia it seems.

Unsettled Climate

I requested data from the University of Western Australia……..

…so that I could submit a to the journal of Psychological Science. I wrote to Professor Maybery (email below) but instead I received this  stunning response from the Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson, (my bold) I have been trying to resolve this very specific issue through the ‘proper channels’ for a considerable length of time now.

This email response has also been discussed at Climate Audit and Watts Up With That

From: Paul Johnson

Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:08 AM

To: barry woods Cc: Murray Maybery ; Kimberley Heitman

Subject: request for access to data

Mr B. Woods

Dear Mr Woods,

I refer to your emails of the 11th and 25th March directed to Professor Maybery, which repeat a request you made by email dated the 5th September 2013 to Professor Lewandowsky (copied to numerous recipients)

View original post 2,967 more words

Comments
  1. Barry Woods says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:10 am

    the (my bold) bit!:

    …..in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data for the purpose of submitting a comment to the Journal of Psychological Science.

    It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests.” – Paul Johnson, VC UWA

  2. tallbloke says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:12 am

    Barry: Well done for sticking to the path of polite rational enquiry in the face of much malign provocation from Lewandowsky. Feel free to link relevant material here to help tell the story.

  3. hunter says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:28 am

    AGW corrupts everything and anyone who supports it, eventually.

  4. oldbrew says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:40 am

    The university’s own guidelines state:

    ‘3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers’

    http://www.governance.uwa.edu.au/procedures/policies/policies-and-procedures?method=document&id=UP12/25

    So how can it be ‘not the University’s practice to accede to such requests’ ?

  5. J Martin says:
    April 5, 2014 at 11:11 am

    It isn’t of course as contradicory as it appears if one were to include the perhaps unspoken or unwritten words that would have clarified why it is not contradictory and not unreasonble to them.

    It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests from vexatious denialists.

    It may also be the case that they have concerns surrounding possible damage to the reputation of UWA that may result from releasing the data, particularly given the drubbing that Lewandowsky’s previous work got on the sceptic blog sites.

    At the heart of this is a religious (co2 magic gas) belief system, group think and all those other psychological factors which are bound up with human nature.

  6. gallopingcamel says:
    April 6, 2014 at 6:52 am

    You could create a “Hall of Shame” for institutions that hide behind lawyers or otherwise fight truth and transparency.

    Here are my nominees:
    1. The EPA.
    2. The Goddard (he must be turning in his grave) Institute of Space Studies.
    3. Penn State or is it State Pen?

  7. oldbrew says:
    April 6, 2014 at 10:53 am

    Latest from Tony Thomas:

    ‘Peer review is claimed to be the gold standard for scientific papers. Yet in the establishment climate science world, “peer review” operates differently. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky’s now-retracted paper Recursive Fury, about conspiracy-mindedness of “deniers”, raises a few issues about peer reviewing.’

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/04/climate-papers-without-peer/

  8. tallbloke says:
    April 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Blogged

    Lewandowsky retraction raises issues on Peer Review


    Tony Emailed me the article this morning.