Talk:Stephan Lewandowsky

BLP Noticeboard re "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli"
This is one of several BLP articles which refer to a blog post by Dana Nuccitelli. I have described an issue on the BLP noticeboard in section "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: The reference to Nuccitelli is now gone, and I have removed the BLP-noticeboard template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Lewandowsky papers
Another editor removed the paragraph below, commenting "Essentially a string of disparaging quotes. Low quality source for any BLP."


 * A long article at Spiked magazine strongly criticized Lewandowsky's research on climate change deniers. Author Ben Pile wrote that the paper "NASA faked the moon landing — Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax" is based on "a poorly executed and error-prone online survey," uses "dodgy statistical methods" and that "the data simply do not support his conclusions." Regarding the retracted "Recursive Fury" paper, Pile wrote that Lewandowsky's work showed bad faith, allowing "his prejudices to form the basis from which his study proceeded." Pile described Lewandowsky's climate-change papers as "[d]ressing political arguments up in scientific terminology" and "nonsense cloaked in mathematical jargon." Source.

Pile's article looks well-researched to me, and criticism of Lewandowsky's climate-change papers is widespread, and generally along the lines of the Spiked essay. I think it's a disservice to our readers not to mention this criticism in our article, which seems unbalanced at present.

Spiked magazine is generally considered a reliable source, so I'm not sure why this editor considers it a "Low quality source." We could paraphrase Pile's criticisms, but I think in this cases direct quotes are better. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece in "a British Internet magazine focusing on politics, culture and society from a humanist and libertarian viewpoint" to quote the WP article, by one Ben Pile, whose credentials are given as "Ben Pile blogs at Climate Resistance." The top article at that link starts "David Rose has an article in the Sunday Mail yesterday, which I provided the research for." Both David Rose and the Daily Mail promote fringe views, and have a poor record for fact checking and accuracy. So, highly questionable source, and a third party expert assessment would be needed of what seem to be inexpert libertanian views. Doesn't look suitable for BLP. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Criticism of Lewandowsky's paper is widespread on skeptical blogs. But quality sources? Sp!ked is known for promoting fringe views, not merely on climate change but a host of other topics. Exactly as our article on Living Marxism says, the magazine was started by members Revolutionary Communist Party. The publication only changed its name after making inaccurate claims, and being sued as a consequence. The source in question is a personal essay (clearly identified as such) from a sceptic blogger who edits CLIMATE-RESISTANCE.ORG, a blog where one can read such illuminating posts such as 'Lewandowsky Nails his Faeces to the Door'. Spiked-online.com is most assuredly a low quality source for any BLP. — TPX 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-truth publication in late-2017
The following publication and Guardian write up might be useful. This is outside my field so I cannot usefully add this material. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)