Category: environmental science

“Gremlins” caused errors in climate change paper showing gains from global warming

jep_coverThe author of a controversial 2009 paper arguing that at least some amount of global warming could lead to economic gains has corrected the paper, along with a later article in a different journal. We confess to be baffled by the implications of the mix-up, although others appear to be less confused.

The 2009 article, “The Economic Effects of Climate Change,” was written by Richard Tol, of the University of Sussex, and appeared in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. It has been cited 91 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science.

Here’s the abstract:

Continue reading “Gremlins” caused errors in climate change paper showing gains from global warming

Birds of a feather: Duplication grounds migration paper

wemcoverA group of bird researchers in China has lost their article in Wetlands Ecology and Management on the migratory habits of shorebirds after the editors of the journal learned that they’d cobbled the paper together from their own previously published work.

The article by Song et. al., “Ecological stability of the shorebird stopover site in the Yalu River Estuary Wetlands, China,” had appeared online in February.

Here’s the abstract: Continue reading Birds of a feather: Duplication grounds migration paper

Retractions appear in case of former Kansas water scientist rebuked for misconduct

groundwaterBack in December, the University of Kansas issued a public censure of a former water researcher who, the school says, engaged in a pattern of plagiarism and other shoddy publishing practices.

Marios Sophocleous, who’d held the position of senior scientist at the Kansas Geological Survey:

Continue reading Retractions appear in case of former Kansas water scientist rebuked for misconduct

Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change

natgeosciLast month, researchers published a paper whose conclusions suggested that looking at Arctic sea ice in the autumn offers clues to winter temperatures in Europe.

The letter appeared — briefly, as this post will demonstrate — in Nature Geoscience. The letter, titled “High predictability of the winter Euro–Atlantic climate from cryospheric variability,” was written by Javier Garcia-Serrano and Claude Frankignoul, of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie. The journal published the letter on March 23 and retracted it on April 14.

Here’s the abstract, which can still be found online:

Continue reading Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change

Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction

frontiersAn editor at a Frontiers journal has resigned to protest the publisher’s decision to retract the controversial “Recursive Fury” paper that linked climate skepticism to conspiratorial ideation.

Ugo Bardi was chief specialty editor of Frontiers in Energy Research: Energy Systems and Policy. He writes on his blog:

…my opinion is that, with their latest statement and their decision to retract the paper, Frontiers has shown no respect for authors nor for their own appointed referees and editors. But the main problem is that we have here another example of the climate of intimidation that is developing around the climate issue.

Continue reading Chief specialty editor resigns from Frontiers in wake of controversial retraction

Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions

Lewandowsky
Lewandowsky

We — and others — have been scratching our heads about the real reasons for the formal retraction on March 21 of a Frontiers in Psychology paper since the journal issued a statement on the subject on Friday that seemed to contradict the retraction notice and that certainly differed from accounts on some blogs. Today, we learned a few more details about what happened in the year between when the paper was provisionally removed and then formally retracted from a post by Stephan Lewandowsky, one of the co-authors of the paper.

The March 21 statement, writes Lewandowsky, Continue reading Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions

Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not “cave into threats”

frontiersFrontiers in Psychology, which last month formally retracted a controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiracy ideation, says it did not cave in to threats from skeptics, contrary to what a lot of news reports and commentary implied or claimed.

For example, summarizing a number of those reports this morning, before Frontiers had issued its statement, co-author Stephan Lewandowsky wrote on his blog:

By and large, the mainstream media coverage seems to have picked up on what’s really at issue here, namely academic freedom and editorial intimidation by a small band of vociferous individuals.

Here’s the statement, in which Frontiers stresses the rights of the people Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote about:

Continue reading Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not “cave into threats”

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

frontiersA year after being clumsily removed from the web following complaints, a controversial paper about “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science” is being retracted.

The paper, “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,” was authored by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott, and published in Frontiers in Psychology: Personality Science and Individual Differences.

Continue reading Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

Journal grounds paper on radiation exposure in air traffic controllers because it was “published inadvertently”

indjoccenvtmedThe Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine has retracted a 2013 article by a pair of researchers who’d claimed to find that air traffic controllers suffer poor health from exposure to microwave radiation. But that turns out to have been an, um, flight of fancy.

The article, “Adverse health effects of occupational exposure to radiofrequency radiation in airport surveillance radar operators,” was written by Naser Dehghan and Shahram Taeb, both of Shiraz University in Iran. According to the abstract:

Where’s the line between scientific post-publication peer review critiques and libel?

Mann4
Michael Mann, via Wikimedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mann4.jpg

One of the issues that comes up frequently when we’re moderating comments here on Retraction Watch is the distinction between “I think these images look strange” and “this researcher committed fraud.” That’s a pretty important distinction, because potentially actionable cases of libel live somewhere in between, probably closer to the latter — as Paul Brookes found out the hard way last year when Science-Fraud.org was shuttered by legal threats.

We may have some new legal precedent to follow on the matter soon, it turns out. Climate scientist Michael Mann sued The National Review in 2012 after the conservative magazine published a Competitive Enterprise Institute statement as follows: Continue reading Where’s the line between scientific post-publication peer review critiques and libel?