Journal pulls paper due to “legal context” created by climate contrarians | Hacker News Reader

Journal pulls paper due to “legal context” created by climate contrarians

arstechnica.com

30 pointsMBCook21 comments

Alternate title: Grown-ups at Psychology Journal Remind Authors about Defamation Laws.

To be clear this paper has nothing to do with climate science, it is entirely about marginalizing people with whom they disagree.

I agree, the paper itself was not about climate science. It was published by psychologists, so I wouldn't expect it to be. However, the intent did not seem to be about marginalizing people. It was a scientific study of the psychological phenomena that exist around conspiracy theories, including the reaction of a study about conspiracy theorists that involves further conspiracy theories.

Also, I'm not sure how defamation laws would come into play. By all accounts listed, the scientific basis behind the paper was sound, so no libel or falsehoods to speak of. It seems more likely that the potential costs of defending against legal action is enough of a threat to warrant the removal of an academic paper.

This is so funny: non-conspiracy posts in this thread are currently being downvoted.

Thus I feel the need to comment your post: Frontiers recognised the scientific value of this paper, but had to retract it because of persons like you, that only know censoring the others when it comes to discuss ideas. Science cannot go forward with that kind of attitude.

Who the hell do you think you are? Rather, who the hell do you think I am? I assure you, you do not know enough about me to boldly and indignantly assert that "Science cannot go forward" with the kind of attitude held by "persons like [me]".

If you question the AGW theory you're a 'denier.' If you call shenanigans on an article you're a 'conspiracy theorist.'

I'd love to see a study on privilege and libertarianism because that would explains the views of so many on Hacker News. If your field of study is computer science, you don't get to tell climate scientists that have extensively studied something that they're wrong because it might inconvenience your lifestyle.

Climate science is utterly dependent on computer models, so computer scientists may, in fact, be perfectly qualified to criticize those models.

So basically some journal published a sensational article to make money, but then pulled it when they realized it could cost them money. And yet though don't understand how so many people could doubt the integrity of science.

The funny thing about science is that you don't have to take someone else's word for it. You can look at the evidence and see for yourself that it's true. The problem is these "conspiracy theorists" never actually bother to do that.

Looking at the evidence is not enough. You really must repeat the experiments. If you want to measure the gravitational constant, it's easy. If you want to measure the changes in the global temperature is much more difficult.

Let's pick a less controversial example. If I want to verify the existence of the Higgs boson, I need a pick a shovel and start digging a 10 mile circle. Then ... ??? There is an unknown particle that is a very good candidate to be the Higgs boson and I believe that in a few years the existence of the Higgs boson will be confirmed. But I don't have any chance to measure it myself.

Looking at the evidence is not enough. You really must repeat the experiments

As you point out, repeating the experiments is sometimes not feasible, at least in the near term. Often, as technology and understanding develops you can perform other experiments to try to render a theory false (which is all you can ever do- you can't prove a scientific theory true, after all).

But until that time comes, which may be decades off, you need to be able to independently analyze the evidence.

You know you are grasping at straws if you try to suppress any logical evidence you happen to disagree with (and don't have an actual way to refute what is being said).

Or perhaps if you need psychologists to marginalize your intellectual opponents, maybe your science isn't quite as good as you think it is.

Notwithstanding the fact the bulk of social psychology research, while not outright bullshit, is hardly of a piece with physics, chemistry or medicine.

Are you suggesting that these psychologists are conspiring with climate scientists to influence the debate?

I see what you did there...

This is a totally gutless response by the journal. If they want to show there is any value in the fee structure for the 'journal' system, they need to step up and defend the freedom of ideas. Otherwise, GTFO.

Nauseating.

EDIT: Perhaps by being 'open access' they shouldn't be the object of my rant...but it still rubs me the wrong way. I'm not exactly sure what 'open access' means.

If I were to start a band, I would consider naming it "Recursive Fury" :-)

But to add something of substance to the debate. The challenge of talking about conspiracy theories is in fact their recursive nature. That our legal system doesn't know how to deal with that, that is another matter entirely. And I agree it is rather mean spirited in its essence.

And the only people who would disagree with this are those who are part of the conspiracy.

So... the forces of darkness have won this round?

Seems so. By the way, it looks like some of them have found this thread.

HN has a long and sordid history of skepticism towards climate science. It first came to the forefront around 5 years ago, during the CRU email controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_co...), and it was the first time I was sorely disappointed in the HN community.

But not the last.

I was one of only maybe three or four people at the time that vocally supported the consensus conclusions of climate science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com