Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook have just dropped another peer-reviewed pile even more offensive than the thirteen others served up from the Lew/Cookhouse and which are cited in the paper.
Forgive the scatological intro, but this one is even more poisonous than the others for at least three reasons:
1) It makes no secret of the fact that its only purpose is to insult and denigrate people that the authors don’t like (mainly Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts).
2) The lies, incompetence and stupidity are not hidden out of sight in the supplemental material or in misquotes from blog articles that no one—least of all peer reviewers—will ever bother to check. They’re there for all to see, for example in Table Two, which claims to consist of nine pairs of contradictory quotes from the same person. The briefest glance is enough to establish that none of them are contradictory, and one of the pairs isn’t even from the same person.
3) This paper is published, not in some vanity publishing online free sheet, but in “Synthese—An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.” In eighty years of existence they’ve published articles by major 20th century philosophers like Rudolf Carnap, WV Quine and Hilary Putnam for Gaia’s sake. What are they doing publishing this stuff? (You can read more about the journal here.)
See also Barry Woods’ comments at some of the above links. Barry, Brandon and Michel have begun the thankless task of combing through the paper for errors, misquotes, quotes taken out of context, non-sequiturs, etc. It has to be done, boring and pointless as it seems. We’ve tried ridicule, formal complaints, replies in journals, comments at blogs, but the Lew/Cook juggernaut just keeps rolling on, from learned journal to learned journal, picking up funding (Royal Society, Wolfson Award, the Psychonomic Society) and—presumably innocent and naïve—coauthors on the way like Elisabeth Lloyd.
One idea I have is to publish the entire article here, numbering the paragraphs, and to invite you the readers to comment, pointing out specific mistakes, misquotes, lies, incoherences etc, that we would then insert into the text as comments. What does everyone think?