Wattsupwiththat have a guest post by Brandon Shollenberger on “Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook – making things up“. It details how the Recursive Fury paper elements that are fabricated. This is a comment just posted.
The “Recursive fury” paper fails to consider an alternative hypothesis. If psychology expert L came along and said that you should not be listened to about subject A, which you believe strongly about, because:-
(a) Nearly all the “experts” disagree with you.
(b) Some fellow believers allegedly have political beliefs that the person L does not like.
(c) A higher proportion of your fellow believers than L’s group allegedly hold other beliefs that most people view as being “nutty
Then you would be somewhat upset – a normal, human, reaction. If you later found out that the claims about the experts were not true, the questions were biased and the statistical conclusions were contradicted by basic statistical analysis, you would be justifiably furious.
Like with people who attribute every extreme weather event to global warming, Lewandowsky bases his case for ignoring sceptical opinions on a distorted opinion of corrupted evidence. When it gets a very predictable response, he interprets this with a distorted opinion of corrupted evidence. The only recursive bit is in the methods Lewandowsky employs in corrupting science.