UPDATE: Sept 6th Hot off the press: Dessler’s record turnaround time GRL rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell
(September 4) Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. continues his discussion at his blog: Hatchet Job on John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. And I’ve added my own rebuttal here: The science is scuttled: Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth resort to libeling Spencer and Christy
Dr. Judith Curry has two threads on the issue Update on Spencer & Braswell Part1 and Part2 and… Josh weighs in with a new cartoon.
UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. weighs in with his opinions on this debacle here, additional updates are below from Dr. Spencer.
UPDATE: Dr. Spencer has written an essay to help understand the issue: A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change and an additional update Sept 5th: More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us
September 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
SCORE:
IPCC :1
Scientific Progress: 0
It has been brought to my attention that as a result of all the hoopla over our paper published in Remote Sensing recently, that the Editor-in-Chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned. His editorial explaining his decision appears here.
First, I want to state that I firmly stand behind everything that was written in that paper.
But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:
…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal
But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.
If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.
People who are not involved in scientific research need to understand that the vast majority of scientific opinions spread by the media recently as a result of the fallout over our paper were not even the result of other scientists reading our paper. It was obvious from the statements made to the press.
Kudos to Kerry Emanuel at MIT, and a couple other climate scientists, who actually read the paper before passing judgment.
I’m also told that RetractionWatch has a new post on the subject. Their reporter told me this morning that this was highly unusual, to have an editor-in-chief resign over a paper that was not retracted.
Apparently, peer review is now carried out by reporters calling scientists on the phone and asking their opinion on something most of them do not even do research on. A sad day for science.
(At the request of Dr. Spencer, this post has been updated with the highlighted words above about 15 minutes after first publication.- Anthony)
UPDATE #1: Since I have been asked this question….the editor never contacted me to get my side of the issue. He apparently only sought out the opinions of those who probably could not coherently state what our paper claimed, and why.
UPDATE #2: This ad hominem-esque Guardian article about the resignation quotes an engineer (engineer??) who claims we have a history of publishing results which later turn out to be “wrong”. Oh, really? Well, in 20 years of working in this business, the only indisputable mistake we ever made (which we immediately corrected, and even published our gratitude in Science to those who found it) was in our satellite global temperature monitoring, which ended up being a small error in our diurnal drift adjustment — and even that ended up being within our stated error bars anyway. Instead, it has been our recent papers have been pointing out the continuing mistakes OTHERS have been making, which is why our article was entitled. “On the Misdiagnosis of….”. Everything else has been in the realm of other scientists improving upon what we have done, which is how science works.
UPDATE #3: At the end of the Guardian article, it says Andy Dessler has a paper coming out in GRL next week, supposedly refuting our recent paper. This has GOT to be a record turnaround for writing a paper and getting it peer reviewed. And, as usual, we NEVER get to see papers that criticize our work before they get published.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Davidg said (3 September 2011, at 10:16 am):
Davidg, unlike you who, by his ignorance of how Spencer and Braswell have already been thoroughly deconstructed, demonstrates himself not to be a scientist, I am a scientist. I understand the scientific method, and I have experimentally both supported and refuted the work of others, and I have both supported and refuted my own hypotheses and discoveries.
I have no particular attachment to any extant understanding beyond such being the most parsimonious descriptor of a discipline at a moment in time. In fact, as an ecologist I would dearly love the current consensus understanding of the physics of ‘greenhouse’ gas warming to be wrong, because the implications for my own discipline would then not be nearly so concerning. I spend a lot of time reading contrarian claims, and scrutinising their work for validity, looking to see if they have something – anything – that will stand up, but always their claims fail the test.
Spencers’s and Braswell’s work has already been shown to fail the test of defencibility. For those folk above who are ignorant of this fact, and who are demanding a peer-reviewed rebuttal – hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.
You may find that getting what you wished for is most unpalatable…
[*Mea culpa. At the top of this thread I typed John Abraham’s name instead of Dessler’s, because he was mentioned in the paragraph preceding the mention of Dessler in the original Guardian article. The perils of blogging at 3:00 am.
I’m surprised that all the hawkeyes here, who can apparently spot an inaccuracy at a thousand paces, didn’t smack me around to hell and back for my sleep-deprived mix up…]
Sean says:
September 2, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Someone here suggested that this has all the hallmarks of a staged event, considering the speed with with the Guardian and BBC were able to publish articles on it. It seems logical. I Know the Europeans don’t really understand us and we certainly don’t understand them but they’ve got to realize the next election in the US might usher in Republican control of both houses of congress and if a Republican president gets elected, it will likely be with the enthusiastic support of Christian evangelicals. Shenanigans like these are more likely to make doubters of the consensus climate science into despisers. That’s not a smart position to put yourself when budget cutting will most likely define the next congress as opposed to spending.
I would be hard pressed to find a less coherent point in this thread. Aside from the original reason for resignation, of course. I’d vote for Obama twice before I vote even considered Rick Perry, if that is what you are talking about. I am not praising Obama, I am saying that Rick Perry is a clown. The whole Republican field is pitiful. There hasn’t been a good leader
Dick CheneyGeorge Bush, and he was as liked as Obama. The right is as much a shoe-in as the left. Personally, I’m disgusted by that whole scene.Anyhow, I find it odd that no one has offered an example of what Dr. (yes, no matter how bad it burns up peter stone, he’s a PhD.) Spencer wrote. If it was so easy that you could write and peer review it in a month, surely someone could demonstrate the error here pretty quickly? I doubt Anthony is censoring it.
If I remember right Dr. Spencer spent a couple of years reviewing the state of evolutionary theory before making any claims. I wonder how much time Peter Stone has spent. I also suspect Mr. Stone is unaware of the problems with macro-evolution.
In addition, Mr. Stone’s repetition of the DailyKos talking point about ‘cabals of scientists’ is very telling. I’ve never heard a skeptic make such a claim. Only warmists that don’t understand the issues. There is no need for any cabal. It all has to do with self-interest. If Mr. Stone doesn’t understand self-interest and exactly why climate scientists would fight to maintain the status quo, then he lacks simple common sense.
Wagner, on the basis of his letter, is what was once called “a self-advertising duffer”.
Climate trolls fall into the same category.
Shooting themselves in their own carbon footprint.
***
Berényi Péter @ur momisugly 3:31 pm – no doubt you are right. At the geopolitical level, there is obivously a “great game” going on with the whole climate thing, with China, Germany and the USA as the main players. China, being a beneficiary of Global Warming doctrine, is (naturally) positioning itself to also gain when the doctrine collapses. Germany has gamed the system magnificently, getting credit for the collapse of heavy industries in the former East Germany. Now the Germans are ditching nuclear power (old infrastructure, costly to replace) and replacing it with cheap coal, thus maintaining competitive advantage for their export industries. A main motive for the USA (as has been the case at least since the early 70s) is to hoard their own oil reserves. No doubt there are other motives at play, none to do with Global Warming/Climate Change of course.
@Peter Stone: “settled facts… the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
So nothing settled about CO2 sensitivity then according to the US National Academies of Sciences? So we don’t need to panic yet and spend billions of dollars on carbon emission reduction? Phew, that’s a relief.
Sorry if this is redundant, but his principal point seems to have been that it is necessary for those who observe physical data to reconcile their observations with the predictions of modellers who may have predicted something else. This is not science. If the observed results do not coincide with the predicted results, then the fault lies with those who made the predictions. Period. It may be that a longer and more detailed study is needed to reconcile the conflict, but it is never correct to state (or assume, or imply) that the model is right when the physical data contradict it.
What does any bully in any sandbox on any playground do when he doesn’t get his own way?
Others will do the same when, finally, they don’t get their own way.
With David Suzuki and Al Gore the clock runs too slowly.
This turkey clearly resigned because the AGW Politbureau just had to have a carcase to hang the blame on otherwise the issue would lie with the science itself. Now it lies with the negligence of the sacrifice Wagner in letting the Spencer and Braswell paper be published. His true crime it would seem lies in not sufficiently stacking the jury.
The wicked web continues to unwavel as it will continue to do as Solar 24 rolls on and more and more ordinary citizens look out their windows and up at the sky, scratch their heads and say ” WTF?”
Bernard J. says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Given your confidence that Spencer is mistaken, why do you not state the argument here in your own words. I am always astounded when people post that someone else has proved something. If you do not like argument, why do you post here?
peter stone says:
September 3, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“Roy is a “scientist” who believes in creationism and intelligent design “theory, and has discounted the basic tenets of evolutionary biology. I am not at all surprised that he is one of the very few PhDs with training in climate who still doesn’t accept the widely-held scientific consensus on recent global warming. His contrarian (and even biblical) views on evolution and climate science I think speak directly to his credibility as a competent scientist.”
Did you know that there is within the American Philosophical Association an official organization with a huge membership that is known as the Society of Christian Philosophers. From what you have said, I guess that there are no such organizations in scientific societies. Could you please explain to me why scientists are so remarkably less tolerant of their fellow man than philosophers?
If there is this much controversy over S&B, what on earth is going to happen when Dr. Salby’s paper is finally published in the near future?
I wonder what is going on behind the scenes as his paper makes its way through the review process. It has already been “thoroughly debunked” by blogs somehow without even being available for review.
The only thing that would have saved S&B some grief was the obligatory tag “although this does not disagree with the notion that current warming is largely man driven.” inserted in either the opening remarks or conclusion section as required by the “peer reviewed journals”.
BINGO!
The following is technically speculation based on circumstantial evidence, but STRONG circumstantial evidence. I believe the AGW “Team” has just scored a massive “own goal”, and I do mean MASSIVE.
R.S. Brown’s comment above with a link to Wolfgang Wagner’s bio at the Vienna University of Technology led me to another page on their site which is FAR more important. It is Wagner’s position THERE that explains (in my mind)… everything.
Wolfgang Wagner is shown on their web site as being in charge of “Physical Modeling” and as such, sits at the cross roads of their two other major programs, which are:
Remote Sensing, and…
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING
http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/research.html
In other words, Wagner’s entire career, the very pinnacle of his professional existance, his “day job” if you will, rests ENTIRELY on the integration of remote sensing data with environmental (read climate) modeling. In that context, read again these words excerpted from Wagner’s resignation statement:
“The use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models is therefore a very important part of our work. But it should not be done in isolation by the remote sensing scientists. Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data. Only through this close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into
account.”
So there you have it.Faced with an outcry from the modeling community, Wagner was left with a stark choice. Alienate the entire research community his professional existance (and funding) rests upon, or “do something” about the Spencer and Braswell paper. My guess is he tried. And was refuted. His only option to retain his professional existance and continued cooperation with the modeling community, which is clearly his mandate from the Vienna University, was to resign in protest over the paper. Which he not only did, but:
HE ACTUALLY CITED THE FACT THAT THE MODELLING COMMUNITY WAS NOT CONSULTED BY SPENCER AND BRASWELL AS A MAJOR REASON FOR THE PAPER BEING FLAWED.
If I am correct, Wolgang Wagner should be excoriated for what he has done. But this also is true:
If I am correct, it means that the editorial board of Remote Sensing, and their parent organization MDSI, stood up to their Editor-In-Chief and told him where to go. Unable to force a retraction, or any other kind of action to assuage the colleagues and programs upon which his day job depends, Wolfgang Wagner resigned. The text of his explanation is NOT the reason for his resignation. It is a public apology to his colleagues, the “Team” if you will, that he has offended, the funding mechanisms he has put at risk, by allowing Spencer and Braswell’s paper to be published, and then failing to get it retracted. The weakness of the rest of his arguments lead me to no other conclusion than that.
Perhaps instead of excoriating Dr Wolfgang Wagner for cowardice, we should instead be applauding the editorial board of Remote Sensing. Applauding, and encouraging them to stick to their guns. Doing so doesn’t put their business at risk, though no doubt there will be threats to that such as delisting them from their status as an academic journal. But I doubt the clout of the “Team” which was so frightening to Wagner could reach that far in any brief span of time.
In the menatime, Remote Sensing has just sent a very loud message to the scientific community. And it sounds like this to me:
“You got science, we will publish it. No one bullies us into submission”.
To which I applaud. As loudly as I can. While shouting:
OWN GOAL! OWN GOAL!
David Falkner says: (September 3, 2011 at 6:18 pm) “The right is as much a shoe-in as the left.”
Perhaps a typo, David; but just for the record: “shoe-in” is actually “shoo-in”.
Noun: A person or thing that is certain to succeed, esp. someone who is certain to win a competition.
Bernard J. says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm
“….hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.
You may find that getting what you wished for is most unpalatable…”
Response: The rhetorical equivalent of “Oh Yeah? I’m going to get my daddy and he’ll show you!” Please demonstrate that you are ‘a scientist’, rather than just a rude ‘ecologist’. You assert the Spencer Braswell paper has already been ‘thoroughly deconstructed’. As such, it should be quite simple for a scientist like you to enlighten all of us as to their errors and to demonstrate where they went wrong, with empirical evidence illustrating their mistakes. Show your work… and remember to use empirical evidence, not chimeric models biased by opportunistic assumptions. You will be graded….
“The perils of blogging at 3:00 am….. I’m surprised that all the hawkeyes here, who can apparently spot an inaccuracy at a thousand paces, didn’t smack me around to hell and back for my sleep-deprived mix up…”
Response: Sleep more, stop the name calling, and offer a cogent critique of the Spencer Braswell science, if you can…. Anything else is just cowardly mud slinging, unbecoming of a ‘real scientist’
Cassandra King says:
September 3, 2011 at 10:26 am
“We humans have a deep desire to see beyond the horizons that limit us like a straight jacket. There are those who hold us back with a selfish desire to limit our thirst for progress, they will lose, they have always lost no matter how hard they have fought. Our hunger to see the next horizon is far stronger than the scaremongers determination to stop us from taking the journey.”
Sweet Lady,
You speak for my soul!
Thank You, Friend.
SethP says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“In the meantime, Remote Sensing has just sent a very loud message to the scientific community. And it sounds like this to me:
“You got science, we will publish it. No one bullies us into submission”.
Interesting thoughts! I wonder if we will ever find out the truth?
The only people that control what their publication publishes are the owners/editors of that publication. If they publish rubbish, their publication suffers. If they publish according to a dogma or doctrine they will limit their audience to the believers of that dogma or doctrine. If they want their publication to be well-respected, widely read, in a word successful, then they need to publish high-quality papers that spark debate and further analysis and study. This will increase the numbers of people who will use your publication, increasing the value both scientifically and commercially. This is called letting the free market determine the success or failure of your venture.
If the editor feels that he has failed some quality control process that the publication should adhere to, then resignation is a reasonable consequence. If he has been bullied into resigning because of other people’s opinion then he is not worthy of the position of editor in any case. If the publication continues down the path of following dogma rather than discussion, then it will ultimately pass into obscurity and will not be missed.
(Originally posted on http://www.drroyspencer.com)
I noticed and diagnosed it, but didn’t bother to mention it, figuring someone else would do so. There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t get caught here in comments (even though some readers must catch them)–and then sometimes a half-dozen posters will jump on a similar flaw.
Funny how the warmists get all upset over media exaggeration of published papers which go against CAGW. We haven’t heard anything about all the exaggeration of all the CAGW drivel that has been published over the years.
Peter Vaughn wrote:
IMO, such indirect self-interest is only 25% (?) of the story. More of it has to do with faddism, messianism, the environmental / anti-chemical mindset and its ready-made vulnerability to the warmist narrative, “PC” pressures on campus, a general desire to move away from fossil fuels, credulousness about the claims for renewable energy and the willingness and the ability of the Rest Of the World to ramp down CO2 production, and half a dozen other factors.
Try this theory of Willis’s on for size (it’s not in NIPCC, I don’t think):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/25/taotriton-take-two/
Here’s the link to the thread where these comments are occurring. Spencer was reacting to a noxious poster with the handle Obscurity, Here are some comments from him & Spencer’s responses:
I don’t see any big problem in posting a banning notice in capital letters. “Notices” of such import should have attention called to themselves, although I’d prefer boldfacing. It’s something PO’d site moderators often do–and “Obscurity” had given him cause with his sneers. Also, I don’t see any real “ranting,” which suggests something really “over the top.” This is close, but no cigar.
Bernard J. says:
“Spencers’s and Braswell’s work has already been shown to fail the test of defencibility. For those folk above who are ignorant of this fact, and who are demanding a peer-reviewed rebuttal – hold on to your knickers petals, because next week Andrew Dessler* will be publishing (in Geophysical Research Letters) exactly that – a peer-reviewed paper deconstructing S&B11.”
Haha, really? How come it’ll not be published in the same journal? And how did it pass peer review so quickly?
Maybe you should read Spencer’s latest blog post which covers flawed assumptions in Dessler’s thinking:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/
davidmhoffer;
Just to summarize your “OWN GOAL” comment:
Wagner OK’d and published, in his role as Remote Sensing chief editor, an article which offended the people who control his strings and funding at Vienna UoTech. He then was instructed/obliged to try to get RS to withdraw the paper. They told him to take a hike, and so he has and this is his CYA explanation.
In other words, he’s not a victim, but a rebuffed wannabe victimizer.
Have I got that right?
I wonder how many emails have been deleted during this coordinated attack on the scientific method.