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.
i’d call that a self TKO.
The assumption that a small increase in the percentage of co2 keeps in more heat is based on the misdiagnosis. Heat goes around co2 and escapes it. The IPCC cannot accept that basic fact – since co2 cannot change its appropriate absorption bands, it remains a fact.
The IPCC and its protagonists arguments are akin to the analogy of a school room: If the classroom door is full open, presumably all of people will leave the room when session ends. By some contrived twist of logic, they maintain that if the classroom door was 3/4 open, then it would keep some of the students in the classroom when the bell rang. To their theory, the door determines the percentage of people staying behind.
In reality there is no obstruction from co2
>>
Peter Miller says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Climate Change = Something natural which has been going on for hundreds of millions of years, but which the climate cult faithful insists on being stopped right now.
<<
It’s more like thousands of millions of years, but it’s still a good definition.
Jim
>>
Patrick Davis says:
September 3, 2011 at 3:42 am
The entire weight of the biomass of humans is also DWARFED by the biomass of insects (Actually, this is an insect/bacteria/virus world weight for weight).
<<
Environmentalists always fret about “cute” endagered species such as polar bear cubs or sea otters. The important organisms to the environment are the cleaners and filters. That means organisms like fungi and bacteria. It’s hard to get people to worry about fungi. That’s why I think their campaigns are a joke and misleading.
Jim
>>
Jeff Alberts says:
September 3, 2011 at 8:56 am
As an atheist, I agree. If anyone believes that Spencer’s paper is biased by his religious views, it should be very easy to show how.
<<
It’s just a variation of the standard technique of guilt-by-association. They usually defame skeptics by claiming they’re paid by “big oil.”
Jim
>>
peter stone says:
September 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
<<
You’re using the “Argument from authority” (or “appeal to authority” or “argumentum ad verecundiam”) technique. It doesn’t really counter any arguments, because you’re not arguing any facts.
Appeal to authority is one of the primary things being discussed on this thread, and you’ve just given us a splendid example.
Jim
>>
Bernard J. says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:04 pm
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.
<<
Which test did these claims fail? Your idea of how they should work? Did you ever scrutinize the “consensus” claims? How about the lack of proper atmospheric warming for the GHG effect? How about the 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature in ice core samples?
Jim
I know davidmhoffer browsed the Vienna University of Technology website
a while ago…
but for those interested, here’s the publication history of Wolfgang Wagner,
from another Institute of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing page:
http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/publications.html
Please note: This page appears to have been quietly revised and reformatted
sometime between September 3rd and September 4th, 2011.
The Vienna University of Technology – Institute of Programming & Remote
Sensing has added a supplemental page to it’s website. This appears to have
been written and backdated to September 2nd, discussing Wagner’s resignation
and his alleged reasons for bailing as the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing.
“By some contrived twist of logic, they maintain that if the classroom door was 3/4 open, then it would keep some of the students in the classroom when the bell rang. To their theory, the door determines the percentage of people staying behind.”
I am skeptic on CAGW but I think your analogy is wrong. If the studends slowed on their exit is “heat” escaping, then there is a resultant higher temperature than otherwise. I can live with that! It might onlly be 0.6 C but it woulld be welcome in northern climates.
Thugs – 1
Scientific method – 0
Mooloo, you cannot say “we don’t know why he resigned”. We have his resignation letter, which is contradictory and nonsensical. It does lead to speculation about backroom shennigans, of which we have been informed by the Climategate e-mails.
Davidmhoffer, I think you have it just about spot on. I was thinking along the same lines but couldnt work out what Wagner’s vulnerability was. Good digging.
I suggest everybody should download the S&B paper to show solidarity with RS.
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.”
You’re a bigot and that speaks to YOUR credibility.
I have been a skeptic for about 10 years. I always gave due credit to the people I most distust because that’s what being skeptical is to me. Disbelieving, but always trying to disprove my own beliefs and trying to understand where somebody else derives their views. It’s a correlation with freedom of speech where you don’t just believe you have the right to believe what you want, you believe everybody else has the right to theirs. However, I wasn’t against the IPCC, UEA, NASA et. al because of the science, it was always the sensationalized media reports which drove me mad. And, because I didn’t see what I felt was warranted reprisal by the climatologists against misleading reports, I felt they must be complicit, at least passively. It was because of these reasons that when reading how the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing quit, I at first was dutifully regarding his leaving as suspicious. His letter, in it’s entirety, is quite appropriate to my mind and was perfectly acceptable for his reasons to be seen as an act of decency given what he believes. I always gave Anthony credit where it was due, as an honest man doing what he believes, even when he was wrong, as we all are when trying to be progressive. I gave all the guest authors their due respect as people who wanted to enlighten the world, even when posts were zany. So, as is sometimes the case, I went to real climate to read their summary of this debacle. The summary by the moderators and the interaction especially between RW, Simon Abington and Gavin clarified for me, some major flaws I always felt existed in CAGW theory. I don’t have time to work out all the details so I know at some point I have to trust someone is not lying to me — otherwise I’ll be searching forever for my shadow. I need to read and understand the Spencer & Braswell because from what I’m reading, I have severe misapprehension that being skeptical is not right anymore.
Dave Springer says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:21 am
“The argument from ignorance is “if it isn’t CO2 forcing we don’t know what else it could be [ergo CO2]“. Any mention in scientific circles of what else it could be is quashed by the bandwagon. It took 15 years for Svensmark’s hypothesis about GCR modulation of cloud cover to get further experment done that would either falsify or lend further support to it. When CLOUD experiment yielded data recenty it lent further support. In the meantime AGW alarmists tell us we don’t have 15 years to wait before taking draconian measures to prevent catastrophe. Isn’t that just precious? I read that as “hurry up and restructure the global economy before it’s discovered that anthropogenic CO2 warming is no danger”.”
Very much agree, with one exception: “global economy” should read “western economy”. These people are so crazed they don’t understand the unintended consequences of their actions. Me, I’m going to use the “precautionary principle” and start my whole family learning Mandarin :).
Best,
J.
David Falkner says:
September 3, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“I would be hard pressed to find a less coherent point in this thread.”
Consider this one you penned.
” 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.”
That would be voter fraud and is the only way the current president can possibly get reelected. The clown is the one in whitehouse today.
“I am not praising Obama,”
Yeah, that’s pretty tough to do. I understand why not.
“I am saying that Rick Perry is a clown.”
If Texas was a country it would have the 11th largest economy in the world. Rick Perry is longest serving governor in the state’s history. Texas has prospered the entire time he was governor and of larger states in these United States has weathered the recession far greater adding 1 million jobs while the country as a whole lost 2 million.
When dimbulbs like you figure out belief in God doesn’t imply stupidity, lack of common sense, sloth, or any number of other derogatory labels the so-called culture war will end and we can focus on getting other kinds of moronic bigotry beaten down in the dirt where they belong.
Wagner writes: “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”
God forbid that cliimate scientists should have sceptical “notions.” Why it’s unscientific!
Talk about unintentional irony.
The three scientists selected to review the paper apparently didn’t hear about the all-prevailing consensus.
220mph says:
September 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm
“Folks need to take a little more times sometimes to understand what they comment on – a case in point those who took offense at Spencer’s comments about ‘an engineer’ … had those folks actually read the article Spencer’s is referencing they would have found out exactly WHO (no, he wasn’t disparaging engineers on the whole) that engineer was:”
It sure looked like Spencer was implying that engineers aren’t qualified to critque analysis of datasets to identify and characterized feedbacks. That’s actually a large part of what many engineers do for a living. Mechanical engineers are no exception.
“John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St Thomas’s school of engineering in Minnesota who criticised the Spencer paper upon its publication”
Spencer could have, but didn’t, focus on Abraham’s experience and track record, but instead did a slothful and unbecoming thing by denigrating engineers in general. Obviously Spencer doesn’t have a clue about what engineers actually do in their jobs else he would have known that analysis of datasets to tease out what’s actually happening the real world with complex systems of all sorts is a large part of what they do and unlike unaccountable academics like Spencer they suffer more than embarassment when they get something wrong. Engineers aren’t in the business of publishing abstract papers where there’s no financial or physical harm done if they get it wrong.
“Look up Abraham – who he is and what he stands for”
That’s what Spencer should have done before commenting on it.
Richard: “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.”
Hi Richard,
I don’t agree with your assertion that there are serious doubts about evolution, about climate science, and the claims of a global conspiracy to keep Roy from publishing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The editor’s resignation letter provides explicit detail about why he resigned. There’s nothing in there about being threatened, harrassed, or coerced. If you have strong, substantive and plausible evidence that what the Editor wrote himself isn’t true, feel free to provide it.
As for your doubts about evolution, evolution is one of the most well established scientific facts in the history of science. Climate science, while not reaching the threshold of proof that evolution has, is widely and almost universally accepted by climate scientists worldwide, and is supported my multiple lines of evidence and decades of research. Note, that I am aware that a “scientific fact” is not the same as a “fact” as used in everyday English lexicon. Science is probabalistic, and the scientific method is not intended to proved 100% bullet-proof guarantees.
If you have strong and credible arguments the evolution is in doubt, and that the state of modern climate science is the result of a global hoax by scientists who faked data and duped the public (e.g., climate gate, and similar claims on this thread) , please provide it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unsubstantiated claims, speculation, and guesswork on a blog don’t cut it.
An editor resigning over a paper which has not been refuted or retracted is pretty unique.
Here’s another unique happening in scientific publishing. Again, political pressure on editors and publishers can be pretty strong.
Grant Sewell authored a peer-reviewed paper this year titled “A Second Look at the Second Law” discussing problems with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and evolution. See http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
Darwinists complained and the paper was withdrawn. The paper was not withdrawn because of “any errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors,” but because it was more philosophical than mathematical. This is a pretty odd description for a paper with so many equations in it. In other words, the paper was withdrawn for philosophical reasons. After the withdrawal, the publisher provided an apology and a cash payment to the author. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sincere-and-heartfelt-apologies-to-granville-sewell-from-the-math-journal-that-dumped-his-article-due-to-darwinist-pressure/
Perhaps Remote Sensing should have taken the same approach. Retract the paper, pay Spencer and Braswell each $10,000 and ask them to submit more papers in the future as long as they did not conflict with their philosophical bent.
Science disputes are interesting.
Jose Suro says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:07 am
Dave Springer says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:21 am
“The argument from ignorance is “if it isn’t CO2 forcing we don’t know what else it could be [ergo CO2]“. Any mention in scientific circles of what else it could be is quashed by the bandwagon. It took 15 years for Svensmark’s hypothesis about GCR modulation of cloud cover to get further experment done that would either falsify or lend further support to it. When CLOUD experiment yielded data recenty it lent further support. In the meantime AGW alarmists tell us we don’t have 15 years to wait before taking draconian measures to prevent catastrophe. Isn’t that just precious? I read that as “hurry up and restructure the global economy before it’s discovered that anthropogenic CO2 warming is no danger”.”
Jose: Very much agree, with one exception: “global economy” should read “western economy”.
——————————————
I know exactly the point. Western nations are the designated scapegoats. No argument there but the restructuring is indeed global because western nations aren’t just being asked to moderate use of fossil fuel they’re also being asked to provide financial compensation to any non-western nations who can gin up some kind of damages caused by anthropogenic global climate disruption. You know like every drought, every flood, every extreme weather event, it’s the fault of rich western industrial nations who wouldn’t be rich without fossil fuels. So it’s really all about redistribution of wealth and involves the entire global economy.
Jim Masterson says:
September 4, 2011 at 3:21 am
“Appeal to authority is one of the primary things being discussed on this thread, and you’ve just given us a splendid example.”
Appeal to authority isn’t always a logical fallacy when the authority really is qualified. Particularly when:
1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
The problem as I see it is more that the consensus isn’t nearly as great as imagined. A core group of CAGW warriors define who’s qualified and conspire to block access to the usual journals for any contrarians. There are a large number of people who are qualified to examine individual claims made by climate boffins – from statisticians to physicists to engineers to computer programmers to meteorologists. A great many people analyze datasets and employ computers for analysis, modeling, and simulation as part of their work. Climate boffins imagine they’re the only experts in those areas and they’re actually rather deficient in all of them. I’m left trying to figure out where their expertise really lies – measuring tree rings, drilling ice cores?
It is becoming more and more obvious that Dr. Spencer’s paper is perceived by the AGW/environmentalist faction, as a serious threat to consensus and subsequent hypothesis. It is the only way to explain the organized, all out, send in the reserve, attack.
This supercilious, maximum effort, while giving some comfort to the dogmatic choir, will be seen, by the many on the sidelines, as a blatant overreaction. The viciousness and vile heaped onto a reasonable paper, will cause many, to question the motivation and soundness, of what is obviously a AGW agenda.
The only real possibility of any gains, for the AGW camp is if they can goad Dr. Spencer into saying or doing something unwise. He does seem to be somewhat rattled by the intensity of the attack. Hang in there Roy, don’t let them get your goat and do not respond to provocation. There is not much here requiring defensive action. The onus is entirely on Wolfgang Wagner, to defend and explain his actions. The rest is just the bleating of mindless sheep. They are merely accusing you of what they themselves are guilty of. They are the ones hiding data, manipulating the review process, and exposing their corrupt and ugly nakedness.
May gaia forgive their ugly souls, for they know not what they do! GK
peter stone says:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And he says it twice, just in case anyone missed it the first time.
Here’s an extrordinary claim for peter: A rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
That was the incessantly repeated prediction that began the whole global warming scare. But now there is zero evidence supporting it. So the purveyors of what has morphed into a grant-driven scam must continue to flog that dead horse by keeping tight control of the climate peer review system. In the process, science becomes corrupted, one-sided propaganda, and really weird things happen, like like Wagner’s resignation over… what, exactly?
Any fool can see that this is just an attempt by climate alarmists to keep control of the peer review propaganda machine.
I think the one thing missing from this discussion is that the warmists/alarmists really do believe they are right. In fact, they are so convinced they are right that they don’t even need to read SB11. And, if they do read it, they are simply looking for any problem they can find. And, they will find what they believe are problems. They are so consumed by groupthink/confirmation bias that there is no room for any other possibility.
This is why their actions appear to be no different than a religion. Of course, they believe they understand all the pertinent factors affecting climate. And, if they really did, their actions would be reasonable.
I think davidmhoffer has it right. Wagner is from a University environment that no doubt believes the claim that AGW is settled science. He provided support for “the pagan enemy”. His only way to receive penance was to disavow his error. Now, he can proceed with his life/career.
Naturally, none of this has any bearing on the correctness of SB11. This is all a side show. It’s really unfortunate that climate science has gotten into this ridiculous position. What would be far better would be for Spencer/Dressler/Trenberth/etc. to sit down together and try to understand exactly why they have different views. And then, what actions would lead to a resolution. This would help the science progress. Wouldn’t that be nice!
Smokey:”Any fool can see that this is just an attempt by climate alarmists to keep control of the peer review propaganda machine.”
Hi Smokey,
I don’t put any weight into guesswork, and gut feelings.
Please read the Editor’s resignation letter. In it, he provides very detailed and explicit reasons for why he felt his journal failed to adequately vette a flawed publication. I presume if he felt coerced and harassed into resigning, he would have called out the bullies who allegedly did that, don’t you?.
You may have a “gut feeling” that he was coerced, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please feel to provide substantive evidence and proof that a global conspiracy of scientists coerced the Editor, and also please provide substantive evidence that there is a vast conspiracy by climate scientists to fake data and perpetrate a hoax on the world public regarding climate change. The so-called “climate gate” controversy was investigated by numerous agencies, commissions, panels, and the British parliament. It doesn’t pass the laugh test to speculate that all these panels and commissions are in on a vast, global plot to fake scientific data perpetrate a scientific hoax. And I can hardly take seriously, guesses and unsubstantiated allegation that Roy Spencer is the victim of a devious, wide-spread plot to keep him from publishing. I think Roy should probably do better science, I think he should make his publications more robust and convincing, and he should probably try to get published in reputable scientific journals that actually specialize in climate. Submitting his paper to an obscure, online open access journal that primarily deals with geography is going to raise eyebrows, no matter who the scientist is. Fair, or not, it certainly can raise doubts among reasonable people that Roy was trying to get his publication into the peer reviewed literature by taking and unorthodox and strange approach.