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.
Drew says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:45 am
“The fact that we are alive and talking, is not evidence of any sort that god exists, because anything equally preposterous”
Ah, but something even more preposterous is proposed. We are alive and talking because of a random dance of atoms. The library of congress is an accident. Yo momma is an accident.
Oh wait… I’m willing to concede yo is an accident after all… LOL
Bernard J. says:
September 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“Failing that, my question is – who created the creator?”
Good question. I have one for you. Who provided the material for materialism?
220mph says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“Dave – did you look up Abraham? Did you check out who he is and what he stands for? And I don’t mean his criticism of Spencer’s paper?”
No. It wasn’t important. There are a million Abrahams willing to say Spencer’s work is wrong and all them without anything substantive behind the claim. That said, the fact that he’s a dedicated CAGW propagandist ringleader actually does speak to his credilbilty while the fact that he’s a professor of engineering does not. Spencer should have pointed out the former not the latter.
Drew.
A well-structured response to Rational [sic] Debate. One little clarification however – I think that you meant “scrapie” rather than “scabies”.
😉
Andrew Dessler – CAGW alarmist
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas University of Agriculture & Mining
Richard Lindzen – CAGW skeptic
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
TAMU vs. MIT????
No contest.
Dessler is the best “the team” can come up with to dispute Spencer? An Aggie? Aggies are usually the butt of jokes in Texas. To be fair, if you want a degree in animal husbandry there’s not finer university for it but atmospheric physics? ROFLMAO
Peter Stone,
“As for your doubts about evolution, evolution is one of the most well established scientific facts in the history of science.”
It’s a narrative not a fact. A just-so story. Get a clue.
All life is deeply related. That’s a fact.
That the relationship was established by common descent from a univeral common ancestor is not a fact. It’s the best explanation of the facts. But “best” is my opinion. Others are entitled to their own opinions.
Axioms I accept, among others, are law of cause & effect and law of entropy.
I also accept, although not as axiom, the big bang theory & the standard model.
To whit: we can trace back the unfolding of the universe to a point where size & density reach infinity. Infinities are undefined. This is a point where physics can go no farther.
So, from a pure physics perspective, the observable universe was born from an undefined source. By law of entropy the newborn universe contained all the order (I prefer to call it “information” instead or “order”) that is present today. By law of cause and effect the unfolding from then to now happened in predetermined manner. So essentially it’s the clockwork universe that Albert Einstein described.
If you choose to believe the initial order in the universe was just a matter of accident that’s your business. Just don’t ask me to swallow that notion. I’m an engineer and find it patently absurd that such an intricate clockwork universe happened without design. Machines have origins and in every case where the origin can be determined without ambiguity there was an intelligent agency involved in its design and construction. Therefore, the claim that intricate machines can materialize without intelligent agency involved is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see a shred of evidence to support the extraordinary claim that complex machines just happen without purposeful agency.
So while it’s true that we have a sample size of exactly one for unambiguous origin of complex machines (human intelligent agency) it remains that the single sample we have is one of intelligent design. Be sure to let know when you have a sample that supports your claim. In the meantime I must accept the evidence we actually have in hand. Objective people go wherever the evidence leads and in this case, at this point in time, it only leads to intelligent design.
could be a quote of the week in here:
5 Sept: News.com.au: AAP: Climate modelling is improving – experts
AS questions continue to be raised about the science of climate change three experts have explained how modelling helps to predict what temperature rises will do to the planet.
Dave Griggs, from the Monash Sustainability Institute, says one of the best ways to sum up uncertainty over modelling was former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous statement about “known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns”.
“There are things in the climate system, because of the way our climate models show us, that we know could happen … but we’re not yet good enough to say this is going to happen in 20 years from now,” Prof Griggs said on Monday during an online briefing organised by the Australian Science Media Centre.
Climate models were better at predicting some things than others, largely due to the spatial scale involved, he said…
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research’s John Church says virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide…
Prof Griggs agrees. Twenty years on from the first climate models the observations have started to prove predictions correct, he said.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/climate-modelling-is-improving-experts/story-e6frfku0-1226129848473
More Wagnerian fun http://wp.me/p9Tzg-NW
Bernard J. says:
September 5, 2011 at 4:41 am
Drew.
A well-structured response to Rational [sic] Debate. One little clarification however – I think that you meant “scrapie” rather than “scabies”.
😉
—
Yes, I most certainly did. It was a rushed response on my lunch break! I have no time for proof reading. I hope it gave you a laugh though :).. silly mistake
sorepaw says:
September 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Kevin Trenberth has now boasted in public that he got the editor of a scientific journal fired, for allowing the publication of an article whose author displeases Kevin Trenberth.
Do you have a link for this? I would like to cite it in another argument.
Gents, you’re wasting time with the religious stuff. There is no direct scientific evidence for a creator. Assuming a creator by inference solves nothing as it simply begs who or what made the creator. Religion does not belong in science. Privately what one chooses to believe is a deeply personal choice. Please keep religion out of a science blog – it simply does not fit. It has taken man a long time to separate science from religion – please do not go back to the dark ages.
The whole problem with CAGW is its religious nature. People choose to see evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming when science has yet to understand all the other possible causes.
I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog. However, it’s odd that he the Pielke’s fundamentally do completely agree that humans are “significantly” and “predominantly” effecting the climate (their words); that human caused climate change is “real” (their word) even if they have legitimate scientific opinions about the magnitude of CO2 contributions versus other human contributions to changes on climate, and on mitigation measures to reduce the “real” and “significant” (their words) human impact on climate. Kudos to the Pielkes for recognizing that human impacts to climate is “real” and “significant”, and for their contributions to legitimate scientific debate.
-Roger Pielke, Sr :”HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
-Roger Pielke, Sr : “THE EVIDENCE OF A HUMAN FINGERPRINT ON THE GLOBAL AND REGIONAL CLIMATE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/what-is-a-first-order-climate-forcing/#comment-4426
-Roger Pielke, Sr.:“THE EVIDENCE PREDOMINANTLY SUGGESTS THAT HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, AND THUS CLIMATE, in a variety of diverse ways beyond the effects of human emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human climate forcings in altering regional and global climate and their effects on predictability at the regional scale.”
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Energy/030811/Pielke.pdf
-Roger Pielke, Jr. : “HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND REQUIRES ATTENTION BY POLICY MAKERS to both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer.”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/q-with-tom-fuller.html
J. Radefahrt (Ger) says:
September 5, 2011 at 2:54 am
One may call me paranoid, but I fear that this may be the start of a new inquisition where Wagner either offered himself or was constrained to be the pawn sacrifice. I think that there will be less publications that differ from the IPCC “guideline” in the near future, especially from authors that don’t have the adequate reputation yet.
I think it’s going the other way, away from Totalitarian Propaganda as a substutute for real science and for all individually based rational thought, including free thought’s economic/survivalistic benefits. But here in the U.S. we have to vote out the Obama Communists, get our shop back in order, and back Israel to the hilt.
It’s my belief that the Totalitarians and associated Parasites are going to have a hard time making the process of Human Evolution which led to the bona fide miracle of individual free thought go backward.
Btw, in my schema the larger, infinite “Universe” never “began”. It’s always been there, and there isn’t anything “outside” of it. As a corrolary, “nothing” can’t “explode”, although there can certainly be explosions within the Universe. Part of the miracle is that the “Universe” has “created” an entity that wants to – and can – understand the Universe, and in more than a “scientific” way. Once you accept eternal Mystery as in fact a feature of the Universe leading us always toward it via our amazing capacity and continuous desire to wonder, things tend to calm down regarding one’s place and meaning. The entity can’t be seperated from its “Creator”, and you/I would never even want to stop wondering about it, as compared with finally finding “Truth” or “God” – that wouldn’t be any fun. Amen.
Drew says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:45 am
@ur momisugly Rational Debate says:
September 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm
To those who have been attempting to use a belief in a ‘creator’ (call it what you will) as supposedly being evidence of a lack of ability or credibility of Dr. Spencer or others wrt this particular paper, Wagners resignation, or science literacy in general, or who’ve been denigrating such beliefs as ‘unscientific,’ I have to ask if you have considered one really basic key aspect of this issue. I suspect the answer is a resounding ‘NO.’
—
At this point in time, we have no way to test for either the existence or absence of a ‘creator’.
I agree – this is something I’ve stressed in similar discussions many times.
Sometime in the future, we may know all that we can know about our universe. Assuming we then “know it all”, the existence or non-existence of a “creator” will only then be a certainty.
Unless, of course, the “creator” manifests itself in a manner than can not be denied scientifically.
Otherwise, the existence or non-existence of said “creator” can only be a belief held by either perspective. There may be data or information that supports either position, but proof – not at this time.
To assume that anything that someone thinks, says, or does is worthless because they either believe or do not believe in a “creator” is extremely shallow minded, in my opinion.
A follow up from omnologos:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-dismantling-of-prof-dr-wolfgang-wagner/comment-page-1/#comment-9191
The reference I found that backs Maurizio Morabito posting:
http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf
Also davidhoffer in this forum, and Robert Phelan at Bishop Hills.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html?currentPage=3#comments
As I said at “The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE”, its like a hillbilly colony in the “consensus”. Cue the banjos.
Drew says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:45 am
Consider this:
anybody who believes that it is unscientific to not believe in your true self, is not a critical thinker and severely lacks the processing ability to methodically evaluate reality.
1. There is nothing to measure
2. There is no provided principle based on any scientific theory to suspect the existence of ‘your true self’
3. Your true self as a potent, scient being is almost entirely defined as ‘your true self of the gaps’. Believing in your true self just takes up room where science has not adequately uncovered another piece of the puzzle of life.
4. Trying to input that ‘your true self’ has any scientific case, is to not understand that the belief in ‘your true self’ adds nothing more to our elucidation of reality.
Mark me, it tells nothing about your body. That can be measured, analysed, seen, touched, etc. But it can as well be an empty bag with no one living inside, no awareness, no consciousness, no true responsibility, nothing. Those qualities can’t even be defined, much less verified using the scientific method.
As far as science is concerned, the actions of your body can emulate those of a sentient being as closely as possible, it proves nothing. You can’t even show us a single example of such a being the behavior of your body could be compared against in the first place.
Of course we still believe firmly in the existence of persons (as opposed to mere undead human bodies), but that’s because we have the chance to get acquainted with them, which process is utterly alien to science. The proper attitude during such an event is inconsistent with a scientific stance. Just give it a try with a girl (or guy) and you’ll see what I mean (but be prepared to get some unwelcome treat in return).
Believe it or not, it does hurt the feelings of a girl being treated as an object of your studies, not to mention controlled experiments. If you are not extremely cautious, you could even slip into a criminal case.
Personal relationships are always constitute an entangled mess of the subject–object problem and any effort to set it straight just destroys the acquaintance. For in such a relationship it is always the case that not only you acquire knowledge about the other one, but you yourself also get known, often in depths unexplored for yourself so far.
The important thing for you to comprehend is that people who believe in God have this kind of personal relationship with him. They do not study God, they live in an acquaintance.
I would like to add to the Newton debate, that he was also an astrologist lol. So according to the Atheists out there, he should be ridiculed.
The list of committed Christian Scientists is massive. We could start with Darwin himself (though I think it probable his belief cooled).
Oh and lots were Pagans … Archimedes etc.
I’m sure we could find some out there today who believe in the Great Bison Spirit.
The smear is clear and it is here. Peter Stone ( and his pal Drew and others) are making some concerted efforts to distract from the real discussion. I believe Kent Brockman calls it ” avoision”. 8^D
>>>But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally
>>>selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic
>>>notions of the authors.”
And what do these reviewers have to say about this. Do they get a voice too??
.
peter stone says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:38 am
I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog.
…
You might also like this:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmsopheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
(From http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php )
peter stone says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:38 am
I’m encouraged to the Roger Pielkes Sr. and Jr. are evidently widely admired on this blog. However, it’s odd that he the Pielke’s fundamentally do completely agree that humans are “significantly” and “predominantly” effecting the climate (their words); that human caused climate change is “real” (their word) even if they have legitimate scientific opinions about the magnitude of CO2 contributions versus other human contributions to changes on climate, and on mitigation measures to reduce the “real” and “significant” (their words) human impact on climate. Kudos to the Pielkes for recognizing that human impacts to climate is “real” and “significant”, and for their contributions to legitimate scientific debate.
=============================================
I don’t know what point you are trying to make. You then go on to quote Pielke thus: “HUMANS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide.”
That is precisely the point – beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. As you also quote “The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
This is spot on, and crucial to the point many AGW sceptics are trying to make. It follows that if the IPCC have been too conservative in recognising these other forcings, then they have equally been too liberal with their assessment of carbon dioxide. Their projected and modeled climate sensitivity is skewed towards carbon dioxide because of this bias. By increasing Pielke’s other forcings, they would have to reduce the sensitivity of carbon dioxide in order to match observations. Therefore the carbon dioxide sensitivity must turn out to be less than the IPCC are alleging.
Thank you for confirming the sceptics position.
>>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.”
Oh, sometimes guilt by association can be quite fun. Hitler was, of course, a vegiterian, just like many Greens……. 😉
.
Moderator: (Anthony?):
I would like to suggest that a new post be created, based on the postings of davidhoffer, Robert Phelan and Maurizo.
All of the above “citizen scientists, when the different pieces are put together, show the motivation for Wagner’s resignation, and also his interconnection to the Team, and especially to Trenberth.
Shine some some more light on this inbred bunch……
peter stone says: September 5, 2011 at 6:38 am
If you take all the global warming and attribute it to anthropogenic causes, and compare the change to what has occurred in the past, there is nothing to separate the current warming from past warming, nor from the magnitude of natural processes. That is what it all comes down to, magnitude of effect. I see the sum of anthropological effects as smaller than natural variation. It appears the CAGW camp believes there are orders of magnitude of difference, but there is no data to support such conjecture.
Friends:
This thread is getting silly.
The subject of this thread is
‘Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper’
It is NOT the existence or non-existence of God
It is NOT the evolution of energy, matter, the elements, molecules, and/or living things,
It is NOT whether or not Pielke jnr and/or snr thinks climate change is caused in part or in whole by humans.
It is ‘Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigns over Spencer & Braswell paper’
It seems that supporters of the AGW hypothesis want to promote the falsehoods clearly stated by peter stone at September 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm where he wrote;
“Mr. Spencer,
Your paper was deemed flawed and not worthy of publication by the editor of Remote Sensing.
He felt “Remote Sensing”‘s error was so egregious in accepting your paper for publication, that he should take the unusual step of resigning.”
Those falsehoods are clearly refuted by the Editor of Remote Sensing in his letter of resignation.
Following it having been shown in this thread that the falsehoods are untrue spin, it seems that supporters of the AGW hypothesis want to stop discussion of their falsehoods by talking about anything else.
Please, people, ignore all the dangled ‘red herrings’. Keep to discussion of the topic because the number of ‘red herrings’ demonstrates that supporters of the AGW hypothesis are running scared of the topic.
Richard