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.
To Rational Debate:
It’s Texas Agriculture and Mining University.
[Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University. 8<) Robt]
davidmhoffer says:
September 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm
and
davidmhoffer says:
September 5, 2011 at 11:56 am
———
Brillliant! This is why readers have to keep following threads at WUWT – bloggers like you provide insight, information and analysis that is just stupendous (and entertaining to boot). I just hope this ‘own goal’ and Trenberth’s ‘self-immolation’ get recognized for what they really mean by the wider scientific community. But if other commentators here are correct, scientists will stay silent rather than be singled out for such nasty attention as is specialized in by Trenberth et al.
Mac the Knife says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
————————————-
If S&B want all the chips on the table, the only way to determine Trenberth’s role definitively is through the discovery process in a libel suit.
Otherwise this is all just ammunition for more back and forth suppositions in the “internet fora”.
reply to: Chris R. says: September 5, 2011 at 7:20 pm
To Chris R.
Best double check your assumptions, Chris. Lemme help: http://www.tamu.edu/about/facts/faq.html
Although A&M has long been known as having one of – if not the – top petroleum engineering curriculums, but that’s not quite mining. 😉
(hint, Robt & I are correct)
It is interesting that some editors still publish controversial articles. Apparently possibility of shame and resignation is not enough to prevent them.
Perhaps scientific community should reestablish punishments that had better tracking records through the history. In particular, certain punishment involving an oxidation process seems to be most appropriate for climate skeptics, deniers and their supporters. With that punishment and with the funding sources traced down and redirected back to the mainstream science this skepticism nonsense can finally be eradicated.
It transpires, according to a post at Autonomous Mind, that Mr Wagner and Dr Trenberth were friends. Was the resignation a matter of preserving that, or a kowtow?
For those who have claimed that Remote Sensing is somehow an obscure non-climate related publication … here is the recap on the SPECIAL ISSUE that S&B was published in – whcih shows it to be directly on topic …
his special issue is dedicated to compile articles on:
-climate monitoring and analysis based on satellite derived essential climate variables.
-methods for the retrieval of Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) in climate quality.
-methods for the calibration and inter-calibration of satellite radiances.
-improvements of methods for the assimilation of satellite data within reanalysis.
-methods for data fusion of satellite based variables with reanalysis data and/or in-situ -measurements
-climate applications dealing with satellite based climate variables
Rational Debate says:
September 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“Is this a new version of “my Daddy’s bigger than your Daddy?” I mean, come on – I’m all for tearing up Dessler’s science standing or work if it deserves tearing up, but an ad hom by way of TAMU that isn’t even correct? It’s Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University.”
Yes, it is essentially my daddy’s bigger than your daddy. If you have two doctors giving you an opinion about cancer treatment would you be more inclined to trust a top rated doctor at Sloan-Kettering or one of no particular repute that works a local hospital in your home?
The general public isn’t able to assess either Dressler’s or Lindzen’s work by the merits alone as that generally takes at least more than being a novice in the field just as the general cancer patient can’t blindly assess the diagnosis and recommendation from two different doctors. So we rely on the reputations of the doctor and the institutions they work for instead.
Thanks for the correction on TAMU where the M is mechanical not mining. Not sure why I thought it was mining but I won’t make the mistake again. The difference isn’t relevant in any case. Atmospheric physics is equally far removed from mining as it is from mechanical.
” I’ve no idea of their current standing, but there’ve been many years where A&M was in the top few universities nationally for engineering, science, business, etc.”
Nowhere near the reputation of MIT, my friend.
“Most Texans are quite proud of TAMU, and no one likes a good Aggie joke better than Aggie’s themselves. One of the most well known Aggie jokes anywhere is “Q: What do you call an Aggie after graduation? A: Boss.” which is invariably followed by a wry chuckle and the response “true!””
Ivy League graduates aren’t likely to be calling an Aggie “boss”. Not for long anyway. In Texas where there is a lot more unskilled labor than other states… a one-eyed man is king where everyone else is blind. Texas A&M doesn’t even compare to UT-Austin as a research institution except perhaps in agriculture which is A&M’s specialty.
I’m encouraged though that you have such high respect for TAMU given Rick Perry is an alumnus. Perry’s family are tenent farmers. Perry got a TAMU degree in agriculture, then served four years as a C-130 pilot in the USAF, then went home to manage the family farm, then eventually became Agricultural Commissioner for Texas, then Lt. Gov., the the longest serving governor in Texas history. Let’s hope that respect for TAMU translates into national recognition but I fear Obama is going to have the talking point as Harvard graduate even if he was an affirmative action baby.
“Meanwhile, I don’t think a “Texas University” even exists.”
TAMU = Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University
Take out the historic academic focus and you’re left with Texas University.
Caveat: MIT isn’t an Ivy League school but in science and engineering it’s arguably the most respected in the world.
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm
“Hey Dave stick a sock in it,”
In your mouth?
“I was just telling Anthony what was at that URL and why he got the message he got.”
And I was just telling you that SSL certificates should renew automatically unless the server is abandoned.
“For your information I expect all kinds of errors in anything done by a group that hasn’t a clue about possible sources of errors outside of normal measurement gotchas (and with some of these clowns I’m not so sure they understand measurement errors).”
Yeah right. As compared to the global circulation models which were written once and never had a line of code changed in them again. ROFLMAO. I repeat: Get a clue, dopey.
Rational Debate says:
September 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I’ve read that Ioannidis article, and it gave me great pause. In an era when scientific research and government and corporate money go hand in hand, I worry about the degree to which these guys have become blinded to reality by their own biases and financial interests. Science and politics have become TOO intermingled. This is certainly the case with The Team. And this is also why the current system has to be “blown up” (metaphorically) and restarted over.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Spencer. I’m cheering for you.
Here’s something I posted on a different S&B thread here:
“Dave Springer says:
September 6, 2011 at 12:55 am
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
September 5, 2011 at 6:33 pm
“Hey Dave stick a sock in it,”
In your mouth?”
No in your mouth.
““I was just telling Anthony what was at that URL and why he got the message he got.”
And I was just telling you that SSL certificates should renew automatically unless the server is abandoned.”
There are thousands of ssl certificates that expire and aren’t timely renewed and it doesn’t mean the server is abandoned.
““For your information I expect all kinds of errors in anything done by a group that hasn’t a clue about possible sources of errors outside of normal measurement gotchas (and with some of these clowns I’m not so sure they understand measurement errors).”
Yeah right. As compared to the global circulation models which were written once and never had a line of code changed in them again. ROFLMAO. I repeat: Get a clue, dopey.”
You need to get a clue Dave, rarely is more than a couple of lines of programming written that doesn’t get changed due to errors in the code let alone errors in the underlying system design.
ALL I WAS DOING WAS TELLING Anthony WHAT WAS CAUSING THE MESSAGE AND WHAT WAS AT THE LOCATION, NOTHING ELSE.
reply to: Larry in Texas says: September 6, 2011 at 1:49 am
Frankly at this point I think the Ioannidis work ought to be required reading for anyone in a science class – and I wish there were also some way to get all working scientists to read it also. It is an awfully disconcerting situation for all of us who truly value the scientific method and what it has allowed us to accomplish in such a short period of time, isn’t it?
I’ve also been very concerned by the advent of ‘post normal science’ (talk about a doublethink Orwellian anti-science concept!). I don’t know how far that concept has actually managed to penetrate teaching, however – but apparently it is/was being taught at Oxford no less. I wish I had a better feeling for just how much that anathema has managed to penetrate science education – and gawd how I hope the answer is “not very much at all.” I can’t help but worry that the actual answer may be ‘far too much’ tho.