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.
“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.”
Somebody put the fear of Gaia in old Wolfgang. Imagine that: three reviewers missed the fact that the paper “ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.” I guess those three reviewers must be first year graduate students, right? But Wolfgang elaborates on the point in his letter as follows:
“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.”
Now, this is a truly novel step in the history of science and the history of peer review. Data that contradicts some model cannot be accepted for publication in an article whose authors are not modelers because only modelers understand the “complex aspects” involved in “modeling processes.” In plain English, what this means is that data that contradicts model results must be pre-approved by approved modelers before it can be submitted for publication.
So, in the case of this one journal, it is clear as a bell that modelers have succeeded in suppressing all criticism of their work that is based on data. You must think about this for a while and let it sink in. It is a clear, robust, and successful example of some scientists acting to suppress criticism of their work. If you had any doubt that publication in climate science has been corrupted by power, then you have clear evidence to remove that doubt.
Of course, Wolfgang’s description of position taken by modelers undermines their argument for rejecting Spencer’s work. The burden lies on the modelers to state for all to see the “complex aspects” that data folk cannot understand and to explicate them in the context of scientific method. The number one sin of modelers is that they refuse to explicate their work in the context of scientific method and insist on treating each of their models as the product of a unique and new genius who cannot be understood by the unwashed Phds, but who must be treated as absolute authority. (My guess is that Wolfgang shares this view of the matter; otherwise, the points would not be so clear in his resignation letter.)
A quote from Wolfgang Wagner’s Remote Sensing editorial explaining why he is resigning as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.
“Only through this [the use of satellite data to check the functionality of all sorts of geophysical models] close cooperation the complex aspects involved in the satellite retrievals and the modeling processes can be properly taken into account.”
Color me confused. I thought the “science was settled”, which implies that climate models are close to perfect if not perfect even when they disagree amongst themselves. Isn’t it redundant to “cooperate” with perfection? What other choices are there–criticize, disdain, ignore, mock?
You just watch the new EIC, Franny Armstrong, get the paper retracted so that the AR5 team can pretend it never existed.
Unbelievable. Still, it’s a massive own-goal. If EVER anybody wanted proof of the central pillar of Climategate, that the peer-review process has been completely subverted by the Team and their acolytes, here it is in fluorescent 20-foot-high lettering.
This is the funniest damned thing I’ve seen in a while. Buhhhbye Wolfy. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
He’s resigning because 3 well qualified scientists agreed with 2 well qualified scientists and that one paper contradicts another paper……..
Here’s some things we’ve learned…….
Consensus? Well, there appears to be one…… reviewers of Remote Sensing are in agreement.
The peer-review process is flawed…….. ahahahhahhaha!!! No doubt.
We need to make sure not all reviewers are of the same mind set …… ROTFLOL Wolfy, baby, I couldn’t agree more.
News media sensationalizing science papers? Oh my, well we mustn’t have that! It just won’t do!
I just hate it when stuff like this happens! It’s a miscarriage of science!!! ROTFLOLPMP!!!!
Maybe we should just let the travesty be the editor-in-chief or permanent reviewer. Wolfy seems to think he’s the arbiter of science.
It seems we’ve finally got the shoes on the proper feet.
Bernard J. says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:08 am
“Here’s an idea – Spencer & Braswell 2011 was and remains crap, and Wagner is calling it.”
Totally irrelevant. After a lifetime of peer review, I can assure you that 80% of what is published is crap.
Warmista should have responded to Spencer by explicating (look up the word) their objections to the data and doing the explication in the context of scientific method. Warmista adamantly refuse to discuss scientific method and they always appeal to their own authority to override scientific method. That is what happened here. In the future, data must be approved by the modelers criticized. Can you read it a different way?
davidmhoffer: right on the button. I agree with your analysis. I see this as a more carefully worded resignation than some are seeing. The contradictions are deliberate. He is saying that he did his job, the respected peer reviewers did theirs, but that he is being forced to deny this fact by agencies or persons beyond his control. His response is to resign rather than retract what he sees as a perfectly justifiable publication of Spencers Observations.
The nett result will be another 56,000 people downloading the paper to see what the fuss is about . Team fail.
I doubt, John W, that the Editor is sacrificing anything at all. It will be interesting to watch his career path from here. I expect he will go from strength to strength.
Anyone who has dealt with electronic systems or systems engineering in general will immediately recognize the main themes in Spencer and Braswell. Of course, unlike the somewhat discoverable parasitic terms and unintentional feedbacks that can wreak havoc in an electronic system, here such terms are still a bit mysterious and not all of them are known or easily knowable.
Gapping hole in the good ship global warming, who would have thought ?
“The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one “major revision”, one “minor revision” and one
“accept as is”. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process.”
Sounds good so far, but then…
“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.”
If you go on to read his response the former editor-in-chief is really upset about the response to the paper and not to the paper itself. “which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media”. Unless he is silly enough to believe the Spencer and Braswell paper was the only one ever published in Remote Sensing that had some problems.
Unlike the like-minded ‘warmists’ that have much exaggerated their claims in public statements? But, correctly stated, neither side should be pushing exaggerated claims – but, similar to politics, even if the claim is exaggerated, it appears that only one side gets called on it.
So, it’s a bad thing that people would want to download and read the paper and make their own inferences and conclusions based on that paper… versus, what? Blindly taking the word of someone?
I don’t beleive you need to refute all of them – especially when only one will suffce. Performing a million experiments with the same result will never prove it right. It might lead everyone to the conclusion that it is right, but it only takes one example to prove it wrong.
I’ll answer with another quote from a different source (http://tinyurl.com/3fztvor):
{Hoping my quoting and formatting worked correctly.}
omnologos says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:16 am
“Future public statements are nowadays part of the editorial process in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Who would have guessed.”
Yes, this is disgusting. However, my take is that Wolfgang put that material in the letter to embarrass the Warmista and to let the world know just how badly he had been beaten.
AndyW says:
September 2, 2011 at 9:55 am
You knew where you stood 500 years ago with science and the catholic church .. no longer it seems
Andy
____________________________
Andy,
Please clarify your statement.
Thanks
Chris
The problem is the science is now falling from “human-caused” to “man-made”. There’s a huge (and essentially criminal) difference.
It very curious that Wagner did not fully recant the S&B heresy by retracting the paper as well as resigning. Perhaps his editorial board refused to retract and that is why he resigned.
Whatever the reason for not retracting, the letter is very telling regarding the pressure that the team can exert on editors.
If Mr. Wagner’s career can be preserved by the flawed act of accepting peer reviewers who have the consensus view only then it is fitting and good that his career is now ended. A person who is not a skeptic is also not a scientist. This process needs to be repeated at other publishing organizations.
(Posted this over at JCurry’s blog)
Why should it matter to scientists if the media overhype results in the creation of metascience?
Only if those scientists are also involved in the creation of metascience, apparently.
Personally, if the average person can detect hype (aka BS), and so can detect metascience ( aka BS), what have Proper Scientists to fear?
Ergo; Wagner is no friend of proper science. And I suspect that this realisation is the cause of his resignation.
Check his back for hand-prints…
Look at the whole leftosphere in any activity. The end justifies the means. There is little room for science, policy, law, economics if it does not further the end. The heretics are attacked via PR, via attorney’s, via falsehood, via slander etc. It’s a battle of illusions versus common sense. The leftosphere can not stomach having their illusions shattered by science etc.
It looks like Science journals and blogs need to make a pledge that they will adhere to the scientific method. And get a a sticker for it. As much as I hate pledginess.
To quit over one paper? He obviously isn’t getting his own way anymore.
Respect for climate science just dropped another notch. Let’s hope this gets as much press coverage as the original paper and becomes a vehicle to further push for defunding of the IPCC here in the USA.
Maybe Wagner saw himself as some sort of Pope Urban VIII to Galileo? Pretending to be fair and neutral but utimately answering to a higher authority, in this case the IPCC, not science.
The Climategate emails explain exactly what has happened here and it is the same approach as with the Von Storch, Climate Change journal editorial board resignation and the Soon and Baliunas paper.
I’ve read comments recently that the Team was going take another approach with respect to Spencer’s paper rather than just bang out another dismissal/contradictory paper. Well, here it is except it is an old “____”, “_____” tactic. (the blanks are not gentlemanly terms).
I think you missed the real reason the editor resigned Anthony. He states his point clearly: “trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.” He continues: ” Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.”
This makes sense to me.
REPLY: I think you missed who the author of the post was – Anthony
Good Wolfgang resigned with the wrong reason. He is not the right guy in that position. If that is all, a good day for those who oppose dogmas. One team player less as gatekeeper. The wording of the resignation letter indicates that he was wrong all the time – there is no such thing as a forcing obligation to consult with climate modelers before, if the peer review was done properly. This resignation, if done on the course of “poor peer review” was overdue a long time – but this was his camp. How strange is all that.