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.
Buh-bye, Wolfgang Wagner. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
Wagner says: “I was right until I was told I was wrong”.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
One word: Lysenkoism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Number one. The reason he says he quit is not the real reason.
Religion. In Islam they have honor killings. The honor of the male has been violated.
This pal has had his religion violated. He doesn’t have the tools to cope with it. His pretend outrage is a little too dramatic. The real reason could have been industry or board member pressure and he does this story to save face.
I suspect that the journal (one that is just getting started) received many subscription cancellations and cancellation-threats from college libraries and warmists, and the editor resigned to head them off and keep his publication afloat.
Apparently according to Richard Black of the BBC, white males from the Bible Belt should not be allowed to publish in scientific journals, especially if they attack other faith based belief systems such as CAGW.
As he notes about Dr Spencer “an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical Christian organisation that claims policies to curb climate change “would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs” and “could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life”.”
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” –Phil Jones, in an email.
The editor was quite right to say that the review process failed. As far as climatology is concerned, peer reviewed literature = papers supporting CAGW.
Disko Troop says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:11 am
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.
This is the most likely analysis of this letter. The contradictions, the teeth gritting criticisms and the visible pain in the words says it all. Been there, done it, got the tee shirt.
I think he was told to go with the promise of a career to follow OR stay with no prospects. The hope of the inquisition was that his resignation would ACT like a retraction even though no retraction has been made.
If the paper (and process) was as flawed as the Editor claims he should have been (and would have been justified), retracted the paper. That was not done. This is nothing more but a weak and transparent attempt to denigrate and demean an admittedly properly peer reviewed paper – primarily because it was favorably received
Jay says: September 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm
[..when the material was only marginally related to the area where the journal and review panel had expertise]
Were the sensors working correctly?
Were the sensors sensing what they were designed to sense?
Was the data collected correctly?
Was the data collected presented as observed data?
Were the sensors local or remote?
Remote sensing is actually the basis for the observed data in paper.
[…not really peer review at all.]
Does publishing available observed actual physical data always require that climate scientologist do the peer review?
P.S. CLOUD
I read this entirely differently: “extremist warmist editor can’t stand not getting his own way so throws a tantrum issues resignation note expecting a massive cry of horror and demands such an important man should come back”.
I THINK NOT!
This is known as taking one for the team.
he is trying to pull a von storch.
hans has way more class than this buffoon
Peter Gleick in Forbes:
2 Sept: Forbes: Peter Gleick: Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is “Fundamentally Flawed,” Editor Resigns, Apologizes
There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny…
The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/
Well said Joe!
eppur si muove …
“If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Wolfgang Wagner appears to have fallen on his sword because he couldn’t stand the disapproval of many in the “climate community” rather than as an act of contrition for “mishandling” the peer review process. If peppering a peer review panel with known opponents of the author’s fundamental scientific direction were a routine requirement, a high percentage of published pro-AGW papers would never have seen the light of day.
There is a saying: “all publicity is good publicity” and “let sleeping dogs lie”.
So, this is the most bizarre turn of events. I for one had almost forgotten about the paper … indeed I’ve just realised that I left it off my growing list of evidence against the GW scam.
It sounds like the editor took a bullet for you. I can think of no other explanation why he would resign over a paper but not retract it. I could see him retracting the paper and then resigning over the hoopla. I could see a very honorable man retracting the paper and then resigning immediately (This sort of thing is sometimes done by military men who put the lives of their people in jeoapardy).
However, the only way I can see this occurring is that someone of power said “the paper goes or you go” and Wagner stuck by his principles. Moreso, he resigned in a very open and public way clearly stating that it was over this paper while giving blatantly nonsensical reasons as to why it was unacceptable. It seems slightly reminiscent of Mark Antony’s speech in Julius Casear where he does not praise Caesar or blame Brutus
I quote
“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””
That isn’t a resignation in shame sort of letter.
HankH says:
September 2, 2011 at 11:43 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Not surprising since Akhenaten was a real heretic challenging the world order; the first recorded person in history to believe in one god rather than the multitude favoured by most (to explain the workings of the world).
One should always be very comcerned and on ones guard when one sees revisiomists re writing history; remind anyone of the disappearing MWP.
Paul says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:19 am
“Makes you despair! Let’s face it, we’re fighting a losing battle.”
Ah but we have mother Nature on our side.
“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”
Yep, you sure don’t want them reviewing for your Journal. No wonder he resigned.
/sarcasm.
Wagner: “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.”
This is unbelievable! Why should remote sensing scientists or any scientist presenting a paper on interpretation of hard data have to cooperate with modelers to determine why and where models deviate from the data? Surely it is up to modelers to deal with deviation from data. This whole science has become a playschool complete with bullies – I hope it doesn’t go too far beyond climate science. I predict as the synod unravels, there will be mass resignations from most scientific journals.
“…the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors…”
All I had to see was the word “notions” used to denigrate AGW skepticism, to understand where Dr. Wagner’s loyalties are.
When all is said and done, it is the perversion of the peer review process that will be the undoing of the entire field of “climate science”.
It has been a sad day for Science for the past decade and a half, ever since James Hansen started claiming what he was doing was Science.
Come on guys, wake up. All scientific journals are owned by the same people who own all TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Wagner was just fired by his bosses, after first accepting the paper for good scientific reasons. The excuse he now offers is just a whitewash for his bosses who drive AGW everywhere.
Could all the journals’ biases in peer review originate from the wishes of their bosses? Think about it. The circle is closed.
At times I think the existence if Richard Black blog is a useful didactic for the entire AGW hypothesis. He is a single issue lobbyist with no pretension to impartiality, his platform is on a state run broadcaster, the BBC. This state run broadcaster is controlled by government appointment. This state run broadcaster boasts its own impartiality while following a distinctly biased agenda. Indeed you could add that this state run broadcaster is shaping public opinion at the state’s behest. People feel assured by the impartiality of the state run broadcaster therefore do not question AGW. The people who rely on the state run broadcaster are denied any information which contradicts AGW. And the Richard Black blog, in his lobbyist platform, smears any anti-AGW position, but when doing so it will be the first time the people will have encountered that view, thereby reinforcing the the BBC, ahem, the State’s view. Just imagine Winston Smith denying all his thoughts in a new tool called the BBC blog…
If people want to understand climate science they should not bother reading any science but should read George Orwell’s 1984, cause it is happening before our eyes.
It occurred to me that if people want to understand wind farms they should just see it as a transfer of wealth. Because that is all they are!!!