NOTE: This will be a “sticky” top post for awhile, new posts appear below this one. UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a new cartoon.
I was hoping to have a quiet holiday weekend away from WUWT doing some household chores. Apparently that isn’t in the cards.
Below, I have reposted an essay from Dr. Roger Pielke Senior regarding an opinion piece published in The Daily Climate attacking Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer for their ongoing work in satellite based measurement of the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Pielke does an excellent job of summarizing his rebuttal points, and I’ll point out that he’s used some very strong unconventional language in the title of his piece.
One point Dr. Pielke touches on related to an orbital decay correction applied to the UAH satellite measurement comes from his first hand experience, and I urge readers to read it fully to get the history. One line from the op-ed in The Daily Climate bothered me in particular:
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.
This my friends, is breathtaking for its sheer arrogance, agenda, and the scuttling of the scientific process in one sentence.
The entire process of science is about building on early incomplete knowledge with new knowledge, and discarding old knowledge in favor of new evidence that is better understood and supported by observational evidence. All scientists make mistakes, it is part of the learning process of science. Any scientist who believes he/she hasn’t made mistakes, has never made a correction, or hasn’t built upon the mistakes of others to improve the science is deluding themselves.
And that crack about “…mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.” is ludicrous. By the very nature of the scientific process, scientists work to uncover flaws in the work of others, and when mistakes and irrelevancies are burned away by this process, what is left in the crucible of scientific inquiry is regarded as the pure product.
I could say the same thing about GISS related to Hansen and Gavin’s Y2K temperature problem which required a correction, also something other scientists were “forced to uncover”.
Even Einstein made mistakes, from Physics Today in 2005 Einstein’s Mistakes by Steven Weinberg:
In thinking of Einstein’s mistakes, one immediately recalls what Einstein (in a conversation with George Gamow2) called the biggest blunder he had made in his life: the introduction of the cosmological constant. After Einstein had completed the formulation of his theory of space, time, and gravitation—the general theory of relativity—he turned in 1917 to a consideration of the spacetime structure of the whole universe. He then encountered a problem. Einstein was assuming that, when suitably averaged over many stars, the universe is uniform and essentially static, but the equations of general relativity did not seem to allow a time-independent solution for a universe with a uniform distribution of matter. So Einstein modified his equations, by including a new term involving a quantity that he called the cosmological constant. Then it was discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding. Einstein came to regret that he had needlessly mutilated his original theory. It may also have bothered him that he had missed predicting the expansion of the universe.
For those reading who are prone to eye rolling, I would never presume to compare anyone in climate science to Einstein, but there’s an important and germane science history lesson here worth noting that parallels what has happened with the Spencer and Braswell paper challenging climate models and climate sensitivity.
Consider Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe based on observational evidence. Einstein created a mathematical model of the universe, and as Wikipedia reports: Earlier, in 1917, Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a “fudge factor“) to the equations to avoid this “problem”.
Einstein didn’t launch a tirade in the press. Instead, Einstein was humble enough to consider that he’d made a mistake and modified his mathematical model to fit the new observation. He later came to regret the cosmological constant, but it demonstrates his ability to assimilate new observational evidence.
Like Spencer and Braswell, Einstein too got his share of public drubbing for his work. Hitler commissioned a group of 100 top scientists in Germany write a book called “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” (Hundred authors against Einstein).
Einstein was asked: `Doesn’t it bother you Dr Einstein that you’ve got so many scientists against you?’
And he said: `It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact’. Source
And that is the way of science. Opinions don’t matter, certificates, awards, and accolades don’t matter. Only the provable evidence matters. In the case of Spencer and Braswell, they too bring observational evidence to bear that may require adjustments to mathematical models. The difference here has been that rather than take the path of reconsideration, and arguing using the science following the peer review process, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth ignore that process and resort to a diatribe of ad hominem attacks, which in my opinion with that one sentence referencing to “…serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.”, crosses the threshold from argument to libel.
Apparently, it is impossible for them to consider observational evidence supporting a lower climate sensitivity, and thus they’ve scuttled the scientific process of correcting and building on new knowledge in favor of a tabloid style attack.
Clearly, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth share none of the humble virtue demonstrated by Einstein.
Here’s Dr. Pielke’s essay:
Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick
There is an opinion article at Daily Climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of Roy Spencer and John Christy. It also is an inappropriate (and unwarranted) person attack on their professional integrity. Since I have first hand information on this issue, I am using my weblog to document the lack of professional decorum by Keven Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick.
The inappropriate article I am referring to is
Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science
published on the Daily Climate on September 2 2011. The article is by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick.
Their headline reads
In his bid to cast doubts on the seriousness of climate change, University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer creates a media splash but claims a journal’s editor-in-chief.
The science doesn’t hold up.
I am reproducing the text of the article below with my comments inserted.
The text of their article starts with [highlights added]
The widely publicized paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, published in the journal Remote Sensing in July, has seen a number of follow-ups and repercussions.
Unfortunately this is not the first time the science conducted by Roy Spencer and colleagues has been found lacking. The latest came Friday in a remarkable development, when the journal’s editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, submitted his resignation and apologized for the paper.
As we noted on RealClimate.org when the paper was published, the hype surrounding Spencer’s and Braswell’s paper was impressive; unfortunately the paper itself was not. Remote Sensing is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should have received an honest vetting.
My Comment:
The claim that a journal on remote sensing, which publishes paper on the climate system “but…does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science”, is not climate science is obviously incorrect. This trivialization of the journal in this manner illustrates the inappropriately narrow view of the climate system by the authors. That the paper “should have received an honest vetting”, I assume means that they or their close colleagues should have reviewed it (and presumably recommended rejection).
The Trenberth et al text continues
Friday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.
My Comment:
My son has posted on this (see). I agree; for Kevin Trenberth to receive an apology is quite bizarre.
Their text continues
Unfortunately this is not the first time the science conducted by Roy Spencer and colleagues has been found lacking.
Spencer, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist, and his colleagues have a history of making serious technical errors in their effort to cast doubt on the seriousness of climate change. Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming.
My Comment:
This statement of the history is a fabrication and is an ad hominem attack. The errors in their analysis were all minor and were identified as soon as found. Such corrections are a normal part of the scientific process as exemplified recently in the finding of a substantial error in the ERA-40 reanalysis;
Screen, James A., Ian Simmonds, 2011: Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look. J. Climate, 24, 2620–2627. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI4054.1.
My direct experience with the UAH-MSU data analysis has been over more than a decade. I will share two examples here of the rigor with which they assess and correct, when needed, their analyses.
First, at one of the CCSP 1.1 committee meetings that I attended [for the report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences (in Chicago)], an error was brought to the attention of Roy Spencer and John Christy by the lead investigators of the RSS MSU project (Mears and Wentz).
The venue at which this error was brought up (in our committee meeting) was a clear attempt to discredit John and Roy’s research as we sat around the table. Roy found a fix within a few minutes, and concluded it was minor. This fix was implemented when he returned to Alabama.
When I saw how this “exposure” of an error was presented (in front of all of us, instead of in private via e-mail or phone call), I became convinced that a major goal of this committee (under the leadership of Tom Karl) was to discredit them. I told John this at a break right after this occurred. At a later meeting (in December 2008),
I explicitly saw Tom Karl disparage the Christy and Spencer research.
In order to further examine the robustness of the Christy and Spencer analyses, in 2006 I asked Professor Ben Herman, who is an internationally well-respect expert in atmospheric remote sensing, to examine the Christy and Spencer UAH MSU and the Wentz and Mears RSS MSU data analyses. He worked with a student to do this and completed the following study
Randall, R. M., and B. M. Herman (2007), Using Limited Time Period Trends as a Means to Determine Attribution of Discrepancies in Microwave Sounding Unit Derived Tropospheric Temperature Time Series, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008864
which includes the finding that
“Comparison of MSU data with the reduced Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate radiosonde data set indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long-term trend with a warm bias.”
The robustness of the UAH MSU [the Christy and Spencer analysis] is summarized in the text
“Figure 5 shows that 10-year trends center on the mid-1994’s through 10 year trends centered on the mid-1995’s indicates the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where the Sonde−UAH trends are not. In addition, for 10-year trends centered on late-1999 through 10- years trend centered on early 2000 the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where Sonde−UAH are marginally not. Another key feature in the RSS−Sonde series is the rapid departure in trend magnitude from trends centered on 1995 through trends centered on late-1999 where the Sonde−UAH magnitude in trends is nearly constant. These features are consistent with the diurnal correction signatures previously discussed. These findings [in] the RSS method for creating the diurnal correction (use of a climate model) is [the] cause for discrepancies between RSS and UAH databases in the LT channel.”
The latest Trenberth et al article is a continuation of this ad hominem effort to discredit John Christy and Roy Spencer.
The Trenberth et al article continues
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover. Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models.
This trend continues: On Tuesday the journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a peer-reviewed study by Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that undermines Spencer’s arguments about the role of clouds in the Earth’s energy budget.
We only wish the media would cover these scientific discoveries with similar vigor and enthusiasm that they displayed in tackling Spencer’s now-discredited findings.
My Comment:
Roy Spencer is hardly discredited because there are papers that disagree with his analysis and conclusions. This will sort itself out in the peer-reviewed literature after he has an opportunity to respond with a follow on paper, and/or a Comment/Reply exchange. Similarly, John Christy can respond to the Santer et al paper that is referred to in the Trenberth et al article.
What is disturbing, however, in the Trenberth et al article is its tone and disparagement of two outstanding scientists. Instead of addressing the science issues, they resort to statements such as Spencer and Christy making “serial mistakes”. This is truly a hatchet job and will only further polarize the climate science debate
Whilst I shouldn’t feel sorry for Trenberth, given the brutality of attacks by his ilk on other scientists, I do. He had a career, he had a bright future. He used to be sought after for advice from the highest officials of many countries. They are now fighting a desperate rear guard action trying … rather like the Nazi’s desperately cobbled together units of boys and old men, and shot any that refused, so the climate “Reich” is desperate to stop their reputation haemorrhaging and is clearly bringing huge pressure on any and every editor to “tow the line of doomsday global warming”.
But just as the last actions of the Nazis – whilst entirely in character – were counter productive because it made ordinary Germans feel they really did not want this Nazi government, so I think the last days of the climate Reich, is more likely to make editors question their ethics than to enhance their reputation as scientists.
You only resort to these measures when you are really desperate. If they really believed the science backed what they were saying, then they’d push the science. The fact that they have to resort to such desperate anti-science tactics just shows how desperate they are.
Funny I remember Einstien but not the 100 scientists.
Although I think Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick could be going down in history on how not to do science, so at least they will be in all the science books in future on the corruption of the scientific method.
With all the desperate verbal flailing going on with this article in Climate Daily, I was pleasantly surprised that the word ‘denier’ did not appear.
Could this be significant?
Folks, consider this…
Kevin Trenberth’s name showed up in the headers of a goodly number of
Climategate e-mails as a straight out recipient, recipient of a copy, or in a
few instances, the primary author. These e-mails were on a server at the
University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit deep in the bosom of
mother England.
Within the next few months the duplicative and in many cases confiming,
time stamped e-mails going to or coming from Mike Mann while at the
University of Virginia will be released after the judge decides which of
the disputed ones don’t qualify for an “exception”. These e-mails come
from a place that’s in the heart of the Commoweath of Virginia, a proud
member of the 1st thirteen American colonial states.
It’s possible the Wegman Report going into the “Team” interactions”
on the professional and personal levels missed a larger and stronger
nexus of climate science chums and supporters here in North America.
Kevin Trenberth’s name will once again be circulated publically along with
such impressions (and maybe more quotable comments) as the new batch
of Mike Mann e-mails might generate.
Kevins’ just doing pre-emptive strike publicitly here.
tucked away in a forgotten
Egotistical bullies are every where in trade unions and politics, they have now invaded science.
They are the bane of normal society and serve no useful purpose , they feed their egos with the acclaim of useful idiots and feed on the public purse.
This Trenberth and his mob may have once started out doing real science, but they have been sucked in to their own invincible conclusions.
The problem they face is that real science and not political science is rearing up to bite them on the bum. This is also a time that politicians have stopped listening to them.
They will from now on behave like cornered wild dogs, for they can not possibly retreat without looking like fools. I am not feeling pity.
RR Canada says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Running true to form the Team just shot their feet off again.
i would have said much higher and towards the centre line!
Rick Bradford says:
September 4, 2011 at 7:08 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have long held such view.
I have little doubt that withhin about 10 years as the divergence between measured temperatures and projected model temperatures grows, the ‘consensus’ (and how I dislike that) will shift and it will be ‘accepted’ that at the very least, there has been a gross over estimate of sensitivity to CO2 and that CO2 levels are not of so much concern.
The problem is that in these 10 years immeasurable damage will be inflicted on the European, and in particular upon the UK economy. The present energy policies of the UK and Germany are mad.
You could not believe that any sentinent being would propose such policy still less that there would be sufficient number of legislators that would go along with the madness. Perhaps the medical profession have made an error, perhaps madness is truly contagous! It certainly behaves like an infectious disease amongst our political leaders.
We are in the midst of an economic depression, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1930s. There is a desperate need to stimulate the economy, to reduce costs for business and to put more money in the pocket of consumers. The present energy policies are simply adding grossly to the costs of industry, indeed the running of any business small or large. The green taxes and subsidies are hitting ordinary people hard. If the government was to put on hold this green madness, it would save about £18billion per year which is more than the present austerity cuts. Further, consumers would save several hundred pounds a year in not seeing their energy bills rise, and perhaps more when one takes into account green taxes on petrol and air travel. This would be the equivalent of a 1 to 3% tax cut for the less well off, and would stimilute consumer spending. If only the government would put their green agenda on hold, this would greatly assist the economic recovery.. In fact, there could be some positive stimulus. The UK requires 17 or 18 new conventional power generating stations to act as back up for wind farms. There is no reason why building of those should not immediately go ahead. They will be needed whether or not we introduce wind farms at a later stage.
There is nothing to be lost by imposing a moritorium on this green madness until after the present economic recession has past, since for whatever reason, temperature increase has essentially stalled since 1998 and we therefore (for whatever reason) been given more time to deal with the threat (if any) posed by CO2.
Unfortunately, I suspect that many old people will have to die (largely due to unaffordable fuel prices) and a general loss of industry (what little still remains) to India and China (which loss will never be regained) before the politicians eyes are finally opened and they come to realise what a mistake their green policies have been this century.
The Tren Commandments
1. Thy shalt have no other climate God but me.
2. Do not worship observations, they are false idols.
3. Do not rebutt articles with my name on them.
4. Six months shall thou labour on thy paper, we do it in six days
5. Honor your betters. Thats me.
6. Thou shalt not kill the goose that layeth the Golden egg.
7. Do not commit adult. You are all children. I am the only adult
8. Do not steal my thunder.
9. Do not lie by telling the truth. For only my lies are the truth
10. Do not covet my models.
EO
I notice the photo of Roy is credited in the article,,, to Roy
“Photo courtesy Roy Spencer.”
Really??
Hope they can prove that….
Sent to daily climate via their contact form:
Dear Sir/Madam
Your published article written by Trenberth Abraham and Gleick is misplaced. It belongs in the gutter with its authors. You can find Dr John Christy’s dignified response here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/04/the-science-is-scuttled-abraham-gleick-and-trenberth-resort-to-libeling-spencer-and-christy/#comment-736498
I’m saddened to see an organisation such as yours being dragged into the machinations of those who would attempt to destroy the reputations of scientists because they cannot answer their science. I have provided a brief summary of the underlying scientific issue here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/spencer-and-braswell-2011-resignation-of-journal-editor-doesnt-change-facts/
Your parent organisation supports some worthy causes and campaigns on some genuine issues. However, in this case, Trenberth is wrong and Spencer is right. I urge you to distance yourself from this scurrilous attack and issue a formal apology to Dr’s Christy and Spencer.
Yours sincerely
If I were Trenberth and had come up with that ridiculous energy budget, I’d be two sandwiches short of a picnic too.
But where are the trolls today, I have to ask……..?
Anthony a very good article and of course it would be ridiculous to think of the Hockey Team in the same scientific league as Einstein Planck and Bohr et al. Also it would appear that they capability to operate as professional scietists in the manner of their behaviour does not measure up to the boot laces of the great early 1900 physicists.
JJ Thomson propose an Atomic structure
Lord Rutherford shows it is incorrect and proposes his own.
Niels Bohr shows Rutherford’s structure cannot be and proposes his own. Which is still taught in schools today, it is wrong?
Bohr, Born, Einsteinn, Heisenberg and others debate and discuss and the structure of the atom and the understanding develops to show that Bohr’s structure is wrong. Quantum Mechanics now describes atomic structure that most of us find so difficult to understand.
In all of the above the disagreements resulted in agreement, if the Hockey Team had been in control then science would have not moved on one iota, A Because of their intellects and B because of their bad behaviour and acting in bad faith.
Sorry for the typo’s
their capability and scientists
H/T Bullies for Science.
…-
“Barack Hussein Einstein at Harvard”
“By James Lewis
There’s a funny story about Barack Obama at Harvard Law, both funny-ha-ha and funny-peculiar. It involves one of those cloud-borne Himalayan intellects of liberalism, Professor Larry Tribe, the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States. Tribe is the legal giant who is always a bridesmaid but never a bride for the Supremes.
And yea verily, the Professor met and held converse with The Blessed Lightworker Himself back in the nineties. The story doesn’t say if they were both stoned out of their minds when they got together, but it’s the only explanation I can think of. What happened is so weird and so discreditable to all concerned that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Still, nobody in the liberal media seems to get the joke…which tells you a lot.
Professor Tribe, it appears, made it really big in academic law by writing trendy postmodern articles like “Toward a Syntax of the Unsaid: Construing the Sounds of Congressional and Constitutional Silence,” “The Constitution in Cyberspace,” “Toward a Metatheory of Free Speech,” “Trial by Mathematics,” and even “Seven Deadly Sins of Straining the Constitution through a Pseudo-Scientific Sieve,” which turned it all into self-parody, because pseudo-science is exactly what made Larry Tribe’s big reputation. This academic disease is commonly described as “physics envy.” It arises out of academic inferiority complexes, with everybody wanting to do fake physics because that is real science.
If you remember those old po-mo days, that kind of stuff was standard pomotwaddle designed to impress innocent young students and the Board of Trustees. No sane person believed it. Alan Sokal famously hoaxed a po-mo journal into accepting a nonsense physics article, and then revealed their ignorance to the world. Postmodernism never recovered.
Professor Tribe comes right out of a great comedy tradition of long-winded professors spouting obvious claptrap to fool the suckers. Shakespeare used that gag with Polonius in Hamlet. Groucho Marx used it. Molière became famous for his “scholar” in the suckered Bourgeois Gentleman. Greek and Roman comedy writers used it. Every humorist in history has used that shtick, because it’s funny. But it takes a postmodern professor of law to make it real.
By the ’90s Larry Tribe had risen to become the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, based on the depth and profundity of his cockamamie legal scholarship. I guess. And then, a magical moment in history when great minds meet…it was Michelangelo and Leonardo, Plato and Socrates, Larry, Moe and Curly.
Barack Hussein Obama Barry Soetoro, Jr. walks into Larry Tribe’s office. ”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/barack_hussein_einstein_at_har.html
…-
“On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds
By James Lewis
The news leaked out a while ago that Al Gore scored a D in natural science at Harvard. That would be the science introduction for Other Majors, not difficult chemistry or calculus. So Nobel Laureate Al Gore got a D in Science for Dummies.
But don’t worry. ”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/on_being_governed_by_scientific_frauds.html
@tallbloke:
Typo in your link to Christy’s comment. It should be this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/04/the-science-is-scuttled-abraham-gleick-and-trenberth-resort-to-libeling-spencer-and-christy/#comment-736498
/dr.bill
Reply: Thanks, too late now, hope they read the rest of the comments anyway. -TB-mod
@Baa Humbug says:
September 4, 2011 at 10:47 pm
“Dear Messrs Karl, Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth”
Uhm, Trenberth’s KAG team? But should it be Klingon Assault Group, Kapitalanlagegesellschaft, Kommunistischen Arbeitslager Gruppe, or just the kick ass girls, I wonder. o_0
:p
There lots of “adjustments” made to the satellite data by Specer and team. Most have not been explained.
Interestingly it seems that near surface measurements which showed massive increases were terminated (faulty satellite? but they were used for many years without question)
Some very minor changes less than 0,1K have not been explained. Then if satellites are so accurate why when changing from NOAA-15 to AQUA is there differences of 0.1K? see
http://tinyurl.com/3w89h2c
tallbloke says:
September 5, 2011 at 4:17 am
Your first link is pointing to your own comment. The link should be http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/04/the-science-is-scuttled-abraham-gleick-and-trenberth-resort-to-libeling-spencer-and-christy/#comment-736498
Reply: Thanks, fixed. TB-mod
Would that I were a libel lawyer, I’d take this one on a Pro Bono just to take Trenberth et al to the cleaners and back again…
There is an ancient and ongoing battle between individualists and collectivists. Collectivists look for reasons that everyone should be required to cooperate in whatever scheme is currently popular with collectivists. Communism was the popular scheme for decades. As that idea weakened collectivists jumped onto environmentalism and global warming to justify global adherence to their programs.
It is not surprising that collectivist leaders should scream in anger when their scheme is threatened. It is not science that they defend. It is their management of world affairs.
How exciting and satisfying it must be to lead the world in an effort to save humanity from itself. How horrifying it must be to see your leadership threatened.
JJwright says:
September 5, 2011 at 4:43 am
…
See Christy’s comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/04/the-science-is-scuttled-abraham-gleick-and-trenberth-resort-to-libeling-spencer-and-christy/#comment-736498
Sent to TDC
“It is so ironic that discedited scientists such as Trenberth and his other fellow “scientists” from the Hockey Team should make personal attacks on two credible scientists such as Spenser and Christy.
I suppose that the Team are so remote from professional behaviour and scientific research that if the truth punched them on the nose they would not notice?”
Wagner is now out of a job, so he might be persuaded to let us know the real reasons behind is resignation. Was it his own and personal decision to resign over what, after all, is just one article that someone happens to disagree with. Or was he ‘persuaded’ to resign through the mysterious powers and financial influences that control the AGW cult at the present time? Surely he would want to give us a genuine reason for his resignation when the one he gave which was published in the pro. AGW media looked so very much contrived to suit someones agenda.
To tallbloke,
The first link in your letter to The Daily Climate is wrong – it links to your own comment (Sept 4 2011 at 04:17am) and not to that of Dr Christy (Sept 4 2011 at 08:38pm)