Guest post by Les Johnson
(With apologies for lifting the Daily Bayonet tag line multiple times below).
“Interconnected” is the theme of this post. It starts of course, with the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner, from the journal called Remote Sensing, over a paper that Mr. Wagner published. Wait, what?
The paper in question was by Spencer and Braswell 2011. This paper is about the clouds being a climate forcing, and using satellite data to show this. Whether this is true or not is immaterial to this discussion.
The Editor-in-Chief resigns, in protest of a paper he published? OK, that grabbed my attention. If he was the E-i-C, why did he did even publish the paper in the first place? Why not retract it?
Resigning seemed a bit over the top, especially considering what Wagner wrote when he took the post over, and what he wrote when he resigned.
Before, from the announcement he was taking over as E-i-C:
“Because it is an open access journal, papers published will receive very high publicity.”
After, from his resignation letter:
“ Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication.”
It appears that the reason he was resigning is because he did exactly what he said he would do. Wait, what?
Equally puzzling, is not that peer reviewed science had found SB2011 flawed, but discussion in internet fora. An editor resigned because blogs said his peer-reviewed publication was flawed? Again, from his resignation:
“Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper.”
(My emphasis).
Mr. Wagner then goes on to say that the review process was flawed. Or it wasn’t. Or maybe it was. Wait, what?
“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. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”
For the record, using the standard 97% figure for consensus, the odds are about 1 in 37,000 that 3 sceptics would be unintentionally chosen together. This seems like long odds. But I digress.
Here comes the interconnected parts; I read Maurizio Morabito’s blog, and discovered that Mr. Wagner may have connections to Mr. Trenberth, to whom Mr. Wagner gives the only scientific reference in his letter. There are also suggestions that his apology is directed right at Trenberth, which seems odd, doesn’t it?
I went to Bishop Hill’s site, to link Maurizio’s site. While there, I noted similar work done by Robert Phelan, who mentions davidhoffer.
David Hoffer speculates that Wagner is upset that SB2011 will interfere with the modeling gravy train, of which Mr. Wagner is part of. This is pure speculation of course, but it is logical. Mr. Wagner hints at this, in his letter:
“ Interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers is required in order to develop a joint understanding of where and why models deviate from satellite data.”
On this side of the story, that is the connection: myself, to Maurizio, to Bishop Hill, to Robert Phelan, and finally to davidhoffer, who apparently started the whole thing, then back to WUWT.
The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).
GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus it’s worse than we thought.
In the conclusion of this cloud albedo discussion, is some boot licking directed at the new Chairperson.
Thus, the circle of climate is complete.
Cue the banjo’s, and squeal like a pig….
Kudos to the good work done by Maurizio, davidhoffer, Robert Phelan, Bishop Hill and WUWT. I hope Spencer and Braswell’s work holds up, and that they get a chance to engage their critics.
If I missed mentioning someone, it’s only due to the sheer number of comments generated; over 500 on WUWT alone. If I did, my apologies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t know for sure, but from what is written above, it looks to me like Wagner resigned due to a combination of not being able to scientifically refute the SB2011 paper and this causing a conflict of interest re: the Soil Moisture Network and GEWEX. After all it could be counter productive to have his own journal publish peer-reviewed papers which refute the underlying assumptions underpinning the work of GEWEX and the Soil Moisture Network.
IF this is the case then it right that he should resign, but it is a shame that he was not open and honest about those reasons in the resignation letter, if those allegations are true.
———————–
Les Johnson,
Yet, I see the change in “the circle of climate”.
The current open exposure of the climategate team’s manipulation is quite different than their previous veiled manipulations. We should be pleased with the openness, even though it is not very pretty to look upon.
John
Les Johnson;
Thanks for the summary (and the credits). I thought I might add the link from my original comment for easier reference here. On the Vienna U of Tech web site describing their research environment, there is a graphic clearly showing Wolfgang Wagner’s position at the cross roads of “Remote Sensing”, “Physical Modeling” and “Environmental Monitoring & 3D Virtual Worlds”. That graphic lays out the spot Wagner found himself in nicely. Remote sensing scientists and a journal dedicated to their work, which refused (evidently) to retract SB2011 on one side, and some very p***ed off environmental modelers on the other side. Unable to reconcile with either group, and his actual day job predicated on facilitating cross functional cooperation between them, he was between the proverbial rock and a hard spot.
http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/research.html
Even his resignation hints loudly that it is his job he is speaking of, not his role as Editor-in-chief of the Remote Sensing journal:
“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…”
Note the use of the words “our work”. That speaks NOT to his role as (past) Editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, but his day to day job at Vienna University of Technology! He goes on to suggest that the discipline of remote sensing can’t even be done without interdisciplinary cooperation with modelers.
Circumstancial evidence and speculation this may be… But what other conclusion can one come to that supports the evidence?
Grocers’ apostrophes make me grumpy and pedantic.
Thanks Les (and Robert). (I am Maurizio Morabito for those not in-the-know).
I have learned years ago that whenever there’s something inexplicable, it’s simply because we do not have enough information. Hence “strange behavior” is almost 100% predictive of “skeletons in the closet” and/or “hidden relationships”. A visit to Google and other search engines is de-rigueur in those circumstances.
For the record, I do not believe that Dear Kev is at the head of a Spectre-like organization hell-bent on dominating the world (with whom? Dumb Gleick and Dumber Abraham? Oh please!!). What I do know is that climate science has always been an arena for larger-than-life characters, seldom capable to resist the corruption of almost-absolute power and self-belief.
When there’s a planet to save, humans do look like disposable minions. And when there’s a planet to save from your arch-enemy Roy Spencer, it’s easy to dispose of minor humans like brown-nosed Wolfgang, a character from a Greek tragedy, the anti-hero who saved himself rather than his child (the Journal, I mean).
davidmhoffer,
You mention the need for interdisciplinary cooperation by quoting the resignation. This is precisely the roadblock Spencer & Braswell and Lindzen & Choi have been running into. The “CAGW captured” modelling groups do not appear to have the slightest intention of engaging with anyone from outside the approved inner circle. They go to extreme lengths to marginalise any sceptical scientist who dares to start snooping in on climate sensitivity issues.
As a pessimistic sceptic I am expecting this state of affairs to continue. Any who contravene the “unwriten” rules will be disciplined.
So it can be said that Wagner has ‘taken one for the Team’
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F%3Fgl%3DGB%26hl%3Den-GB&hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=ai5dS1thjMs
The short answer … he had to resign because of a conflict of interest. The only question being, from which position would he resign?
More about Wagner and his once-optimistic ideas about Remote Sensing. Funny how all it too was a Dear Kev for Wolfgang to renege on most of what he wrote only 30 months ago.
I second the motion! GK
Oh my the three reviewers shared Mr Spencer and Mr Braswell skeptical views. Well, good grief what if I submitted a paper to a geography journal and it was reviewed by reviewers who believed that the world is almost round and sure isn’t flat. I guess that would be unfair to flat earth reviewers .
I smell something like Club of Rome being outed by Wall of China.
Sure, like Maurizio I was sure there was a missing bit of key info re Wagner. But I sense that there is yet more missing, whose discovery would better explain how it could be that all those corruptchiks, Mann, Karl, Ward, Trenberth, Jones, etc are still running free, with all the “enquiries” and media sidekicks simply adding to the corruption.
climatereason says:
September 5, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Robert E Phelan
You make an excellent point that a FOIA request might unearth some very intereting and highly unethical shenanigans. Who’s up for it? Presumably needs to be a US citizen?
Not necessarily. Austria also has a kind of FOIA called Accountability Act (Auskunftspflichtgesetz, since 1987). I do not know however, if it applies to all entities spending public money or just inner governmental bodies. I do not know either if applicants should be Austrian citizens or any member state of the EU would suffice.
Correction: “…of which Mr. Wagner is part of.” Should read “…of which Mr. Wagner is a part.”
Ex editor in chief explains: “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”
“Probably”? Based on what evidence? That they don’t agree with what has been posted in the blogosphere? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
There is one other possibility that does not seem to have occurred to him: maybe the three academics with impeccable scientific credentials in the field found (after the revisions that quite properly came out of the review process) that the paper contained sound science.
One thing is clear. Prof Wagner does not understand the first thing about the peer review process. He was quite right to resign.
“Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network.”
This is pretty old news – the newsletter is Feb 2010. TU is not now looking for help to set it up – it’s up and running. Announcement here. They were never looking fror funding from GEWEX – they are a coordinating body, The funding body was the European Space Agency (not run by Trenberth).
remember the name…no doubt it will be warning us of eternal damnation in a few months….WOLFGANG WAGNER….what a jerk
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 5, 2011 at 3:24 pm
—————
Lucy,
I haven’t seen you around to usual blogs much recently. Welcome back.
John
Since Herr Doktor Professeur Trenberth is employed by the U.S. Government we can only hope that in an effort to reduce government spending, his job is deemed non-essential.
If it isn’t known by anybody, “It’s News”.
.
Lucy Skywalker says: “…I sense that there is yet more missing, whose discovery would better explain how it could be that all those corruptchiks, Mann, Karl, Ward, Trenberth, Jones, etc are still running free, with all the “enquiries” and media sidekicks simply adding to the corruption.”
I suspect you’re right. Circles within circles. (♪One, Two, Three, la Conga! ♫One, Two, Three, la Conga…!♫)
Great post and you mentioned two of my favourite blogstars; Daily Bayonet and davidhoffer. I see this whole episode as an exposed thread on a cheap suit—the slightest tug and it starts to unravel.
Nick Stokes says:
September 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Keep talking maybe you will believe it someday Trenberth as director most likely has a large say in where the funds go after they get them so it still holds up, even if they are up and running they still need funds.
Does make you wonder if Wagner is a few raisins short of a fruitcake.
I suspect the team has learned from their previous mistakes. I doubt an FOIA would find anything relevant.