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.
“The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. …. 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.”
Anthony, I burst out laughing when I red that ! Yup, those skeptic senior scientists from renowned universities, with impressive publication records must be getting pretty common to get 3/3 !
Of course a warmist paper would definitely be sent to three reviewers that had an orthodox AGW viewpoint.
My understanding from some comments on other threads (I have not checked for myself) is that RealClimate (going to that site just ticks me off, there isn’t anything “real” about it) has shut down comments on the whole sordid affair. I think Lucy Skywalker (welcome back!) is right; there is more, much more, we do not yet know… and may never know. As for those commenting about FOIA requests, prosecutions, and Nick Stokes ridiculous suggestion that there is no direct funding involved which somehow changes something…anything… I’m reposting something I said that is buried in the 500+ comments on the original breaking news thread. In brief, what I am saying is focus on the main issues. The cat is out of the bag Sir Stokes. ClimateGate gave us a glimpse into the CAGW Pandora’s box, but this is an “own goal” that throws the lid off. Silence at RC is not the sound of this debate being squelched. It is the sound of an immense number of sphincter valves slamming shut. From the breaking news thread:
—————
Early on in this thread I suggested that Wolfgang Wagner had likely scored a massive “own goal”. As events have unfolded since then, Kevin Trenberth has weighed in (see “The science is scuttled” thread at WUWT). This is no longer a massive “own goal”.
Words may fail to describe what has happened. Wagner has, in fact, scored a massive “own goal”, establishing the legitimacy and importance of the SB paper, drawing world wide attention to it, and at the same time attempting to discredit it through what amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign. He has discredited and made a fool of himself, as well as the AGW “science” he purports to defend.
Along comes Trenberth, who has fittingly poured gasoline on himself, lit himself afire, and runs screaming in circles shouting “I made him do it! I made him do it!”
The Three Travesties of Trenberth
1. The missing heat (ClimateGate emails)
2. It escaped to space, the one place he refused to look for it (SB paper)
3. In trying to cover it up, Trenberth has given it the kind of publicity money cannot buy, and pointed the finger directly at himself as the chief architect of the cover up.
What shall we call these? WaterGate and ClimateGate were cover ups too. But neither Nixon nor “the Team” were insane enough to proudly proclaim themselves as the architects of the cover up. They attempted to spin the mess they created into something it wasn’t. Can you imagine Nixon going on national television and proudly proclaiming that he ordered the spying to try and protect democracy?
This is a whole new level of cover up and “gate” just seems an inadequate term.
Is that a warning to future reviewers not to rock the climate boat so they will not be branded as skeptics and blackballed as heretics? Or is that a warning to editorial teams to be more careful in selecting reviewers? Apparently it is their duty to keep skeptics’ papers out of the peer reviewed journals somehow — even if they have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
So it can be said that Wagner has ‘taken one for the Team’
moshpit said that on day one
The circle will not be truly complete until Wolfgang Wagner gets a new job, looking at how long that takes, and who gives it to him. Job at GEWEX, perhaps….?
So when is Trenberth going to be asked – or demanded – or forced to resign his position in NCAR and anything else involved in climate science?
Do I dare ask if it is appropriate to start that type of movement?
davidmhoffer says: September 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Again, I think David is absolutely correct here. Climategate gave us but a glimpse of the possibilities for corruption. The Remote Sensing Affair, however, has the potential to bring the whole stinking mess into the light of day. I really did have better things to do with my day today, but I did this instead anyway. It’s a bit long, longer than most of my other posts, and readers will need to visit the sites I’ve listed to get the full import. The apologists that have turned up here scoff at the notion that an editor can be forced to do anything and deride skeptics as “conspiracy theorists”. As you read this, I ask you to think about ”inter-locking directorships” and the ways officials can use the power of their official positions to further agendas.
Les Johnson has pulled together the basics here. Let’s look at the detail, starting with the World Climate Research Program statement on governance:
Scientific guidance for the WCRP is provided by the Joint Scientific Committee, consisting of 18 scientists selected by mutual agreement between the three sponsoring organizations [Note: that would be the WMO, the International Council for Science (ICSU), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO] and representing climate-related disciplines in atmospheric, oceanic, hydrological and cryospheric sciences. Implementation of WCRP’s programme takes place through the Joint Planning Staff (JPS) in Geneva and Paris, in the International Project Offices (IPOs) and co-opted contributors from many agencies. Each project has a Scientific Steering Group.
The WCRP Governance page is here: http://www.wcrp-climate.org/governance.shtml
It lists the eighteen scientists who provide the “scientific guidance”, all with very impressive C.V.s – three of the eighteen are well-known to us: Tom Karl, David Karoly, and Julia Slingo.
The WCRP / GEWEX Project Scientific Steering Group (headed by Dr. Trenberth) Membership page is located here:
http://www.gewex.org/gewexssg.htm
Again, a group with impressive credentials. Since taking up his position, Dr. Trenberth has been trying to put his stamp on the organization and has a rather grand vision for its future. In November of 2010 he penned a report that was printed in the GEWEX newsletter that is well worth the read. It paints in broad strokes his vision of the climate system, the challenges faced by researchers and his vision of the organizational and research structure needed to meet those challenges. The PDF is here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/GewexNewsNov2010.pdf
The observant reader will note two things: the first is that S&B11 contradicts a lot of Dr. Trenberth’s view of the role of clouds; the second is that it makes no mention of the International Soil Moisture Network, but Dr. Trenberth’s essay makes an interesting point (emphasis mine):
As a part of the organizational changes, GCSS will abandon its current working group structure and will instead operate through projects, which can be initiated by any member of the community. Members of a GCSS/GABLS Science Steering Committee (SSC) will provide oversight of the program, including the approval of proposals for new activities. GABLS activities will be fully integrated into this structure through specific projects as well as GABLS membership on the SSC.
I believe the ISMN is one of those projects. Its home page is located here:
http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/insitu/
Again, anyone wishing to browse through the site will note that it is indeed quite integrated with GEWEX and has liaisons with both NASA and ESA. The Technical University of Vienna has gotten a seat at the table.
I’ve often said that you don’t need a conspiracy when you have a social movement. The same names keep turning up on boards, as official advisors and lead authors. Browse the web sites I’ve listed here and get a sense of the influence and resources a very few people are able to command. Find the statements on funding and the annual reports. My research does not show that Dr. Trenberth and his other colleagues actually pressured Dr. Wagner, but they certainly had the motive and the means. And keep in mind that WCRP / GEWEX is just one small part of the climate establishment.
“davidmhoffer says: September 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm “
You’ve been pretty slapdash with facts here, as is the head post. Wagner was never looking for funds from GEWEX – he had funds from ESA. He isn’t trying to start an online database – he’s done it.
But to cap it off, Trenberth isn’t even Chair of GEWEX. He’s chair of their Scientific Steering Group.
Nick: you are the slapdash with facts.
I did not suggest that Wagner was looking for cash. If one reads the newsletter, it distinctly says “volunteers”.
However, that also means the success of the Soil Moisture network is tied to the generosity of the GEWEX, of which Trenberth is the chair of the scientific group.
(for brevity’s sake, I just wished to indicate that Trenberth was high in the GEWEX network. In retrospect, I should have expanded that description, for the sake of those that did not go to the newsletter)
@ur momisugly Nick Stokes.
Okay Nick, now explain to someone, like me, who is not “In the Know”, why an editor resigns due to comments on a blog and then sends apologies to Trenberth. Denmark and Rotten are words that jump into my mind!
@davidmhoffer – if ‘gate’ is not enough can I suggest ‘watershed’?
Nick Stokes;
I have been slapdash with the facts? Let’s go through your response!
NS:Wagner was never looking for funds from GEWEX
REPLY: I didn’t say he was. I noted your comment that there was no direct funding and I did not dispute it. My comment in reply was this changes nothing. Trenberth has gone out of his way to denigrate SB11, Spencer and Christy, and brags that he has recieved an apology from Wagner. Why, exactly, would Wagner single out Trenberth for an apology if not to appease him?
NS:Wagner was never looking for funds from GEWEX – he had funds from ESA. He isn’t trying to start an online database – he’s done it.
REPLY: And so? If he has everything he needs, why the apology personally to Trenberth? Wasn’t his apology and multiple excuses to the modeling community in general contained in his resignation enough? If he had nothing to fear from Trenberth, then why, in addition to the general apology in his resignation, apologise specifically to Trenberth? Or perhaps you are suggesting that Trenberth is exagerating and no personal apology was made? Which would mean you are calling Trenberth a liar? Which is it Sir Stokes? Is Trenberth a liar, or does Wagner have something to fear from Trenberth? I challenge you to come up with an additional alternative which is a fraction as logical as the two I just gave you.
NS:But to cap it off, Trenberth isn’t even Chair of GEWEX. He’s chair of their Scientific Steering Group.
REPLY: No where in the comment that you reference did I say he was. The nuance is of no material importance, because the main point is that Wagner clearly feared retribution from Trenberth. Hence his resignation in “protest” over a paper he himself says was properly reviewed, finds no technical fault with, and his personal apology to Trenberth on an issue that Trenberth wasn’t even directly involved with….until this weekend’s smear campaign, and which Trenberth is bragging, even gloating, about.
HOWEVER, Sir, the nuance speaks loudly about you. You claim of me things I never said, suggest I have been loose with the facts without identifying even a single fact that I claimed, let alone discrediting it, and then have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of playing “slapdash” with the facts?
Do you know what the phrase “with all due respect” means?
With all due respect Sir Stokes,
good night.
“Les Johnson says: September 5, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I did not suggest that Wagner was looking for cash.”
You said he was looking for help. That sounds like cash. GEWEX can’t offer volunteers.
But he’s not even looking for those. He has started an online database. It’s a co-op thing and needs people to contribute data. No surprise there. GEWEX in their newsletter are simply putting the word around. Do you think that’s the sort of help that would motivate his apology?
“davidmhoffer says: September 5, 2011 at 11:00 pm ”
And so? If he has everything he needs, why the apology personally to Trenberth?
This is classic “stopped beating your wife?” stuff. The post is heavy with innuendo that Wagner apologized because he needed help from GEWEX Chair Trenberth to set up his network. Oh, he’s done it already? Then why is he apologizing when he has everything he needs?
The answer is of course because he thinks he ought to. I don’t know why. People can be different about those things.
Nick Stokes;
“davidmhoffer says: September 5, 2011 at 11:00 pm ”
And so? If he has everything he needs, why the apology personally to Trenberth?>
This is classic “stopped beating your wife?” stuff. The post is heavy with innuendo that Wagner apologized because he needed help from GEWEX Chair Trenberth to set up his network. Oh, he’s done it already? Then why is he apologizing when he has everything he needs?>>>
That sir, is insulting. You ONCE AGAIN attribute to me that which I never said. Quote the words where the innuendo you accuse me of exist. Go ahead, it is just cut and paste, you are capable of cut and paste are you not? Is that too much trouble to ask of you? That you quote the exact words that you claim I said and impute the innudendo you claim I made? Where did I even refer to Trenberth and ANYTHING about GEWEX? WHERE? WHERE EXACTLY?
Wagner singled out Trenberth for an apology, which Trenberth brags about. I challenged you to come up with a logical explanation. Instead you attacked me on points I never made, accused me of innuendo regarding issues I never even raised, and attribute to me the tactic of “have you stopped beating your wife?”
Insulting Sir, and pathetic. Unable to counter a single point I actually made, you criticize me for things I never said. Challenged to come up with a logical alternative to my explanation, you instead throw about the “have you stopped beating your wife” line. Sir, I asked for alternatives and you gave me none, while accusing me of not allowing any (which is what the charge of “have you stopped beating your wife” is all about)
With all due respct Sir,
STFU.
Your colleagues have for the most part listened carefully to the sounds of their sphincter valves snapping shut and closed their yaps as well. They have figured out that they can only make things worse at this point. You continue to bray on using the same tactics as Trenberth and his band of smearmen. Attack the person, attribute things to the person they never said and then attack those, but address the facts? Never. They, like you, are afraid of the facts. Will you address the facts instead of making claims about what I said that can be refuted simply by scrolling up to them?
With all due respect Sir, you haven’t got what it takes.
“a Soil Moisture Network.” Isn’t that mud?
Nick: your
You said he was looking for help. That sounds like cash. GEWEX can’t offer volunteers.
I need help moving a chair. Am I looking for a volunteer, or cash?
This is from the newsletter:
The network is coordinated by GEWEX through the
ISMWG and in cooperation with the Group of Earth Observations
and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.
The success of the International Soil Moisture Network will
be based on the voluntary contributions of scientists and networks
from around the world.
My emphasis.
What GEWEX could offer, is to withhold support. Also note the words “voluntary contributions”.
your
But he’s not even looking for those. He has started an online database. It’s a co-op thing and needs people to contribute data. No surprise there. ….Do you think that’s the sort of help that would motivate his apology?
It certainly could motivate his apology. If, as Chair of the Scientific Steering Group, Trenberth withheld support, the Soil Moisture Network would wither and die.
You also contradict yourself. You say GEWEX can’t offer volunteers, then say it is a co-op, and people need to contribute. Which is it? Especially as the newsletter says voluntary contributions. You need to stay away from these contradictions, Nick.
your
GEWEX in their newsletter are simply putting the word around.
So, you never actually read that newsletter then?
The network is coordinated by GEWEX</b
That is considerably more than just “putting the word around”.
I had been looking for this. According to Trenberth, Trenberth received a personal apology from Wagner. Earlier, I had said it was “suggested” that he had received an apology.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/09/spencer-faulty-science
Let me re-ask the question asked by others: Why did Trenberth receive an apology? He was not involved in any way with SB2011. So why did Wagner feel he had to personally apologize?
The only logical way, is if Trenberth voiced his displeasure to Wagner, either in person or through a 3rd party.
Les J and David H
Please give Nick Stokes his correct title
He is Professor Nick Stokes BSc, MSc, PhD of CSIRO (http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/) and not ‘Sir Nick Stokes’.
It’s therefore not surprising that he bends over backwards to defend his employer (http://landshape.org/enm/csiro-and-bom-report/) and spends most o his time on various blogs defending the indefensible e.g. Mann’s Hockey Stick. Nick Stokes is an out and out ‘Team’ troll who has been assigned the job of hijacking threads that in any way criticise the CAGW consensus. One of his main tactics is to ‘put words in other peoples mouths’. In most cases rather than continue to discuss the subject of the thread, people then spend most of the time correcting his misrepresentations and mis-directions. Another of his classic troll tricks is to make statements that are not bourne out in the references he quotes to justify them. He is a classic troll and as with all trolls he has very little to add and so should be ignored.
He is also a hypocritic and a hypocritic of the very worst kind IMO. A close examination of his academic career shows that he is happy on the one hand to accept funding from the fossil fuel/minerals industry while at the same time provide backup/support to those who carry out work which seeks to justify the imposition of taxes on that very same industry.
KevinUK
Geees….people actually still believe in global warming???????
You gotta be kidding me! It’s a recycled kiddies story: Chicken Little.
And no body is taking the challenge to sell me their soon to be underwater beach front property.
For Nick Stokes to be an effective propagandist he has to realize that defending the indefensible destroys his credibility. Nick needs to pick his battles wisely (if he is not working on assignment).
I agree with those who say that ignoring Nick is generally the best policy if you don’t want to facilitate Nick hijacking the thread.
KevinUK says:
September 6, 2011 at 9:55 am
Les J and David H
Please give Nick Stokes his correct title
He is Professor Nick Stokes BSc, MSc, PhD of CSIRO (http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/) and not ‘Sir Nick Stokes’.>>>
Kevin,
I imagine that in the UK, the title “sir” may still be one of respect. Here in North America, it may or may not be, depending upon context.
In this context, my use of the term “sir” carries the same implications as my use of the phrase “with all due respect”.
Meaning: None.
As for him being a troll, I find him to be a very usefull troll. Debunking his blather is easily done, and regardless of the number of letters and titles that follow his name, he looks like nothing more than a propogandist selling snake oil. The more claims he makes, the more foolish he looks. He’s a step up from R. Gates I suppose, but really, is this the best the Team has? A lone troll who attempts to hijack threads by attacking claims his opponents never made? A lone troll who can be taken to task and debunked simply by reading the very comments he attacks? Really? That’s all they’ve got?
To Nick Stokes: “sir”, with “all due respect” I’m suggesting you withdraw. Wolfgang Wagner has made a total fool of himself, and his bowing and scraping in obediance to Trenberth isn’t just embarrasing to science, it is an embarrasment to what it means to be a “man”. No slight intented here to women, if Wagner was a woman, he’d be a prostitute. Trenberth has exposed himself as a total bully, willing to go to any lengths to discredit actual measurements and replace them with computer estimates. Dressler has joined in by using the lack of warming over the last ten years to suggest it discredits claims that Spencer and Braswell never even made, while ignoring the fact that the very lack of warming itself disproves the very computer models he purports to defend.
Do you really Nick Stokes, sir, with all due respect, want to clutch tightly to this band of drowning men as they sink slowly to the bottom of the sea? Or shall you let go, and save yourself? Make no mistake about it SIR, the CAGW ship is sinking. Dressler, Trenberth, and Wagner are busy kicking holes in the hull, blaming one another, and demanding that the boat float because their computer models say it does.
With ALL DUE RESPECT Nick Stokes, the captain of the ship goes down with the ship. Why you are lashing yourself to the captain is beyond me. Save yourself. Earn some of the respect that your prescious titles and letters supposedly demand. You can abandon ship, and tell the truth, or let your grandchildren study history and see their grandfather documented as a sycophant and fool who supported the greatest scientific fraud in human history.
and its back awaiting moderation. odd. but tks in any event.
[Much of that is a function of how things are automatically pushed into the Spam filter by the random-number-generator embedded in every publicly-available computer program, and heroically pulled back from the filter demons by the resourceful and ever-to-be-praised moderators. 8<) Robt] ….
Well then, m[a]y I be the first to suggest a round of applause for the moderators. How you guys filter through so much material and yet keep the playing field fair and honest is beyond me. and you do it for free too. Anthony gets a lot of kudos for this blog, and deservedly so, but in my mind when the compliments come, they are meant for all of you.
@ur momisugly KevinUK: David Hoffer’s use of “sir” and “with all due respect” is to a American citizen’s ears a bit like a cynical teenagers retort to something that is nonsensical of: “yeah, right”. Usually enunciated with as much scorn in one’s voice as possible.
‘davidmhoffer says:
September 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Well then, m[a]y I be the first to suggest a round of applause for the moderators. ‘
Hear, hear!