Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

[bluefrog]

Resignation of Editor in chief for Remote Sensing blows gaping hole in Global Warming skepticism.

"In a remarkable letter to his readership, Wolfgang Wagner, who until today was editor of Remote Sensing, an open-access journal that we’ve written about before, said he felt forced to resign because the review process at his journal — which, by implication, he shepherds — failed the scientific community (link added):"

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by [Roy] Spencer and [William] Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

 

[Denny Crane]

See the other thread about the Nobel Prize winner. His resignation blows a hole in AGW.

 

[PapaG]

See the other thread about the Nobel Prize winner. His resignation blows a hole in AGW.

Nobel Prize winner vs. Wolfgang Wagner, an editor of some website nobody's ever heard of.

Who seems more credible? Tough one...

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure the prize is meaningful anymore. Carter, Gore, and Obama have one. So does Krugman.

 

[bluefrog]

See the other thread about the Nobel Prize winner. His resignation blows a hole in AGW.

Gee, I don't know, Denny. You were touting Spencer's paper pretty hard a few weeks ago.

If we're judging the merits of scientific theories based on the Nobel Prize winners then AGW definitely has the lead.

 

[bluefrog]

Nobel Prize winner vs. Wolfgang Wagner, an editor of some website nobody's ever heard of.

Who seems more credible? Tough one...

Remote Sensing is a scientific journal (although it has a website too) nobody's heard of. To be fair most scientific journals are ones "nobody's heard of."

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't agree that Spencer's work is debunked or invalid.

He's the one saying the emperor wears no clothes. The resignation is a clear indication of peer pressure and nothing else.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

the nobel prize! obviously anybody who has ever won one deserved it right? makes them more credible in an argument?

 

[barfo]

See the other thread about the Nobel Prize winner. His resignation blows a hole in AGW.

That's hilarious. One 82 year old guy getting cranky and quitting a professional society 'blows a hole' in something?

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

I don't agree that Spencer's work is debunked or invalid.

He's the one saying the emperor wears no clothes. The resignation is a clear indication of peer pressure and nothing else.

I knew that's where you would go. Why didn't Wagner mention the political climate in his resignation or outright say peer pressure caused it?

Fact is the Spencer and Braswell paper is flawed on multiple levels:

The signs of sloppy work and (at best) cursory reviewing are clear on even a brief look at the paper. Figure 2b has the axes mislabeled with incorrect units. No error bars are given on the correlations in figure 3 (and they are substantial – see figure 2 in the new Dessler paper). The model-data comparisons are not like-with-like (10 years of data from the real world compared to 100 years in the model – which also makes a big difference). And the ‘bottom-line’ implication by S&B that their reported discrepancy correlates with climate sensitivity is not even supported by their own figure 3. Their failure to acknowledge previous work on the role of ENSO in creating the TOA radiative changes they are examining (such as Trenberth et al, 2010 or Chung et al, 2010), likely led them to ignore the fact that it is the simulation of ENSO variability, not climate sensitivity, that determines how well the models match the S&B analysis (as clearly demonstrated in Trenberth and Fasullo’s guest post here last month). With better peer review, Spencer could perhaps have discovered these things for himself, and a better and more useful paper might have resulted. By trying to do an end run around his critics, Spencer ended up running into a wall.

LINK

 

[Masbee]

Resignation of Editor in chief for Remote Sensing blows gaping hole in Global Warming skepticism.

"In a remarkable letter to his readership, Wolfgang Wagner, who until today was editor of Remote Sensing, an open-access journal that we’ve written about before, said he felt forced to resign because the review process at his journal — which, by implication, he shepherds — failed the scientific community (link added):"

Posted on 9-3 already:

http://sportstwo.com/threads/194409...Cloud-Effect?p=2655503&viewfull=1#post2655503

 

[bluefrog]

Posted on 9-3 already:

http://sportstwo.com/threads/194409...Cloud-Effect?p=2655503&viewfull=1#post2655503

But you didn't include any divisive comments with the article. Nobody is going to respond to it unless you write something controversial.

 

[Denny Crane]

I knew that's where you would go. Why didn't Wagner mention the political climate in his resignation or outright say peer pressure caused it?

Fact is the Spencer and Braswell paper is flawed on multiple levels:


LINK

So there's only poor and sloppy peer review on the politically incorrect findings? Interesting.

 

[maxiep]

the nobel prize! obviously anybody who has ever won one deserved it right? makes them more credible in an argument?

Some people are more deserving than others. I would argue if you're going to have a discussion about option pricing, Myron Scholes would be pretty damn credible (I would have said Fischer Black, but he had passed on by the time the award was given and the Nobel isn't given posthumously). Krugman's Nobel Prize was awarded for political reasons. It was an interesting theorem, but its primary problem is that it didn't prove out in the real world.

 

[bluefrog]

So there's only poor and sloppy peer review on the politically incorrect findings

I think this may be a world record for leap of logic. I'm getting in touch with the folks at Guinness to get a confirmation. They may contact you in the coming weeks

 

[Denny Crane]

I think this may be a world record for leap of logic. I'm getting in touch with the folks at Guinness to get a confirmation. They may contact you in the coming weeks

When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table?

I asked a serious question.

 

[bluefrog]

When the facts aren't on your side, pound the table?

What facts? I posted examples of errors in the paper to show that the editor in chief did a poor job in of screening the paper. THOSE are facts. What are you arguing ?

I asked a serious question.

To answer you question, no. There is also sometimes sloppy peer review on politically correct findings.

Here are two examples: 1 2 (KABOOOOOOOM! Denny's argument explodes!) These authors had the decency to retract their paper when it was understood they were fundamentally flawed. Spencer and Baswell have too much at stake to (and too little humility) to do the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

The facts are that they claim they did a poor job of screening THIS paper. Why just this paper, I ask.

What paper are you talking about being retracted?

 

[Denny Crane]

FWIW, I google for "global warming retraction" and quite a few things of interest come up. One is the retraction of a statistical analysis by Wegman because there were excerpts from WikiPedia in it (no challenge to the analysis, methods, or findings). Another is the IPCC may have to (or already has) retract their claim that glaciers in India will be fully melted by 2035.

I question whether there should be any retractions at all. If a paper makes it into some journal or political report, let it stand in the light of day for all to see. For all to see the work in question, and for all to see that it somehow passed peer review at the time.

 

[barfo]

I question whether there should be any retractions at all. If a paper makes it into some journal or political report, let it stand in the light of day for all to see. For all to see the work in question, and for all to see that it somehow passed peer review at the time.

I don't think retraction means they chase down every copy of the journal issue and burn it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think retraction means they chase down every copy of the journal issue and burn it.

barfo

Of course not. But whatever the do print did pass whatever their (peer review) standards were at the time. Let it stand.

 

[bluefrog]

FWIW, I google for "global warming retraction" and quite a few things of interest come up. One is the retraction of a statistical analysis by Wegman because there were excerpts from WikiPedia in it (no challenge to the analysis, methods, or findings). Another is the IPCC may have to (or already has) retract their claim that glaciers in India will be fully melted by 2035.

Yes, I linked to the Wegman paper in the "2" in my post above. The "1" links to a paper on rising sea levels that had some flawed assumptions built into their hypothesis.

The facts are that they claim they did a poor job of screening THIS paper. Why just this paper, I ask.

Wagner gave a good explanation why this paper wasn't vetted properly in his resignation:

But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three
reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does
not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong.

...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.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why should they consider the "scientific" arguments of others?

It shouldn't matter in the least if 97% of scientists polled say the earth revolves around the sun. If a scientist wants to present his "scientific" observations that the earth orbits the sun, who's right?

I don't see any need whatsoever to address crystal spheres, beautiful geometry, someone else's computer model, etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Wegman issue is interesting in it's own right. There is a deliberate and targeted effort to attack all his work and have it all retracted. By the same group of scientists.

How can you not question their motives and see the bias and attempts to squash reports that make the consensus view questionable at best?

I'd be truly amazed if a lot of peer reviewed work didn't have some incidental flaw, like a copy/paste from WikiPedia. So why focus on just Wegman?

 

[bluefrog]

Why should they consider the "scientific" arguments of others?

Because this is how science works. Some genius publishes ground breaking work and others build on it.

It shouldn't matter in the least if 97% of scientists polled say the earth revolves around the sun. If a scientist wants to present his "scientific" observations that the earth orbits the sun, who's right?

If the hypothesis is sound, the methods are bullet-proof and it has passed the peer review then why not publish work on the earth revolving around the sun? No one is arguing otherwise.

The Wegman issue is interesting in it's own right. There is a deliberate and targeted effort to attack all his work and have it all retracted. By the same group of scientists.

How can you not question their motives and see the bias and attempts to squash reports that make the consensus view questionable at best?

I'd be truly amazed if a lot of peer reviewed work didn't have some incidental flaw, like a copy/paste from WikiPedia. So why focus on just Wegman?

If you are going to publish work that refutes the dominant theory in any field of science expect extra scrutiny.

 

[barfo]

If the hypothesis is sound, the methods are bullet-proof and it has passed the peer review then why not publish work on the earth revolving around the sun? No one is arguing otherwise.

Well, it should probably have something new to say. That the earth revolves around the sun is pretty well established, it would be hard to get published just repeating what everyone already knows

barfo

 

[Ed O]

I knew that's where you would go. Why didn't Wagner mention the political climate in his resignation or outright say peer pressure caused it?

How would that work? Something along the lines of:

"I am receiving political pressure from interests vested in the continued treatment of global warming as a man-made problem. As a result, I fear my career in this field may be in jeopardy. To avoid this, I am resigning from my post."

?

Ed O.

 

[bluefrog]

How would that work? Something along the lines of:

"I am receiving political pressure from interests vested in the continued treatment of global warming as a man-made problem. As a result, I fear my career in this field may be in jeopardy. To avoid this, I am resigning from my post."

?

How about:
"It is with great sadnes that I announce my resignation from Remote Sensing due to the political climate surrounding the publishing of this (crap-tastic) paper."

It is possible to be vague and assert that you are leaving against your will. I'm sure you could do a better job using your imagination and legendary writing skills.

 

[Ed O]

How about:
"It is with great sadnes that I announce my resignation from Remote Sensing due to the political climate surrounding the publishing of this (crap-tastic) paper."

It is possible to be vague and assert that you are leaving against your will. I'm sure you could do a better job using your imagination and legendary writing skills.

Why would he do that, though? Why further piss off people who are potentially spoiling your career? If he doesn't MIND pissing them off and/or risking his career, then he'd just stay.

I'm not saying that this is evidence that he was forced out, but that his lack of recognition of that doesn't preclude it.

Ed O.

 

[Haakzilla]

Top ten signs global warming is a fraud

10) Those who peddle this scare-mongering nonsense will blame anything and everything on global warming, regardless of how absurd it is.

9) The ice sheets we keep hearing so much about...are actually growing, not shrinking.

8) The leader of this hysterical mob and its war on science, Al Gore, has had his "award-winning" science fiction propaganda bannedfrom use as educational material in Britain, due to rampant, outrageous falsehoods and wild exaggerations.

7) The Earth isn't even getting warmer.

6) There is no consensus of experts, and never has been (see here, here, here, here, here and here).

5) Scandals from recent years have forced even the most dedicated proponents of the Green Scare to reverse course on a number of fundamental alarmist arguments.

4) Evidence continues to pour in that alarmist assertions have been deeply flawed since the beginning (see here and here).

3) Global warming: It's the Sun, stupid.

2) Top experts have been caught outrageously misrepresenting pure speculation as hard fact and inventing ridiculous hoaxes at every turn.

1) The enormously influential scientists directing this scam have been caught blatantly doctoring data, vindictively silencing anyone who does not conform, and plotting to set up bogus "investigations" to whitewash their jaw-droppingly corrupt abuses of power out of the picture (which were already being buried by almost the entire news media).