2011-09-03 03:21:19Editor in Chief of Remote Sensing resigns
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Editor resigns after admitting Spencer/Braswell paper was a mistake:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/

Deltoid:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php

2011-09-03 03:25:37
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Thanks Paul.

Roy Spencer is being quite juvenile about all of this.  Feel free to post comments at his blog.

2011-09-03 05:31:21
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Predictable drivel and hyperventilation at WUWT

Spencer's supposedly Galileo. Who knew?

Fevered speculation about why the editor resigned without withdrawing the paper. SkS even gets a mention! (But ni link, of course)

2011-09-03 05:45:29
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.28.159

>>>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.

Is Spencer yet aware of Dessler's paper about to be released?

2011-09-03 06:27:35
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Obscurity has been banned from Spencer's blog.  Apparently the truth hurts-- and so ironic that he is censoring dissenting views given the accusations he is making about the IPCC.  Maybe someone here can bring that to his attention.

Below was Obscurity's response to Roy's comments on the correction to the satellite record that did not make it onto his blog. Roy also seems to think that Obscurity is Trenberth-- he is clearly becoming  paranoid and/or delusional.

"Hello Roy,

You elected to miss the point entirely, and I'm not particularly interested in more obfuscation from you on this point. 

 The fact remains that you knew that your product was an outlier well before 2005 (Hurrell and Trenberth (1997) highlighted some potential problems with the MSU data), yet, at least initially it seems that you chose to believe that everyone else was wrong.  Why?  Only you know why, but I suspect it is because you liked the answer-- cooling versus warming.  and there is good reason for saying that; Roy can you tell your readers where this quote comes from:

 "Spencer’s article (“1995: The Warmest Year That Wasn’t”) relies, as expected, on the satellite data;  he is the author of the famous Science paper that first showed the satellites weren’t finding any warming.  It, too, is very well written.".

 " You did it again! Wentz & Mears discovered a correction that needed to be made, one which no one else would have ever thought of (orbital decay)..."

Actually the Mears and Wentz (2005) wrote a paper speaking to the diurnal correction, a separate issue.  Wentz and Schabel wrote a paper about the orbital decay in Nature 1998, you then wrote a paper in 2000 with Christy and Braswell in which you applied their correction (which you had been aware of since 1998 b/c Wentz and Schabel kindly provided you with a copy of their 1998 paper before it was published)-- so again after someone else had identified the problem and come up with a solution before you did.

Yes, correcting errors is an improvement to the science, but what you seem intent on ignoring is that said corrections did not initially come from you nor John."

2011-09-03 06:38:45
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Surprisingly it's made it onto BBC news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

2011-09-03 07:00:22
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Various other articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/editor-of-journal-behind-controversial-climate-paper-resigns.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/

2011-09-03 07:06:55
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Roy is in for a rough week or two....that is not going to help his paranoia.

2011-09-03 07:11:34
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is great timing for the Dessler paper.  I so hope Roy gets totally blindsided by it.  I don't mean to be unkind but, honestly, no one quite deserves to be blindsided on this more than Roy.

2011-09-03 07:16:57This is huge
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Will publish a quick blog post about it today and add it to the Spencer rebuttal also.
2011-09-03 07:21:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Did someone let the cat out of the bag re Dessler's paper?  How did the Guardian come to hear of this? Or was it only the content that is embargoed and the fact that the paper was in the works was common knowledge?

2011-09-03 07:28:58Guardian slip
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
Not sure how that happened, I'm guessing John Abraham was conversing with the Guardian journalist who mentioned it. I don't know if the existence of Dessler's paper was embargoed - obviously not anymore in any case. But the actual contents of the paper are embargoed. This is probably because the last time a critique of Spencer was published, he got the paper and the day it came out, Spencer published a response along with a press conference - if I recall correctly, Monckton was alongside him at the press conference. This time, though, due to a happy coincidence, Spencer is already on the back foot due to Wagner's resignation.

The more I learn of Spencer, the more I see to dislike. If you could summate the man, it would be his "I see my job is to minimize the role of small government" quote. His ideological blinkers are so strong, he projects his own biases when he criticizes others, accusing them of political bias. And he appears to be completely, utterly unable to recognize his own errors - it's all just a big IPCC conspiracy to suppress his awesomeness.

2011-09-03 07:34:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi John,

Thanks-- good thoughts. Yes, that was a desperate and cheap stunt that Spencer pulled in Cancun.  That was very telling as to what he is up to, that and him spinning his very own paper (S&B 2011) in the press release.

I just can't get over how paranoid Spencer is....

I really do hope that Spencer et al. do not manage to get hold of Dessler's paper before it is released.  I very much look forward to reading it next week when it officially appears in print.

2011-09-03 08:00:58
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.44.162

"it's all just a big IPCC conspiracy to suppress his awesomeness." 

2011-09-03 08:12:21
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
174.22.251.242

Re resignation..........A precedent for the resignation of the editor-in-chief, without retraction:  Soon & Baliunas (2003)

 

Re retraction..........Last month WUWT had a blogpost about the increasing number of retractions in scientific journals.  Specifically mentioned were PNAS, Science and Nature.  The gullible among the commenters took the hint, that there would be consensus climate science articles included in the lists of retractions.

Actually, there weren't.  The lists were exclusively of papers in the medical sciences!

My curiousity aroused, I scanned thru all the articles on the Retraction Watch website.  The only 'climate science' retraction mentioned was a skeptic one:  Wegman's paper in the Journal of Computational Data and Statistics.

2011-09-03 08:37:34
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Do you think that Wagner was aware of the Dessler paper?  If Dessler has shared in advance with SkS, it's likely he has shared it with other people who may be called upon for an instant response, such as Abraham and Wagner. That would be a good PR strategy. It would also have been polite from Dessler, giving Wagner a chance to prepre for an onslaught of criticism.

Perhaps Wagner read it and it prompted his resignation, but he couldn't give that as a reason because of the embargo.

Spencer may well be paranoid but as Kissinger said: Even the paranoid have real enemies. It looks like he has stumbled into a trap with his remark about the lack of peer-reviewed criticism.

2011-09-03 08:41:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Andy,

Intriguing hypothesis, it might just be correct....

If Roy has enemies, it is on account of his own actions and his actions towards others....

2011-09-03 09:38:09
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.28.34

The knowledge of Dessler working on a paper was public since Romm published his email correspondence with Dessler, Albatross and Andy.  Here is the article, if anyone remembers - Romm gives the email essentialy verbatum.  The details of the article, though, may have been known but not through this venue - after all, Wagner was a leading editor for the journal, and if the paper is about to be released in less than a week it is very likely it was available to the journal staff well before Wagner resigned.

2011-09-03 10:23:35
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Alex, thanks

Dessler's paper, according to the Guardian, is coming out in Geophysical Research Letters, not Wagner's journal. It's very unlikely that Wagner would have been a GRL referee (since he's not a climate scientist) but Dessler might well have sent him an embargoed copy as a heads-up.

Spencer has earned his enemy number one status, as Romm says:

It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

That doesn’t mean Spencer’s new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know.  And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.

In addition, Spencer's been badmouthing everyone holding the consensus view and has tried to do an end-run of the peer-review process and then made exaggerated press releases. He deserves to be humiliated and  fired. It's incredible what Mann and Monnet have had to endure and yet they have done nothing wrong.

 

2011-09-03 10:44:09
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.126.237

The BBC article got linked from The Drudge Report.

Amazing, that's 2 non-nonsensical articles on climate this week.

2011-09-03 11:28:21Spencer pulls a Monckton - accuses Abraham of ad hominem while committing ad hominem in the same sentence
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Gotta scratch my head at this one:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/
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”.

At least he didn't liken him to a prawn.

2011-09-03 11:33:08Another ironic quote from Spencer
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_climate_change_shades_of_st_1050381.html

"The forces of darkness may have overplayed their hand on this one. Spencer has challenged anyone who finds any error in the paper to submit a peer-reviewed article making the case."

Looking forward to Tuesday...

2011-09-03 12:05:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21

Wow, just fascinating stuff.  What really surprised me is that Forbes published Peter Gleick's (very good) article on the subject.  Suddenly Forbes and Drudge are actually publishing decent stuff on climate?

This is great timing for Dessler's paper though.  It was going to make a big splash already.  Now it's a fat man cannonball.

2011-09-03 12:21:54Published a quick blog post summarising the Wagner resignation
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer

Also updated the Spencer rebuttal http://sks.to/negspencer which I imagine will be completely revamped again come Tuesday when we finally have peer-reviewed response to Spencer's paper and Lindzen's 2011 paper.

2011-09-03 12:22:53Forbes hiding Gleick
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Note that Forbes has hidden Gleick's piece off the op-ed page.

Hey, Dana, aren't you meant to be on holiday?

2011-09-03 12:31:17Adding Spencer links to the database
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191

Note: I've been using the new Myth Monitor form to add any Roy Spencer links directly to the Roy Spencer links page. I encourage all SkSers when you encounter webpages related to a denier, whether proAGW or written by the denier themselves, to add them to our database. The more comprehensive, the more powerful and useful the resource will be.

2011-09-03 12:32:44
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.31.123

Andy: I wasn't aware it was being published in a different journal, I had supposed it would be a formal response/comment and thus in the same.  This might mean Wagner was not privy, I don't know.  In either case Spencer is about to get a very very big egg on his face when this comes out.  I share Albatross' sentiment about Spencer not deserving to know about it until it's published.

2011-09-03 13:06:47
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.59

I don't think it's surprising that Spencer et al. knew that a rebuttal would be coming out: It's a small community, and it's normally not considered important if a rebuttal comes out a day early or late. In principle, it's supposed to be about the science, not about the timing.

2011-09-03 13:28:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
68.6.117.21
Ah I didn't realize Forbes hid Gleick's response. That's more of what I'd expect. Then they can claim to be unbiased, yet few people see it. Nice. Yeah I'm on vacation - the place we're staying has wifi. Just checking in.
2011-09-03 14:56:39
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.31.123

Frankly Neal if Spencer knew about the quick timing of Dessler's response he would have held his tongue when about to make comments about the blogs running responses instead of papers sent in for peer review.  He should have held his tongue only based off of the information that Dessler was rebutting in the first place.  Spencer has been complaining about the timing of responses and recognition of his work for a long while, if it is truly not about the timing (and I agree with you there) then Spencer has yet to get that memo.

I find his statements too that other scientists have not responded to his paper (or, have responded without reading, doesn't matter) despicable and intentionally dishonest.  He has yet to address the points brought up at RC for example, AFAIK.

2011-09-03 15:05:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Alex C @9:38 am...thanks.  I had forgotten about that.

Reading Spencer's page makes my head hurt....some sane voices, but the rest are just pure crazy-- all assertion and opinion and conspiracy theory and no substance. 

2011-09-03 21:14:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.59

Alex,

Spencer's way of handling this doesn't make much sense, so I'm not sure that your (very reasonable) "recommendation" to him would have been taken no matter what he knew. In terms of doing in his own credibililty, he may have just pulled off a "Curry", or maybe a Curry^2. It seems to me that the resignation of a journal's editor is a signal event.