Editor that Published Sceptic Paper Forced to Resign

[TimG]

This story made made by jaw drop:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of the open access journal Remote Sensing, has resigned over the journal's publication of the Spencer and Braswell paper.

Now Micheal Hardener, dre and some others love to scoff when I say that the climate science establishment has been completely corrupted by the CAGW cause. I challenge you to explain away this nonsense.

Don't bother with claiming this resignation was voluntary unless you want to argue that he is part of a scheme to manipulate the media and generate bad press for paper that they cannot withdraw based on scientific arguments.. We will have to see if he gets a plum appointment in a few months. The bottom line is journal editors publish papers that turn out to be junk all of the time. This is not an offense that has ever required the resignation of the editor. A simple retraction of the paper is the usual way to deal with it. Something fishy is going on.

It is a mystery why anyone thinks any science produced in this field has any credibility at all. The field is too politicized to allow for good science.

Dr. Spencer defends his paper here:

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

Others agree that a resignation is highly unusual.

I’m also told that RetractionWatch has a new post on the subject. Their reporter told me this morning that this was highly unusual, to have an editor-in-chief resign over a paper that was not retracted.

Peilke Sr weighs and (as expert in field) confirms that there is no obvious flaw in the paper that would justify the editor's claims:

I have read the Spencer and Braswell paper in detail, and while I agree that some of the media exposure has been exaggerated and misplaced, the science in their paper appears robust. I certainly can be wrong, but I do not see a fatal flaw in what they did (i.e. an error such that the paper should have been rejected).

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/comment-on-the-resignation-of-wolfgang-wagner-as-editor-in-chief-of-the-journal-remote-sensing-in-response-to-the-publication-of-spencer-and-braswell-2011/ Edited September 2, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

Waldo did it.

[waldo]

Editor that Published Sceptic Paper Forced to Resign [waldo: no, not forced to resign... please correct your thread title] - The Climate Science Mafia is out for blood [waldo: "mafia"!!! Rank hyperbole of the TimG, bombastic, wildly over-the-top kind]

This story made made by jaw drop: [waldo: more rank hyperbole... exaggerated/made-up for presumed effect]

I challenge you to explain away this nonsense. [waldo: explain away your nonsense... gladly!]

first... let's properly set the tone/background. You really didn't need to start a new thread; you could have continued right on after the following quoted exchange, our last exchange, in another concurrently running thread. Your over-the-top, bombastic, hyperbole within this OP clearly fits that discussion we were having... to a tee! The real issue is not another of the continuing saga of repeated Spencer failures, the real issue is initially how this latest Spencer failure was handled... crafted... perpetuated... manipulated... on up into the mainstream. Why... we saw, yet again, another denier "silver bullet" thrust forward - by the usual suspects!

The issue are people like waldo who think that anyone who disagrees with the IPCC dogma is a "denialist" and should not be given any voice in the media because they so not represent the scientific consensus. The media should be providing enough to ensure people have an accurate understanding of the different POVs and should not be governed by any preconceived notions about who is more likely to be right.

your calling the recognized, acknowledged, mandated, ongoing, iterative, prevailing, consensus assessments/agreements on the status of climate change science, "dogma"... is inconsequential. The question of your described, 'rightness likelihood', has been determined... it's called the scientific consensus. It is most certainly not the role of the media to present the alternate fringe position of denying outliers, particularly when that presentation, subject to biasing influences or circumstance, is used to cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus. As I've said/implied, science moves forward and enhances based on the foundation of skepticism... media presentation does not! media presentation does not!

[waldo]

event/timeline progression:

=> Spencer begins to offer teasers about a new paper coming soon... avoids answering queries as to what journal the paper will be published in. Speculation begins to mount that Spencer is "shopping" around to find a journal that will accept the paper.

=> paper is published in a new 2-year old, "Open Access", relatively obscure journal, "Remote Sensing"... a journal that has tangential relation to atmospheric/climate change science, proper... a journal that has not published climate change papers of significance/repute... a journal that does not have editors versed, accordingly. A journal that requires it's paper's authors to recommend 5 reviewers... just who did Spencer recommend to align with his ongoing failed "low climate-sensitivity" premise (those that line up with it, one can presume...the likes of Lindzen, Pielke Sr., Choi, etc.,... the guys who have had their like, low-sensitivity crapola, punted through the regular peer-review/response process). Did I say... "Open Access" journal? Yes, publication for pay... something becoming the favoured darling of the skeptic/denier crew - we've touched upon this in other MLW climate change related threads. Apparently, there are a few reputable Open Access format journals coming forward, attempting to carve out a status within this relatively new niche... it would appear, given the resignation of the editor, Remote Sensing, might be attempting to place it's reputation above the denier charade that has unfolded.

=> Spencer's UAH issues a press release... one, itself, exaggerating on the Spencer paper results/claims.

=> Pielke Sr.'s blog prints the UAH press release (weeeeeeee... and now it begins!).

=> Pielke Sr. posts the UAH press release on the most disreputable WTFIUWT blog (yeeeehaaaa... the denialsphere is off to the parteee!!!).

=>

Heartland Institute

Senior Fellow, James Taylor... a, uhhhh..... lawyer... authors up a most outrageous article, hyping and further exaggerating on the Spencer paper - article is printed by Forbes. And then it gets... mainstream crazy... principally Conservative Media outlets extending on... and further exaggerating on... the Forbes article! All of it, without any foundation... certainly not anything that can be supported by the failed Spencer paper, is intending to cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus... even to the extent that warming outright is being challenged/denied within these media exaggerations/fabrications.

[TimG]

The real issue is not another of the continuing saga of repeated Spencer failures, the real issue is initially how this latest Spencer failure was handled.

First. The opinion that Spencer's paper is a failure is nothing but your OPINION that may be shared by a few alarmist scientists. It is NOT a fact. Given the fact that it is nothing but your OPINION - the rest of your attempt to justify this is irrelevant.

Second, the mafia is an organization that represents a minority of people but uses threats and intimidation to impose its will on the majority. An editor being pressure to resign because they published a perfectly reasonable scientific paper that disagreed with the mafia is a perfect example of mafia tactics. So, I think the comparison to the mafia is completely appropriate with the caveat that the climate science mafia delivers threats of violance to one's career rather than one's body.

So let's recap: you have no justification other than to say you think Spencer's paper is wrong but that is no justification for a editor resignation. The proper way to deal with these kinds of things is a comment in a jounrnal. The only people guilty of over the top hyperbole of the climate science mafia who pushed an editor to resign because they can't stand it when someone dares to challenge them.

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don't resign because of things like this.

Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.

Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.

I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis's paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.

Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.

What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit? How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense? What is wrong with these guys?

via http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html?currentPage=2#comments

Of course, waldo will spin spin spin. Trying to claim that black is white and white is black. All because he is unable to accept that there are serious problems with group think in the climate science field and that the climate science mafia actively seeks to prevent dissenting views from being published and discussed.

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I dont see supporting evidence for the title of your thread in any of your links.

Is it possible that you manufactured another conspiracy based on a bunch of assumptions?

[TimG]

I dont see supporting evidence for the title of your thread in any of your links.

What are you looking for? Video taped confessions?

If you are going to insist on being willfully blind to the obvious then no amount of evidence will convince you.

Is it possible that you manufactured another conspiracy based on a bunch of assumptions?

I challenged you to provide an alternate explanation for the available facts that is more plausible than what I presented. I take it from your response that you cannot come up with a more plausible explanation. Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

So let's recap: you have no justification other than to say you think Spencer's paper is wrong but that is no justification for a editor resignation. The proper way to deal with these kinds of things is a comment in a jounrnal. The only people guilty of over the top hyperbole of the climate science mafia who pushed an editor to resign because they can't stand it when someone dares to challenge them.

Spencer, knowingly and purposely, avoided addressing existing science/papers that have dealt with his similar touted simplistic "1-box" models (so simple they can be run on a spreadsheet!!!), intending to represent the myriad of most complex physical processes, intending to resolve one of the most difficult aspects of climate science - equilibrium climate sensitivity. Hey now... I thought you were the guy who blasted models as nothing more than curve-fitting exercises!!! But you like the basic, simple, mickey-mouse one Spencer uses, hey? Notwithstanding the many other errors Spencer makes; his own peculiar selectivity (fitting!!!) on parameter usage (again, of the most limited and simplistic variety), his misplaced mixing of data reference periods (vis-a-vis select observational to extended modeling), his handling of inter-decadal variability, his failure to include appropriate (if included at all) error bars/uncertainty ranges, his failure to present the paper as replicable, his claims about cloud forcing, his handling of inter-annual temp variations, etc., etc., etc.

drop the hype, drop the hyperbole, drop the lies... no one pressured the editor to resign. Your whining about the paper not being retracted aligns perfectly with the editor's related comment/action; i.e., that he resigned for his personal failure in how this was played out/manipulated by the denier crew... where he states categorically: "we believe that it is much better to treat this issue in an open and scientific manner. Therefore the publisher is already working on inviting the science community to respond to this paper". More to the other well publicized point, noted/renowned atmospheric/climate scientist, Andrew Dressler, is said to have his Spencer rebuttal paper set to publish next week (in GRL)... it's certainly not going to help the reputation of the Remote Sensing Journal to retract the failed Spencer paper, while it's widely known a rebuttal is on it's way.

Spencer has a long career of failure... of purposeful manipulation to satisfy his own agenda. We could start with the decade+ long, most significant error, related to his processing of the UAH satellite data... an error he most certainly was aware of, and failed to work to resolve... an error that was finally put to rest when RSS came aboard and real scientists countered his nonsense... his error that, to this day, still perpetuates a denier canard over surface temperature vs. satellite interpreted tropospheric temperature - all of which, of course, was manipulated by deniers to cast doubt on the integrity of the surface records. We could end with this latest episode where he most certainly knew of the false claims and statements being perpetuated across the mainstream media concerning his paper... his response? Well... he stated, how could he, Spencer, be held responsible for what the media does? Really, Spencer... really?

let's recap

: you have no apparent qualms with what played out in the mainstream media... clearly, you value the kind of media fabrication, denier manipulated/fed, that intends to cast any/every manner of doubt - whether there is any foundation to it or not. Every presumed and wildly touted denier "silver nugget" should be given a media assisted, cart-Blanche path, one hyped/manipulated/fabricated, on through to the general public. Of course, you're all for that! By the way, of the ongoing, regular publishing of, quite literally, hundreds and hundreds of papers that confirm the consensus... do you also favour the mainstream media giving like assist to each and every one of those that confirms the consensus?

as an aside... why not have us delve into Spencer's well known creationist position and how it... might... just be influencing the most bizarre paths he takes. After all, if you feel quite emboldened enough to, once again (once of many again), tout your personal conspiracy, group think... and now... mafia flavoured tinges of TimG bombastic, over-the-top, ramblings... what's to say we shouldn't add to that with another, lil' ole rat-hole pursuit down the creationist pathway?

[TimG]

Spencer, knowingly and purposely, avoided addressing existing science/papers that have dealt with his similar touted simplistic "1-box" models

A complete fabrication. If you have to make crap up you have no argument.

But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, 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

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.

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

You are also avoiding the real issue: it does not make a difference whether Spencer is right or wrong. An editor resigning is not the way to deal with it. It sends a clear message of intimidation to all editors: publish a sceptical paper and the climate mafia will have your head.

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

What are you looking for? Video taped confessions?

If you are going to insist on being willfully blind to the obvious then no amount of evidence will convince you.

I challenged you to provide an alternate explanation for the available facts that is more plausible than what I presented. I take it from your response that you cannot come up with a more plausible explanation.

Right. So you invented a conspiracy theory and then challenged me to prove it isnt true?

I take it from your response that you cannot come up with a more plausible explanation

Plausible explanation for what? Why do you think he was "FORCED" to resign?

[TimG]

Plausible explanation for what? Why do you think he was "FORCED" to resign?

Right. Are you really that naive? And editor resigns over a paper that has not even been withdrawn. Can you give me any other example in any other field where this has happened? Why do you ignore the evidence that I offered that this is not a normal move.

Only an idiot thinks that there is not hidden agenda at work. The question is what. Is the editor conspiring with the climate mafia to generate press? That is possible. So maybe he did resign willingly but he is being duplicitous. It is not plausible that this editor is resigning simply because he thinks he published a bad paper. I am sure he has done that many times before but did not resign. So what makes this "bad" paper so special?

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

You are also avoiding the real issue: it does not make a difference whether Spencer is right or wrong. An editor resigning is not the way to deal with it. It sends a clear message of intimidation to all editors: publish a sceptical paper and the climate mafia will have your head.

you're all about the supposed/presumed rightness of the failed Spencer paper; curiously though, I note your rightness is predicated on the temerity of others to actually challenge the paper... it doesn't appear to be predicated on you touting the actual claims or underlying "science", therein.

no, again, the editor (one of, apparently, several/many at the journal) resigned. That's it. The paper still stands... they didn't retract it. What's your beef? The editor, for the expressed reasons he clearly outlines, resigned... you simply don't like how it's turned around and helped to highlight the lil' charade that had played out... between Spencer, Pielke, Taylor/Heartland, etc. You know, "group think" of the denier flavour! You speak to the publishing aspect... why isn't your blathering, contradictory, vitriolic rant targeted at the publisher?

[dre]

Right. Are you really that naive? And editor resigns over a paper that has not even been withdrawn. Can you give me any other example in any other field where this has happened? Why do you ignore the evidence that I offered that this is not a normal move.

Only an idiot thinks that there is not hidden agenda at work. The question is what. Is the editor conspiring with the climate mafia to generate press? That is possible. So maybe he did resign willingly but he is being duplicitous. It is not plausible that this editor is resigning simply because he thinks he published a bad paper. I am sure he has done that many times before but did not resign. So what makes this "bad" paper so special?

You didnt present any evidence at all. And none of your links echo your conspiracy theory claims. Now you dont even seem so sure about it yourself.

Only an idiot thinks that there is not hidden agenda at work.

You see hidden adgendas everywhere and if they dont exist youll invent them. Then when youre challenged for making stuff up out of thin air your story "only idiots dont believe me".

the editor conspiring with the climate mafia to generate press? That is possible.

Ah yes... the "climate mafia" :lol:

[waldo]

Right. Are you really that naive? And editor resigns over a paper that has not even been withdrawn. Can you give me any other example in any other field where this has happened? Why do you ignore the evidence that I offered that this is not a normal move.

how about... the same field; e.g., see multiple editors resign from the Climate Research journal over the Soon/Baliunas piece of crapola, the one that goes down as an example of the worst ever papers that never should have been published. Don't bother to take us down this path... we've already covered it (don't you remember? )... it'll be an easy cut-paste exercise for me to refer to earlier MLW posts.

Only an idiot thinks that there is not hidden agenda at work. The question is what. Is the editor conspiring with the climate mafia to generate press? That is possible. So maybe he did resign willingly but he is being duplicitous. It is not plausible that this editor is resigning simply because he thinks he published a bad paper. I am sure he has done that many times before but did not resign. So what makes this "bad" paper so special?

... you do realize, of course, your conspiracy is now self-perpetuating on it's own, spinning out gyrations as you wail on. Perhaps you should have another read of the editor's fully qualified response as to why he resigned.

[TimG]

The editor, for the expressed reasons he clearly outlines, resigned

This issue is his stated reasons make no sense. He makes claims about the paper having ignored prior arguments but made no attempt to contact the authors and ask them to address this claim. There is no way a diligent editor would have simply accepted such serious criticisms without looking at both sides.

The bottom line is he resigned because the journal was being pressured by the climate science mafia who were likely threatening to blacklist the journal. We know the climate mafia is willing to do this because of what Mann said in the Climategate emails.

[TimG]

how about... the same field; e.g., see multiple editors resign from the Climate Research journal over the Soon/Baliunas piece of crapola

Gee. Another example in the field of climate science. This supports your argument? How exactly?

[waldo]

The editor, for the expressed reasons he clearly outlines, resigned... you simply don't like how it's turned around and helped to highlight the lil' charade that had played out... between Spencer, Pielke, Taylor/Heartland, etc. You know, "group think" of the denier flavour! You speak to the publishing aspect... why isn't your blathering, contradictory, vitriolic rant targeted at the publisher?

This issue is his stated reasons make no sense. He makes claims about the paper having ignored prior arguments but made no attempt to contact the authors and ask them to address this claim. There is no way a diligent editor would have simply accepted such serious criticisms without looking at both sides.

The bottom line is he resigned because the journal was being pressured by the climate science mafia who were likely threatening to blacklist the journal. We know the climate mafia is willing to do this because of what Mann said in the Climategate emails.

can't you somehow work McIntyre into this?

let's recap: we have a new journal, one of the pay-for-publishing type, one not publishing climate science related papers. Somehow... Spencer's paper ends up there - go figure! Spencer get's to recommend who should review the paper... not necessarily out of line within traditional peer-review; however, in this case, that is compounded upon, amplified upon, by the journal's unfamiliarity, (it's editor's lack of knowledge) in regards to the climate science field... and, apparently, as I read, the editor went entirely with reviewers recommended by Spencer... something that, quite obviously, came to the forefront once real-world criticism of the paper started to flood in. So... the editor... the apparent, inexperienced editor (one possibly lacking diligence as you imply), begins to wonder just how he got completely hood-winked/bamboozled by the Spencer recommended reviewers. He extends upon that, by investigating on the many notifications coming his way, that the Spencer paper has ignored existing cases of prevailing science/papers that, in fact, refute many of Spencer's claims. So... the editor sees he 'screwed the pooch', big time! He resigns... denier conspiracy floods in, big time!

[waldo]

And editor resigns over a paper that has not even been withdrawn. Can you give me any other example in any other field where this has happened?

how about... the same field; e.g., see multiple editors resign from the Climate Research journal over the Soon/Baliunas piece of crapola, the one that goes down as an example of the worst ever papers that never should have been published.

Gee. Another example in the field of climate science. This supports your argument? How exactly?

it supports it in showing that a journal editor resigning after publishing something within the 'same field' isn't unprecedented. If you want other examples, published 'outside the field', google is your friend:

- Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after the publishing of a paper concerning 9/11 Thermitic Material... perhaps... you could wrangle a truther angle here - you're a truther, right? Or, perhaps... this one:

- Editor of Open Information Science Journal resigns over the publishing of a paper concerning phrenology research.

now... let me also point out a lil' ditty... for my purposefully crafted purposes, I chose those two examples because they, like the new journal Spencer targeted, are Open Access journals... as I said, the relatively new kind of journal that charges authors to publish. Also, as I said, the type of journal now favoured by skeptics/deniers, because they, quite generally, have much less control over processing and the standards followed/applied, therein. After all, to deniers it's not whether you have anything of substance to publish, it's just a matter of getting published in order to ramp up the denial machine to "pump it on up" into the mainstream, to cast doubt and uncertainty against the consensus. Just exactly like happened in this case!

you seemed to avoid my earlier reference/questioning of why Spencer targeted this journal? Why do you interpret this journal was chosen by Spencer? It certainly doesn't have any prestige... it certainly doesn't have any track record in climate science related publishing... it certainly doesn't have any significant reputation, at large. C'mon TimG... why do you think/believe Spencer targeted the Remote Sensing Journal for publication?

[TimG]

Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after the publishing of a paper concerning 9/11 Thermitic Material.

Ok. I will concede on that point. There are other examples of editors resigning. Rare but not unheard of.

Also, as I said, the type of journal now favoured by skeptics/deniers, because they, quite generally, have much less control over processing and the standards followed/applied, therein.

What you really mean is the editors of these journals are not card carrying members of the climate mafia so they will not reject sceptical papers out of hand.

You want to spin the fact that Spencer went to remote sensing as some nefarious plot. The fact is his experience with editors at major journals forced him to go elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with that. Why should there be?

Frankly, the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd is getting ridiculous. They screech about about how skeptics don't get papers published. When skeptics say that is because the journal editors are biased they say there are plenty of journals. When skeptics find journals without preconceived notions on the topic they scream about how the peer review process was manipulated and get editors to resign/be fired.

What exactly is a scientist who does not agree with the "consensus" supposed to do?

The system is rigged. You know it is but since it is rigged the way you like you don't care.

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Frankly, the hypocrisy of the alarmist crowd is getting ridiculous. They screech about about how skeptics don't get papers published. When skeptics complain the journal editors are biased they say there are plenty of journals. When skeptics find journals without preconceived notions on the topic they scream about how the peer review process was manipulated and get editors to resign/be fired.

The system is rigged. You know it is but since it is rigged the way you like you don't care.

nonsense. Many, many skeptical papers get published... proponents go out of their way to keep highlighting this point. As per norm, if these skeptical papers add to, complement or bring new findings, over and above the prevailing understanding, they are incorporated into the overall... they have made a contribution. Unfortunately, for your liking, the skeptical papers of the variety you seem to favour, don't stand up to critical review within either the initial review or subsequent peer-response cycles. They are not good enough to add any new findings/understanding to the prevailing knowledge... they are not good enough to either get published in the first place, or if they do get published, they don't stand the test of time in regards to critical comment/response.

[TimG]

nonsense. Many, many skeptical papers get published... proponents go out of their way to keep highlighting this point.

You are a talking out both sides of your mouth. One minute your argue that skeptics never publish in peer review journals. The next minute you are claiming that "many, many skeptical papers" get published. Make up your friggen mind.

As for the peer review response cycles - that is what should have been followed in this case. An editor resigning is an over reaction.

But even then - the system is rigged. GRL has apparently fast tracked a rebuttal to Spencer's paper - priviledge that is never granted to skeptics.

Edited September 3, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

nonsense. Many, many skeptical papers get published... proponents go out of their way to keep highlighting this point.

You are a talking out both sides of your mouth. One minute your argue that skeptics never publish in peer review journals. The next minute you are claiming that "many, many skeptical papers" get published. Make up your friggen mind.

no - just take your blinders off... I've never argued that deniers never publish in traditional peer review. In this case I've simply highlighted the path Spencer chose... to which you still won't answer the question as to why you interpret/believe Spencer chose the Remote Sensing journal:

you seemed to avoid my earlier reference/questioning of why Spencer targeted this journal? Why do you interpret this journal was chosen by Spencer? It certainly doesn't have any prestige... it certainly doesn't have any track record in climate science related publishing... it certainly doesn't have any significant reputation, at large.

C'mon TimG... why do you think/believe Spencer targeted the Remote Sensing Journal for publication?

I've also just made note of a relatively new shift in denier strategies... one that seems to align with the increased presence of the alternate Open Access journal format. But, again, you could offer your comment on this, rather than simply choosing to ignore it... and why you think/believe Spencer targeted the Remote Sensing Journal for publication. You could do that, right?

As for the peer review response cycles - that is what should have been followed in this case. An editor resigning is an over reaction.

But even then - the system is rigged. GRL has apparently fast tracked a rebuttal to Spencer's paper - priviledge that is never granted to skeptics.

to you... it's an over-reaction. To most rationale thinking persons, not so much. But you know... I'm coming around and actually willing to entertain your conspiracy angle; to which, I assert: not only did the editor initially conspire with deniers to help publish a fatally flawed Spencer paper, that same editor has also conspired with deniers to pull this resign move... this way, deniers get a second round of pumped up propagandizing, pushing the much hyped and ideologically driven, fabricated results and false claims surrounding the Spencer paper around the mainstream media, once again. Crafty bastards!!! Surely you must grant me that my conspiracy theme is no less possible than yours... surely!

as for the GRL rebuttal in the pipe, well... ya, in an earlier post, I just told you that was coming... that it's probably a contributor as to why the Spencer paper wasn't retracted. Your mentioning "fast track" is a fine wrinkle to add - it might be worthwhile for you to put up a link that qualifies that... a little chuckle to see one of your go-to's, if nothing else, hey?

[dre]

you're all about the supposed/presumed rightness of the failed Spencer paper; curiously though, I note your rightness is predicated on the temerity of others to actually challenge the paper... it doesn't appear to be predicated on you touting the actual claims or underlying "science", therein.

no, again, the editor (one of, apparently, several/many at the journal) resigned. That's it. The paper still stands... they didn't retract it. What's your beef? The editor, for the expressed reasons he clearly outlines, resigned... you simply don't like how it's turned around and helped to highlight the lil' charade that had played out... between Spencer, Pielke, Taylor/Heartland, etc. You know, "group think" of the denier flavour! You speak to the publishing aspect... why isn't your blathering, contradictory, vitriolic rant targeted at the publisher?

. The paper still stands... they didn't retract it. What's your beef? The editor, for the expressed reasons he clearly outlines, resigned... you simply don't like how it's turned around and helped to highlight the lil' charade that had played out... between Spencer, Pielke, Taylor/Heartland, etc.

Yup. Apparently publishing this paper was part of a conspiracy to not public papers like it

Edited September 4, 2011 by dre

[waldo]

Yup. Apparently publishing this paper was part of a conspiracy to not publish papers like it

I expect you're aware, but for the edification of some less engaged, this flawed Spencer paper's principle claims reflect upon the degree of Earth's sensitivity to climate; i.e., the estimate of how much the Earth's climate will warm if CO2 equivalents are doubled... usually expressed as the temperature change associated with a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. Per the IPCC AR4 report, this temperature change is "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C". Of course, scientists have been working to solidify the science/results in this regard, working to narrow related uncertainties, working to reaffirm the likelihood probabilities associated with the respective temperature range groupings... the latest years efforts have helped to shape understandings towards a lessening of the likelihood of the more extreme 6°C and beyond estimates, while reaffirming the likelihood of a best estimate of about 3°C. Of course, climate sensitivity is not just a variable statistics abstraction... it reflects upon the likely changes from increased warming, the degree of those changes we can expect in the immediate day/future, and what future generations can expect to inherit.

obviously, thinking skeptics and irrational deniers have their target in sight; i.e., lower climate sensitivity... less warming estimates. Skeptics/deniers can no longer challenge the realities of warming temperature... they can no longer challenge the realities of rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations... they can no longer challenge mankind as the source of the rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations... they can no longer (well, never could) challenge the greenhouse effect. So... the focus has now shifted to denier slanted scientists working feverishly to attempt to bring the consensus estimate on projected temperature rise to reflect Earth having a low sensitivity to climate... or if nothing else, as is always the denier pursuit, cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus position on climate sensitivity.

a qualification: separate from legitimate skeptical scientists, these denier slanted scientists, typically, take great exception to being tagged as "deniers"; i.e., they accept warming has occurred, they accept the warming is due to the greenhouse effect as amplified by increases in CO2 and other GHG feedback aspects, and they accept this is attributed to mankind. They accept all of this - the science is sound... in the face of no other existing feasible alternatives, they accept the science... but... they deny the consensus likelihood on expected (estimated) warming. That many of these denier scientists align themselves with the most biased and influencing organizational purveyors of overt denial (on all levels), brings additional scrutiny on their real motivations...

so, this latest Spencer failed paper is not anything new in terms of deniers attempting to challenge the consensus on climate sensitivity... it's not even new for Spencer. Many papers have come forward attempting to qualify a low/lower climate sensitivity... from some of the most highly touted and 'prestigious' skeptics/deniers, typically attempting to show sensitivity at a less than a 1°C figure. None of these papers have prevailed - none.

what truly sets Spencer's latest effort apart is how it was manipulated up into and within the mainstream media, how it was radically exaggerated upon both in terms of actual results/claims and implications... this is the real issue, the real point of this thread. That the media, the public, can be so conditioned to accept that a paper, any paper, any single paper... could so radically affect, change and outright overturn decades worth of knowledge/understanding... that is a scathing indictment on the sorry, sad state of media ineptitude, one so sorely manipulating an unthinking and so easily plied sheeple.