Editor that Published Sceptic Paper Forced to Resign

[TimG]

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.

Here is Spencer's defence:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/

The Dessler and Trenberth contrary view – as near as I can tell – is that clouds cannot cause temperature change, unless those cloud changes were themselves caused by some previous temperature change. In other words, they believe cloud changes can always be traced to some prior temperature change. This temperature-forcing-clouds direction of causation is “cloud feedback”.

Put more simply, Dessler and Trenberth believe causation between temperature and clouds only flows in one direction :

Temperature Change => Cloud Change,

whereas we and others believe (and have demonstrated) it flows in both directions,

Temperature Change <= => Cloud Change.

Now the CAGW propoganda machine is out in full force and, like any good solider, I expect you are going to repeat the "failed paper" meme over and over again. However, no matter how much vitriol you and your other CAGW fanatics spew you cannot hide the fact that the entire CAGW edifice is built on a ASSUMPTION that has no supporting evidence. i.e. the ASSUMPTION that clouds cannot change on their own.

If clouds can change on their own (or say via cosmic rays) then all of the climate models end up being junk and the IPCC expected ranges for sensitivity will need to be tossed out.

Edited September 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

they scream about how the peer review process was manipulated and get editors to resign/be fired

Except that theres no indication that happened here. Unless more information comes to light it seems a lot more likely that this guy quit on his own because he made an embarassing mistake and failed at his job.

[TimG]

Except that theres no indication that happened here. Unless more information comes to light it seems a lot more likely that this guy quit on his own because he made an embarrassing mistake and failed at his job.

Then why didn't the journal retract the paper? If the paper is so bad it should be retracted. But that is not happening. Probably because the retraction process requires that they give Spencer an opportunity to defend his work and if they did that people would realize there are no grounds for a retraction no matter how much alarmists protest. This resignation is a political exercise allows him to trash the paper without actually having to give Spencer a right of reply. Whether he was pushed or volunteered his motivations are purely political. Edited September 4, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Then why didn't the journal retract the paper? If the paper is so bad it should be retracted. But that is not happening. Probably because the retraction process requires that they give Spencer an opportunity to defend his work and if they did that people would realize there are no grounds for a retraction no matter how much alarmists protest. This resignation is a political exercise allows him to trash the paper without actually having to give Spencer a right of reply. Whether he was pushed or volunteered his motivations are purely political.

The bottom line is you dont know if he was pushed out or not. The problem is you have stated this as a fact multiple times including in the title of thread, and you have a history of doing this. You play fast and loose with the facts, and you seem to confuse your various theories and suspicions with facts and evidence.

[waldo]

Now the CAGW propoganda machine is out in full force and, like any good solider, I expect you are going to repeat the "failed paper" meme over and over again. However, no matter how much vitriol you and your other CAGW fanatics spew you cannot hide the fact that the entire CAGW edifice is built on a ASSUMPTION that has no supporting evidence. i.e. the ASSUMPTION that clouds cannot change on their own.

If clouds can change on their own (or say via cosmic rays) then all of the climate models end up being junk and the IPCC expected ranges for sensitivity will need to be tossed out.

nonsense - I note you're becoming quite emboldened... have you at least figured out the difference between equilibrium and effective sensitivity yet? (should I replay some of those past MLW posts? ). Anyway, it is heartening to see you extend your struggles to (now) also include... "confounding forcing and feedback"

for your suggestion of expressed vitriol, perhaps you should look at your posts within this thread... perhaps start with your thread title. For all your past bombastic rants against models... as curve fitting exercises, you clearly have bought into Uncle Woy's most simplistic one, hey? Apparently, you really like Woy's curve fitting... you really, really like it! By the way, I find it quite ironic that Spencer, the much avowed proponent of creationism Intelligent Design, presumes to offer up a model that's absolutely and completely, one that hasn't been very well intelligently designed!

[waldo]

Then why didn't the journal retract the paper? If the paper is so bad it should be retracted. But that is not happening. Probably because the retraction process requires that they give Spencer an opportunity to defend his work and if they did that people would realize there are no grounds for a retraction no matter how much alarmists protest. This resignation is a political exercise allows him to trash the paper without actually having to give Spencer a right of reply. Whether he was pushed or volunteered his motivations are purely political.

asked and answered... a direct quote from the editor was provided in an earlier MLW post... words to the effect that, "they wanted a rebuttal(s) to come forward within their journal; that the publisher had begun the process to actively solicit responses"... notwithstanding the widely reported point that a rebuttal response is coming forward shortly, supposedly this week (perhaps tomorrow - Tuesday), in another more mainstream/recognized journal that actively publishes climate science papers.

as for your whining about "Spencer's right of reply"... he'll certainly have that opportunity. By the way, how is Spencer's "right of reply" coming along to the Lin et al (2010) paper... you know, the one that deals with Spencer/Braswell (08, 09)? Hey now... isn't this latest Spencer/Braswell paper, itself, founded/premised upon Spencer/Braswell (08, 09)? How can Spencer do while ignoring Lin et al (2010)?

[TimG]

"Spencer's right of reply"... he'll certainly have that opportunity.

Nonsense. The alarmists rig the system by pushing "rebuttal" papers through friendly journals instead of replying to the journal where the paper appears specifically because they want to prevent skeptics from replying. The chances of any reply to Dresseler getting past the alarmists editors is next to zero - at a minimum they will sit on any reply until long after the AR5 deadlines. Of course you know this but you pretend the system is not rigged because it fools the uninformed.

[waldo]

Nonsense. The alarmists rig the system by pushing "rebuttal" papers through friendly journals instead of replying to the journal where the paper appears specifically because they want to prevent skeptics from replying. The chances of any reply to Dresseler getting past the alarmists editors is next to zero - at a minimum they will sit on any reply until long after the AR5 deadlines. Of course you know this but you pretend the system is not rigged because it fools the uninformed.

you're offering more conspiracy theme? More? Even if there was a minutia of substance to your claim, Spencer can certainly trot on over to the traditionally favoured E&E slanted skeptics journal... you know that one, right? Or... he could just keep playing in his recently found sand-box, that of the relatively new niche players, the pay-for-publishing "Open Access" format journals that have sprung up in recent years. You know... just like he did with this one, his latest failed paper. Nothing stopping him from offering a comment on the upcoming Dressler paper. There's always, of course, SPPI or GWPF!!!

your nugget on AR5 deadlines, certainly, is being screeched loudly across the denialsphere... of course, the fact that the AR5 WG1 deadline for the date that papers should be submitted for publication to be eligible for assessment is... July 31, 2012. That suggests, by your conspiracy slant, should Spencer have the chops and ability to, in-turn, counter reply (even in Dressler's GRL journal), his reply would need to be "sat upon" for up to 10 months before the deadline is reached. That's a ton of "sat upon" conspiracy projection, particularly in the face of something as widely pumped by the denialMachine.