The Editor of a scientific journal, Remote Sensing, Dr Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned after allowing publication of a paper that criticised the man-made global warming theory.
The paper was written by Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. It suggested that the climate scientists’ computer models exaggerate the extent of global warming, by not correctly taking into account the role of clouds and radiation of heat from the earth into space.
Dr Spencer has a degree in meteorology, according to his blog, and before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University,
was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.
So he is not some amateur with no experience in the field.
Here is what the editor of that journal, Dr Wagner, said in his resignation letter:
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 Spencer and Braswell…is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published…
The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted…, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
In other words, the problem I see with the paper… 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.
That doesn’t sound like a failure of the peer review process itself at the journal. It just says that the paper was flawed, and its flaws were not picked up by the reviewers. So why would the editor think that he needed to resign?
Why indeed. Ho hum. Remember those Climategate e-mails?
Here is Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit discussing putting pressure on another journal, Climate Research, to get rid of its editor:
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
And from the reply from Michael Mann of the University of Virginia:
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
And now Dr Wagner has resigned after “many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora” that he should not have published this anti-global warming article.
Note, mind, that Remote Sensing has not recanted publication of the article, or dissociated itself from it. But by his resignation, of course, Dr Wagner has damned the article without any need for the Warmists to actually refute the contents of the article properly. That would have been done by publication of a rebuttal in the same journal, or even a further paper in another journal.
Those “many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate” did not as far as we know submit papers of their own to the journal, refuting Dr Spencer’s claims. Instead, they expressed their opinions on “various internet discussion fora”.
Professor Spencer is sticking by his paper though.
I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com.
Note also the contents of Dr Wagner’s letter. “Rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.” Methodological errors – well yes. But “false claims”? What the hell is a “false claim” in the context of a scientific debate?
Basically, what these charlatans are saying is that any article on climate change must be reviewed by the Warmists first to make sure it aligns with their theories.
And these pseudo-scientists are demanding that we spend £1 trillion a year for 50 years to combat global warming.
Man-made global warming is a religion, not a scientific theory. And like the Catholic one before it, its Inquisition will ensure that heresy is silenced.