Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper 396
Layzej writes "Remote Sensing Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned earlier today (PDF) over a global warming study published in his journal that was said to cast doubt on global warming models but was later found to be flawed. Wagner stated that the paper most likely contained fundamental methodological errors and false claims. He further expressed dismay over how 'the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.' The author of the paper, Dr. Roy Spencer, has responded to the resignation."
Re:Most likely? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Informative)
Well if I remember correctly Dr. Spencer's conclusions at best would have questioned whether some satellite imagery could detect the effects of global climate change; however his one paper was heralded by many to be the penultimate refutation of climate change supposedly negating the research of many, many scientists.
As an analogy in paleontology, scientists have assembled early hominids in terms of lineage based on techniques like carbon dating and skeleton features. They have made slight errors in the past on dates and relationships between hominids. An exaggeration would happen if a scientist with an Intelligent Design agenda questioned the dating on one of the hominids and then the ID community would proclaim that evolution has been disproven.
Re:Most likely? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take the mitts off here. Spencer is a posterboy for the Heartland Institute, and so basically an oil company shill.
Re:Most likely? (Score:5, Informative)
FTA: "...research was not properly peer-reviewed and wrongly accepted"
The core of the matter is the paper was given credence by its publication, which is supposed to be backed by a review process. It never received that, the reputation of the publication was harmed and the person responsible is resigning.
ID (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing Remotely Sensible... (Score:2, Informative)
The following is taken from Desmogblog [desmogblog.com]
Spencer and the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance”
Spencer is listed as a “scientific advisor” for an organization called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is “a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development.”
In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.
Satellite Research Refuted
According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute
Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that “anti-smoking advocates” are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute
Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Naomi Oreskes [wikipedia.org], who wrote Merchants of Doubt [guardian.co.uk] has quite a bit to say about the George C. Markshall Institute and their anti-science "scientific research."
Re:Most likely? (Score:4, Informative)
Go to his bloody blog, where three or four actual researchers are doing that right now. But do it quick before Spencer bans them and deletes their posts.
Re:Most likely? (Score:4, Informative)
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism”
I guess Wagner felt he was the victim of a climate denial drive-by shooting. We see this phenomena all the time in intelligent design. Publish a "rebuttal" in a little known non-mainstream journal, and then press-release the hell out of it. Note that the author, Roy Spencer, is also an intelligent designer too.
Re:AG School of Energy Conservation (Score:4, Informative)
The only gravy train I see around here is the Heartland Institute gravy train, funded to a rather huge sum by Big Oil. And shockers, Spencer has a close association to them.
Re:Most likely? (Score:3, Informative)
Before you start jumping up and down on the ad hominem, Roy Spencer's arguments are taken seriously, and responded to in detail (as your google search will easily uncover). The problem is that Roy and his ideological peers never
Re:Most likely? (Score:5, Informative)
As his critics have pointed out, Spencer has basically just created a model that confirms his own claims. More to the point, he avoided going to a mainstream journal with this paper, obviously knowing that he'd get laughed out of the room. Where someone is going to try to publish pseudoscientific bullshit, this is the preferred method is to do so via some obscure journal, thus proclaiming "We are published!"
See the Synthese [evolvingthoughts.net] debacle for a similar ID stunt.
Re:Proof! (Score:4, Informative)
LOL. The paper Phil Jones refers to did get included in the IPCC report so they're not as powerful as you might believe.
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Informative)
"have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements"
You mean in much the same way climate change promoters exaggerate claims from other papers?
Actually, several recent studies have indicated the consensus in academic journals over the last 15 years has understated the actual effects both in terms of overall temperature change and cloud trends. I suppose you could argue there is no difference between a supposed scientist and author of a study on global warming and the press, but for those of us that pay more attention to scholarly journals than mainstream media sound bites, the difference is stark.
Re:How is this different? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You know... (Score:4, Informative)
The only things those kinds of people believe in is their own greed. Once their rich, grow old and die, as far as they are concerned the world can choke to death on the pollution they created to get rich, even if it takes their own children and grand children's lives.
Those people are either narcissists or psychopaths either way, they don't care about the chaos they create, the lies they tell or the people that die along the way to them getting rich. A substantial Tea Bagger segment of the Republican party has turned into nothing more than 'the bug con' with it's political members not interested in anything else but getting rich and will tell any lie, no matter how ludicrous, to do it. Even when caught out they, just like your typical conman shameless repeat it, again and again and again.
As the rest of the world watches on via the internet, those blatant narcissist are making a public mockery of the US political process.
Re:ID (Score:5, Informative)
The main problem is that Spencer and Christie have been wrong and made serious mistakes before about climate, not just biology. They previously published results from spacecraft data which purportedly showed much less warming than the ground stations, implying that the ground stations were contaminated by 'heat island' effects, etc etc.
Turned out that they were just plain wrong; they didn't apply the proper calibration for the satellite orbit. When this was done (not by the original authors unfortunately), the revised satellite data and ground station data showed consistent behavior and with results in agreement with mainstream climate change results (i.e. it's happening).
So it appears that Spencer now likes making intentional and difficuilt-to-find mistakes in order to push his anti global-warming position. The mainstream results have had far more cross-checks and internal consistency and external consistency. That's why they're correct.
There are a very small number of contrary scientists (the same ones, nearly always, Spencer, Christie, Lindzen) as opposed to thousands of others whose names you don't know.