Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper

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."

Bad Summary

[neonv]

The summary is wrong. Wagner did not say that the paper made false claims. According to his statement, he said:

"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."

He says the paper didn't address the views of opponents to his views. In response, the authors said

"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, calculationswhile our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate."

I don't know who's right. It sounds like politics getting in the way of science. Politics has no place in objective science. Conclusions need to be based on observations, not specific observations made to support a favored conclusion.

Re:Most likely?

[MightyMartian]

I'm sure you can actually provide some verifiable evidence for this "behind the scenes" claim, right? I mean, you wouldn't just a liar would you?

Why did he resign?

[Black Parrot]

For most journals this wouldn't be an editor's fault, unless they used bad judgment choosing the reviewers, or ignored negative reviews and published it anyway.

Reviewers wouldn't resign because they're not part of the staff, but the editors should avoid inviting someone to review again if they passed a bad paper. (And that can happen for non-ideological reasons. It's really hard to get qualified people to invest the time required for a thorough review. I've gotten feedback where one reviewer wrote two pages and another wrote two sentences.

Re:Most likely?

[microbox]

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that what happened left a bad taste in his mouth. I guess you would have to read the papers involved, and the story around the submission to really know.

/or/

You could just jump to the most emotionally convenient conclusion.

And that is what makes a skeptic a denier.

Re:Why did he resign?

[Black Parrot]

And I should add...

Even passing a good review doesn't mean that a paper is correct. Reviewers are not expected to re-do the authors' work, and some ideas that seem sound at the time of publication just turn out to be wrong.

But if a paper states something that is known to be wrong at the time it is reviewed, the reviewers should catch it. Assuming they're qualified.

Roy Spencer again

[JoshuaZ]

The paper in question was written by Roy Spencer. Aside from his views on climate change he's also a vocal proponent of intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Views_on_intelligent_design [wikipedia.org] and what he calls "the theory of creation". While in a strict formal logic setting ad hominem attacks are not useful, they are a relevant heuristic to decide if someone knows what they are talking about. In this context, it seems pretty clear that Spencer lets his ideological allegiances dictate beliefs instead of careful scientific thinking. There's a certain point where you just stop assigning large amounts of weight to claims made by an individual because they've demonstrated repeated failure before. Spencer is past that point.

Re:You know...

[bmo]

Actually, that's not far from the truth when it comes to the likes of the Know-Nothing "Hyperchristian" Republicans. You know the ones, the Palins, the Perrys, the Bachmanns, all the ones that sign up for the Dominionist/Reconstructionist "christian warrior" woo-woo Rushdoony claptrap.

Because they honestly, truly, believe that the end of the world is nigh and you may as well loot the planet before you're yanked bodily from Earth. The future of Earth is going to be full of raining blood and plagues anyway. Worrying about the future of the Earth in 100 years is a load of horse-shit to them because they'll be sitting at the right hand of Jesus while the Tribulation is happening.

Or so they hope.

--
BMO

Flawed?

[hsthompson69]

For all the drama of the editor's resignation letter, he seems to be awfully vague about any actual flaws in the paper. Citing argument against it somewhere on the intarwebs as a reason not to publish it is like asserting that no pro-AGW papers should ever be printed because of wattsupwiththat.com.

Any relatively intelligent warmists want to break down for us specific flaws in the paper?

Re:Proof!

[Pino Grigio]

Fairly typical stuff from the AGW crowd. This is how it works:

Phil Jones on Horizon:

"The basic science is in the peer-reviewed literature, and I wish more people would read that than read the emails."

Phil Jones in CRU email:

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers, Phil"

Obviously people put pressure on him to resign given publication of the paper. In mitigation, he decides to stick with the party line.

Re:ID

[MightyMartian]

I'd say being an ID advocate is a damned good litmus test for rationality. Actually claiming that Creationism can be scientifically validated simply because you remove the word "God" from your assertions and replace it with "Intelligent Designer" suggests a troubling lack of rational capacity.

Re:Proof!

[rtfa-troll]

Man made Climate Change is the biggest scam in history.

If it's man made who the heck are we affecting every planet in our solar system also?????

I really love the way it is possible nowadays to instantly find the answer to that [skepticalscience.com], which you must have known about but you didn't bother to list here. It's an excellent illustration of exactly what this case is about. Scientific truth requires you not just to not just mention your own evidence but also explain away the evidence on the other side. Probably you guys need to start reading things by Feynman. Here's one to start you [lhup.edu]. Have a look at how the article I referenced not only points out your statement is wrong (Mars and Jupiter are not warming) but then goes on to address in detail the evidence behind your claim (the warming on other planets is explainable by other means).

However the difference is, slashdot posters don't have science as part of their job title. That's why you don't need to resign and the guy who's running the journal should. When he decided to take on something outside his area he had an extra duty to be sure he had consulted the areas experts. Probably he did his best and he failed deeply. If he continues on as the journal's editor then people will have difficulty believing the other articles in the journal have been correctly verified.

Re:How is this different?

[PopeRatzo]

boring "all AGW sceptics are creationists" meme.

You don't have to be a creationist to be an AGW skeptic, but it helps.

Then again, you only need to work for a creationist, or oil company, and that's just as good.

I get a kick out of you guys who registered as Slashdot users a few days ago just to refute climate science. You even go to the trouble of making one, maybe two short little posts on a few other stories before you get to the real reason you came here.

Be honest - which of the "New Media Strategies" outfits do you work for? How well do they pay? There are three of you here in this one discussion, all who joined Slashdot within a few days just to post in the climate stories, all posting exactly the same tone in the same language, so I assume you're all the same guy. With the "yourmommycalled" username you didn't even bother to post comments to any story but the climate stories. I guess you're still learning the ropes. Is it hard to keep your usernames straight?

Look, I know it's hard to make a buck right now and recent grads are having a real hard time of it, but don't you feel a little bit like a shit for doing what you're doing? Like someone who's giving blowjobs for ten-spots in a bus station bathroom? Because that's kind of what it seems like to me. You might be a perfectly decent guy who just needed the work, but at some point, you've got start to think that there has to be better ways to make a living.

I wish you luck, friend. It can't be easy.

Re:You know...

[bmo]

Because it's the Republicans that are invariably the Dominionists/Reconstructionists and that if you read this paper: http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm [discernmen...stries.org] , you find that the Dominionist/Reconstructionist beliefs are the exact ones you hear coming out in their speeches /daily/.

It's not my fault that the Republican Party has been on mission in the last 20 years to purge rational people from its ranks. Look at Huntsman. He's the only one running for President that takes science seriously. Because of this, he is a "RINO" and his candidacy is dead in the water as a result.

Sorry if the truth fuckin' hurts, but there it is.

--
BMO

Re:You know...

[bmo]

>The only things those kinds of people believe in is their own greed.

See, that's what's so great about Dominionism. It justifies their greed. Really, it does. Suddenly the whole worship of Mammon is A-Okay and righteous. This peculiar bit of philosophy is exhibited in the Merchant Church or otherwise known as the "Prosperity Gospel." It's all Dominionsm and Reconstructionism. It is the seeking of power and money on Earth to advance a particular brand of "christianity" (I don't dare give it a capital C) that is diametrically opposed to anything you or I have read in the Bible. And they mean to force all of us to toe the line, by the sword if necessary.

I am an agnostic/soft atheist, but I particularly like the book of John, and I can't see where they come up with the justification for any of their bullshit. They are the American Taliban.

--
BMO