Wagner apologized
At the top of an article by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick which Roger Pielke Sr is throwing a 9.0 Godwin on is this little tidbit from Kenneth Trenberth
As we noted on RealClimate.org when the paper was published, the hype surrounding Spencer's and Braswell's paper was impressive; unfortunately the paper itself was not. Remote Sensing is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should have received an honest vetting.Oh yes, they have a little listFriday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper's serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.
- Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper. The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published. BBC. 3 September 2011.
- Journal editor resigns over contrarian climate paper. The editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing has resigned over the publication of a paper questioning the reliability of climate models. Science. 3 September 2011.
- Cool climate paper sinks journal editor. The editor of the journal Remote Sensing resigned today, saying in an editorial that his journal never should have published a controversial paper in July that challenged the reliability of climate models used to forecast global warming. Nature. 3 September 2011.
- Studies: Global warming, climate science far from settled. In the face of repeated assertions that the science on global warming is "settled," ongoing studies and developments in the area leave some insisting that claim remains true, while others say the science is anything but. Salt Lake Deseret Morning News, Utah. 2 August 2011.
- Climate change far less serious than 'alarmists' predict says NASA scientist. Dr Roy Spencer, who works on NASA’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed "a huge discrepancy" between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups. London Daily Mail, United Kingdom. 30 July 2011.
- Study on how much heat cloud cover causes sparks debate, criticism from climate scientists. A study on how much heat in Earth's atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists. Associated Press. 30 July 2011.
- Climate change debunked? Not so fast. New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated. LiveScience. 29 July 2011.
- New NASA data blow gaping hold in global warming alarmism. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. Forbes. Opinion, 28 July 2011.
Posts
16 comments:
If none of the three reviewers flagged that Trenberth's and/or other papers should be discussed, but Wagner almost immediately saw why they should have been just by having a look on the internetz, of all places, I think I get a sense of why someone felt they needed to piss on the parade.
Do the Koch bros. pay well?
I guess that depends if you're on the shop floor making Lycra or not.
Eli,
Is this a candidate for the list?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110729031754.htm
Obscurity
Why did they apologize? The blogs seem to think to get the apology, Trenberth left horse heads in their beds.
And right alongside that Science Daily story cited by Obscurity, we find among the "Related Stories," "New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability", by the usual suspects, Spencer, Christy, and Douglass. These erstwhile Galileos are accumulating quite a record of errors. Such is the price of misunderstood genius.
Taylor B
Because at root S^B is an attack on Trenberths energy balance models and was sold as such
@JCH
Why did RS (publisher) and Wagner (ex Editor-in-Chief) apologize to Trenberth? Mainly because of the broken review process at RS, I guess, and because of their negligence in checking up on the suggested referees.
The upshot being that a paper was let through, which simply ignored the recent countervailing arguments in the literature (by Trenberth, among others). That's why, AND because RS and MDPI wants to maintain/save a serious reputation.
I find the personal apology to Trenberth odd and unneccesary.
Even though Spencer and Braswell lacked essential references as well as counter-arguments to already published rebuttals I don’t find that per se a reason to apologize to Trenberth. Wagner’s resignation is as it were an apology to the scientific community for a) inadequate peer review and b) allowing his journal being abused for political ends.
Neither means to me that an apology to a specific person is needed. For forgetting to add one citation to his list? Nah.
Moreover, this personal apology plays right into the hands of the conspiratorial mindsets of course. That alone should have been enough (though a very pragmatic/strategic) reason not to apologize to Trenberth in person.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/spencer-braswell-fundamentally-flawed-journal-editor-resigns/#comment-14212
Bart
Hold on, where did this overblown discussion point of the apology actually begin?
Bart,
I'm not entirely sure why Wagner apologized-- it may have simply been a spontaneous decision, and really why the heck do we all care so much that they did? the apology is not the main issue here. But consider this. SB11 cited Lindzen and Choi 2011, a rehash of LC09 which was soundly refuted by Trenberth et al. (2010).....and consider what SB11 is saying in their conclusions re ENSO, and what their press release said and what Spencer has written on his blog on this subject on his blog. It is suggesting that Trenberth et al. and their cohorts are part of some conspiracy and wrong. Pretty juvenile stuff from Roy-- I'd be embarrassed to be associated with him, and so clearly is remote Sensing and Wagner in particular.
Obscurity
Obscurity
The relationship and errors in LC11 and SB11 is incestuous. Both papers share the same falacies and both are attack on Trenberth's ideas as clearly shown by the driven discussion amongst the rejectionists (see Eli has a word for that).
Bart, I very much disagree. Consider the imaginary case of a paper that builds its central result on results by an earlier paper, without citing or acknowledging it. Most scientists would frown on this; reviewers would demand it corrected, and conscientious authors would hurry to correct it if accidental. Also, most colleagues would understand if the author of the earlier paper were peeved, which she might or might not be, but certainly has a right to be. In this situation I think an apology would be entirely natural.
The current situation is similar but "inside-out": the newer paper builds on ignoring an earlier paper. I'll leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
As for what "plays right into the hands of the conspiratorial mindsets", perhaps you should allow your agenda to be set instead by the sane, reachable part of your audience.
Conspiratorial mindsets indeed. In which Kevin Trenberth becomes Wolfgang Wagner's slave master because Trenberth is chairman of the GEWEX SSG and Wagner is associated with the International Soil Moisture Network which is a project affiliated with GEWEX (although not the SSG).
Not only that, but since he develops models for extracting data from the signals gathered by satellites, that makes him a "modeler"! Because of this his is under the control of the evil international cabal of climate modelers.
Good comedy writing over there by Less Johnson.
Of course, Les' theory establishes one thing -- a possible reason that Wagner sent Trenberth a personal apology -- they might actually know each other. Perhaps just a courtesy of a professional relationship. The conspiracy actually hurts the narrative of an all powerful IPCC author forcing a lowly no-name editor to resign and grovel an apology. So that leaves us withe the indisputable fact that Wagner's IN-ON-IT!!
David B. Benson -- "Do the Koch bros. pay well?"
Looks like the Brothers Koch supporters do, for kickbacks. One of the Brothers sez...
"...I pledge to all of you who've stepped forward and are partnering with us that we are absolutely going to do our utmost to invest this money wisely and get the best possible payoff for you in the future of our country."
-- Charles Koch at the latest (not so) secret gathering for his 300 rich pals.
Post a Comment